NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19632877/

CINCINNATI - A federal appeals court on Friday ordered the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging President Bush’s domestic spying program, saying the plaintiffs had no standing to sue.

In a 2-1 decision, two Republican appointees on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against allowing the lawsuit. A Democratic appointee judge disagreed, saying it was clear to him that the post-9/11 warrantless surveillance program aimed at uncovering terrorist activity violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

Although the Bush administration said in January the program is now overseen by a special federal intelligence court, opponents said that without a court order, the president could resume the spying outside judicial authority at any time.

Guess which way the Supreme Court would rule if this was appealed...

I happen to agree that they have no standing, since they can't show that they were the subjects of the surveillance program. If they were the subjects of the surveillance program, then I would agree that in the absence of warrants, it was illegal.

I would be satisfied with secret warrants (as are commonly used in criminal investigations of the Mafia, drug dealers, etc.).

Since there is now a court that oversees this activity, I am also satisfied.

*straps on Flame Resistant suit... sits back and prepares for another 4th of July-esque display.*

Well, correct me if I'm wrong: the spying wasn't found to be legal, but the people were found to not have any evidence that they were being spied upon - which would not be legal (in the absence of warrants). So will you be editing the title?

..

*straps on Flame Resistant suit... sits back and prepares for another 4th of July-esque display.*

*plays 1812 Overture*

This isn't so much a support of the warrantless wiretapping as another shot at class action suits brought by a single person.

Kinda ironic that the case was thrown out of court because the plaintiffs couldn't prove they were be spied on, when the whole point of the program is that it's secret, thus preventing anyone from knowing they were being spied upon (theoretically). Doesn't mean that it's not a violation of prior law. Stupid US court system - a law shouldn't have to go into effect to be repealed, nor should there have to be a victim if an illegal action is taken.

Kinda ironic that the case was thrown out of court because the plaintiffs couldn't prove they were be spied on, when the whole point of the program is that it's secret, thus preventing anyone from knowing they were being spied upon (theoretically). Doesn't mean that it's not a violation of prior law. Stupid US court system - a law shouldn't have to go into effect to be repealed, nor should there have to be a victim if an illegal action is taken.

I would think it would be effectively impossible to prove if you were the subject of the surveillance.

Facts and common sense never got in the way of following stupid rightwing ideologies.

The court used the cop-out ruling: you can't prove it affected you directly so you have no standing to bring the case forward. They know had they ruled on the merits and actual legality of the program, it would have went a different way.

I would think it would be effectively impossible to prove if you were the subject of the surveillance.

That was my point. Therefore, since the crime is unprovable, it shouldn't have to be committed for the law allowing the crime to happen to be challenged in court.

That was my point. Therefore, since the crime is unprovable, it shouldn't have to be committed for the law allowing the crime to happen to be challenged in court.

If no crime can be proven (or even alleged - you can't even show probable cause that the plaintiffs were the specific targets of the surveillance), you're not going to be able to be heard in court.

You would need probable cause at the very least, if you want to make a criminal complaint.

So the logic is that the covert surveilance is legal because it hasn't been struck down in court, but by its' nature it can never be heard in court?

So the logic is that the covert surveilance is legal because it hasn't been struck down in court, but by its' nature it can never be heard in court?

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.

"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka replied.

The ruling doesn't regard Domestic Spying, it regards standing, and holds up Stare Decisis on Standing: If you can't proove harm, you cannot sue the Gov't.

But, it's just one more reason to impeach. If we can't get rid of the thugs one way, we'll stop them with another.

The ruling doesn't regard Domestic Spying, it regards standing, and holds up Stare Decisis on Standing: If you can't proove harm, you cannot sue the Gov't.

But, it's just one more reason to impeach. If we can't get rid of the thugs one way, we'll stop them with another.

And how would impeachment of the President give them standing?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19632877/



Guess which way the Supreme Court would rule if this was appealed...

I happen to agree that they have no standing, since they can't show that they were the subjects of the surveillance program. If they were the subjects of the surveillance program, then I would agree that in the absence of warrants, it was illegal.

I would be satisfied with secret warrants (as are commonly used in criminal investigations of the Mafia, drug dealers, etc.).

Since there is now a court that oversees this activity, I am also satisfied.

Good news is always welcome :D

Had the decision been the other way, no doubt PMS-NBC would have identified the party affiliation of the dissent but left the majority's partisan bias unexamined. But what else would you expect from the dishonest liberal media (or "the DLM," as I like to say)? Oh, and don't anyone start in about "corporate ownership". The corporate owners don't write the stories.

And how would impeachment of the President give them standing?

It wouldn't, but it would show where the American people stand on the Pretzlenit's program.

Liberal media. That's the stupidest god damn thing next to "we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here." Shut up, just shut the fuck up. Cop out for incompetent buffoons who can't accept that their asininely biased view of the real world isn't really what is happening.

Hmm, I don't recall mentioning the media in the OP... or anywhere else.

Try reading the thread.

Liberal media. That's the stupidest god damn thing next to "we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here." Shut up, just shut the fuck up.

Hmm, I don't recall mentioning the media in the OP... or anywhere else.

So the logic is that the covert surveilance is legal because it hasn't been struck down in court, but by its' nature it can never be heard in court?

actually, only if it remains Covert. the moment someone reveals that the information they're working with was gotten by this covert surveilance, then that opens up the way to a lawsuit.

