Appeals court orders dismissal of wiretapping lawsuit

[nobody_special]

Not firearms related, but definitely on-topic. Story here...

A divided federal appeals court today dismissed a case challenging the National Security Agency’s program to wiretap without warrants the international communications of some Americans, reversing a trial judge’s order that the program be shut down.

The majority in a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, ruled on a narrow ground, saying the plaintiffs, including lawyers and journalists, could not show injury direct and concrete enough to allow them to have standing to sue.

Because it is extremely difficult to show concrete injury from the highly classified program, the effect of the ruling was to insulate the program from judicial scrutiny in ordinary federal courts.

[...]

This is a disaster for freedom. The "state secret" issue should never get in the way of justice.

 

[ServiceSoon]

and it only took 225 years for this to happen. Pathetic.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

and it only took 225 years for this to happen. Pathetic.

Actually, you can find pathetic decisions from circuit courts much earlier than this in our history (and from the Supreme Court as well). We keep moving forward though.

I haven't read the actual ruling yet; but if it is similar to what I've read in the news (You have no standing to bring suit because you can't prove you were a victim of the secret program to spy on you), then I am not real impressed with the logic of these judges.

If it is as advertised, then it strikes me as a bad decision; but one that I am confident will be remedied in the not-too-distant future.

 

[nobody_special]

If it is as advertised, then it strikes me as a bad decision; but one that I am confident will be remedied in the not-too-distant future.

I wish I shared your confidence.

It's too bad the People can't initiate a class-action lawsuit against the government... with "John Doe" plaintiffs. We know that this affects Americans -- Bush openly admitted it -- we just don't know who.

 

[El Tejon]

nobody, do you have the citation for Bush's admission?

 

[nobody_special]

For starters:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Presidential_Radio_Address_-_17_December_2005
http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches/2006/ag_speech_060206.html

Also see this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_surveillance_program#Wiretapping

And of course, there is also this separate program:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_call_database

 

[El Tejon]

nobody, I see him admitting to having a survellience scheme which is what one wants to do in war, but do you have something where they President has said "I am listening to American citizens and we are watching you!"

 

[nobody_special]

Well, they're listening to someone. And these are domestic taps. I'd be shocked if they weren't tapping the calls of US citizens. It's highly unlikely that the NSA checks to see if a party on a tapped call is an American citizen. (Frankly, I doubt that's even possible.) I think there's "probable cause" to believe that the phones of US citizens are being illegally tapped via this program.

Furthermore, the NSA call database clearly does affect Americans, on a mass scale. If they're willing to do that to US citizens, well...

And furthermore, citizenship itself isn't the issue here, unless you want to put forth the argument that all men aren't created equal, and the 4th amendment does not apply to resident aliens.

I see him admitting to having a survellience scheme which is what one wants to do in war

I see him admitting to a surveillance scheme which is clearly and seriously illegal.

 

[Desertdog]

My understanding is that they are checking international phone calls to/from certain numbers that has been identified as potential terrorist numbers.

 

[nobody_special]

Desertdog, sure... and that's fine so long as they get a warrant. It's really not that difficult, there's a court set up exactly for this sort of thing. You can even get the warrant up to 72 hours after the call was intercepted, IIRC.

But they're not getting warrants. And it's so easy to get these warrants (over 99% are granted), I'm highly suspicious that the reason they're not getting warrants is that they're doing something extremely improper with the surveillance program.

 

[Warbow]

Another lawsuit supposedly with evidence.

This one will get interesting.

 

[Desertdog]

We will have to wait and see what the outcome will be.

According to the story the plaintiff they recieved papers marked "Top Secret"

It could be a scene from Kafka or Brazil. Imagine a government agency, in a bureaucratic foul-up, accidentally gives you a copy of a document marked "top secret." And it contains a log of some of your private phone calls.

You read it and ponder it and wonder what it all means. Then, two months later, the FBI shows up at your door, demands the document back and orders you to forget you ever saw it.

The way I see it, anyone that recieves "Top Secret" papers and discloses them to anyone not cleared to handle "Top Secret" just may find themselves in prison for their actions.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The way I see it, anyone that recieves "Top Secret" papers and discloses them to anyone not cleared to handle "Top Secret" just may find themselves in prison for their actions.

They may, but the operative question should be whether or not they SHOULD find themselves in prison.

When I was in the Army and had a security clearance, it was S.O.P. that I didn't see or receive anything classified higher than my clearance level. And "need to know" was always operative. In other words, even though I had a Secret clearance, I wasn't supposed to see Secret documents unless I had a reason (a "need") to see their contents.

The rules didn't address how a civilian with no security clearance should react if some gummint dweeb accidently handed them a classified file. You could be super patriotic, I suppose, and take the position that they shouldn't even crack the cover. But ... if the file is about them, are you arguing that an individual has no right to know what information the government has complied about him? Even if the information was obtained by means that violate the Constitution?

 

[Desertdog]

When I was in the Army and had a security clearance, it was S.O.P. that I didn't see or receive anything classified higher than my clearance level. And "need to know" was always operative.

Same for me, in the military and 30 years an employee on a Navy Base.

You could be super patriotic, I suppose, and take the position that they shouldn't even crack the cover.

Super patriotic be damed, CYA and call them before they call you.

In this particular case, I can easily imagine somebody with access to these files trying to cause trouble for the Bush Administration.

 

[nobody_special]

In this particular case, I can easily imagine somebody with access to these files trying to cause trouble for the Bush Administration.

Works for me.

Classifying information for real national security reasons is one thing; but classifying a program which stomps on our 4th Amendment rights is just not right.