I disagree if there is a net over everyone, than any domestic person falls within the scope of the program, even if an actual physical act did not occur the mental act did occur, so it is an attempt and intent to break the law which is illegal in regard to criminal occurances. All that is required is the intent to act. Which would be the same of a person who was a subject of environmental damage - through the industrial wastes of a company. If they are within the area that is effected by that pollution then they should have a means to compensation or a ceasation of the practice.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19632877/



Guess which way the Supreme Court would rule if this was appealed...

I happen to agree that they have no standing, since they can't show that they were the subjects of the surveillance program. If they were the subjects of the surveillance program, then I would agree that in the absence of warrants, it was illegal.

I would be satisfied with secret warrants (as are commonly used in criminal investigations of the Mafia, drug dealers, etc.).

Since there is now a court that oversees this activity, I am also satisfied.


I'm geussing it would be the legal commuity and police itself under watch.. as why else would you need to bypass a public warrant..?

oh and other high profile people such as the government... and the church... / religious communities.

Didn't the NSA already do this?

actually, only if it remains Covert. the moment someone reveals that the information they're working with was gotten by this covert surveilance, then that opens up the way to a lawsuit.

I'm not as up on the US' take on this but in the UK the information gained via this cloak and dagger stuff is not revealed as having been obtained in that way, the defendant often doesn't even get the opportunity to see it.

One of the major problems with this as far as I can see is that you don't have the opportunity to face your accuser.

I'm not as up on the US' take on this but in the UK the information gained via this cloak and dagger stuff is not revealed as having been obtained in that way, the defendant often doesn't even get the opportunity to see it.

One of the major problems with this as far as I can see is that you don't have the opportunity to face your accuser.

I believe the latest has it that unless the information is classified as top secret/vital for National Security... then they have to reveal it to the defense. otherwise, the defense attorney has to have the security clearance.

but the point I was making is that with that many people participating, all you need is one disgruntled worker, one loose lips, one mis-routed memo... get the idea? ;)

And how would impeachment of the President give them standing?
It gives the message "Just because the president and his buttkiss people say it's okay, doesn't make it okay."

Good news is always welcome :D

Had the decision been the other way, no doubt PMS-NBC would have identified the party affiliation of the dissent but left the majority's partisan bias unexamined. But what else would you expect from the dishonest liberal media (or "the DLM," as I like to say)? Oh, and don't anyone start in about "corporate ownership". The corporate owners don't write the stories.

They weren't arguing the legality of the law, Mit. Bush will lose in the end. Good will win.

Liberal media. That's the stupidest god damn thing next to "we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here." Shut up, just shut the fuck up. Cop out for incompetent buffoons who can't accept that their asininely biased view of the real world isn't really what is happening.

Harshly worded, but true.

And how would impeachment of the President give them standing?

who cares about standing? the issue is openly admitted violations of a law worth having and following, regardless of who they are happening to.

I think it is very interesting that the CIA is supposedly spying on American phone calls but they can't find a 4 year old girl who has abused the 911 system by calling it over 200 times (supposedly) in the last 2 months.

I happen to agree that they have no standing, since they can't show that they were the subjects of the surveillance program. If they were the subjects of the surveillance program, then I would agree that in the absence of warrants, it was illegal.
It's the perfect Catch-22. You can't prove you have standing to challenge the program because you can't prove you were being spied upon, but you can't prove you were being spied on because the government has said that the information that could answer the question definitively is secret, so sorry, so you can't see it. Can't sue without standing, can't prove standing because a suit to prove it would reveal state secrets.

Of course, if the Congress repeals the MCA, all bets are off. Might not happen until 2009, but I can dream.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19632877/



Guess which way the Supreme Court would rule if this was appealed...

I happen to agree that they have no standing, since they can't show that they were the subjects of the surveillance program. If they were the subjects of the surveillance program, then I would agree that in the absence of warrants, it was illegal.

I would be satisfied with secret warrants (as are commonly used in criminal investigations of the Mafia, drug dealers, etc.).

Since there is now a court that oversees this activity, I am also satisfied.

But there's a difference between being the subject of illegal wire tapping and being harmed by it. The atmosphere created by a president who claims the right to illegally wiretap the conversations of anyone he chooses also harms them.

Note the ruling did not say that the program was legal. It said that unless they can prove that it was done to them, they have no grounds on which to sue. It's like saying that if you didn't wake up after you took the ruffie and your attacker used a condom, that you don't have a rape case. You just have a sore asshole. There is another case pending in which the plaintiff can prove that he was the subject of illegal wiretapping because the government accidentally gave him evidence to that effect. Surprise, the government says that he shouldn't be allowed to present that evidence because the government never meant to give it to him.

But there's a difference between being the subject of illegal wire tapping and being harmed by it. The atmosphere created by a president who claims the right to illegally wiretap the conversations of anyone he chooses also harms them.

Note the ruling did not say that the program was legal. It said that unless they can prove that it was done to them, they have no grounds on which to sue. It's like saying that if you didn't wake up after you took the ruffie and your attacker used a condom, that you don't have a rape case. You just have a sore asshole. There is another case pending in which the plaintiff can prove that he was the subject of illegal wiretapping because the government accidentally gave him evidence to that effect. Surprise, the government says that he shouldn't be allowed to present that evidence because the government never meant to give it to him.


Do you have any sources for that? I'd be interested to read how the US govt. is trying to get out of that.