One starting point is here and another is here.
By far, the best thing, being concise and relatively easy to read, written so far that I’ve seen is this letter. It is a bit tedious, but worth a read.
One starting point is here and another is here.
By far, the best thing, being concise and relatively easy to read, written so far that I’ve seen is this letter. It is a bit tedious, but worth a read.
I’m not quite as confident in the Ninth Circuit as I was in the Sixth Circuit.
So what I’d like to say is: it’s a bet, with the further agreement that the loser may, if he wishes, get a press for the inevitable Supreme Court appeal, same terms.
On the bet: In the 2006 thread, we agreed that the bet would be a push if Judge Taylor were reversed on standing or state secrets, but at this point we are still waiting to see if the Sixth Circuit panel decision will be reviewed en banc or by the Supreme Court. Also, in post 58 of that thread I noted: The one other victory condition I’d add is if another case on the legality of the TSP got to the Supremes ahead of this one and the Supremes ruled the program illegal (or unconstitutional) in that case." So, if the Ninth Circuit case goes up to the Supreme Court, it could determine the issue under the original bet. That being said, I’m willing to roll my bet with Bricker up into one on whatever the Supreme Court ultimately says, or failing that whichever Circuit actually makes a substantive ruling on the legality (or Constitutionality) of the survailance program that is allowed to stand without further review.
On the legal question, the state secret privilege is deeply troubling to me, because it allows the Government to immunize itself by unilaterally classifying something as a state secret. It gets postively Kafaka-esque when the Government claims that a secret that is already publically known remains officially a secret and thus the basis for immunity from suit.
If the court can get over the state secret hump (and I am hopeful that at some point common sense will prevail in that something that everybody knows cannot be a state secret), I don’t think there will be a problem with standing in the Ninth Circuit case. I likewise think if standing is found, the program will be found both in violation of the then-existing law and unconstitutional. I think the proper remedy for a program of search and seizure that violates the Fourth Amendment is not merely suppression of illegally gained evidence, but that the unconstitutional program may be enjoined.
If the Ninth Circuit disagrees with the Sixth on the state secret issue and other points, it is quite likely that this will end up at the Supremes.
Bricker, I expect that one or the other of us will be enjoying a nice bottle of scotch one of these days.
The best guarantee for granting cert is a split in the circuits, no question…
Perhaps in regards to the actual phone conversations. However it seems that one could make the case that there’re chilling effects based on fears that one could end up on one of the current govt shit-lists and thus have problems conducting everyday affairs while having no access to the knowledge of the source of the problem - no-fly lists, etc.
While these ill effects would not (in theory, who knows about practice?) be the result of protected speech, rather the surveillance, the threat of surveillance (and its associated consequences) as a result of protected speech seems entirely reasonable (in a non-legal sense anyway - idk the legal characteristics of “reasonable”).
Further ill-effects could be that the government’s investigation would discourage attendance at the group’s functions, prevent active participation, and adversely affect the employment of those in question.
Sadly, most of the chilling effects seem to fall on folks who’re not actually a part of this suit. The secrecy surrounding the issue makes it more difficult to reliably ascertain which fears of injury from the govt are reasonable and which are improbable.
From what I can tell, they were monitoring the guys involved in the suit question, not someone else. So how does the non-portability of the right come into play?
I’m wondering if the ACLU itself might have some sort of standing on this issue, as they are the first line of contact for many people who might be involved with this, and thus can not know if their privileged phone conversations may be tapped or not.
I don’t think it’s a very likely option, but I’m wondering if there’s some way to work it.
The mysterious room in AT&T’s control… well.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20396282/
(Summary)
http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_6685679?source=most_viewed
(Actual Interview)
Apparently, AT&T has been helping. Now, that being said, I believe Mr. McConnell is being very careful. He only talks about eavesdropping that has FISA warrants. He says nothing about eavesdropping that does not have FISA warrants.
In fact, I’m getting the feeling that he very carefully didn’t say a number of things in the interview. It was pretty carefully shaped. You can tell that because he answers in detail to very short questions.
Slightly different sort of thing. But tangentally relevant.
Want to know how they tap you? This is it.
Update: In what appears to be a completely different case, also in Oregon, a federal judge just ruled two PATRIOT ACT provisions unconstitutional for authorizing search warrants without showing of probably cause.
Yet another update:
“In a 45-page opinion, Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that the government had violated a 1978 federal statute requiring court approval for domestic surveillance when it intercepted phone calls of Al Haramain, a now-defunct Islamic charity in Oregon, and of two lawyers representing it in 2004. Declaring that the plaintiffs had been “subjected to unlawful surveillance,” the judge said the government was liable to pay them damages.”
NYT article.
Now, my evil computer is having problems with .pdf files, so I can’t read the actual opinion. Without that, I’m not sure what it means for the wagers. But I will note that all 3 federal judges who have considered the merits of the illegality of the TSP program have unanimously found that it violated the law. Not a one has found the other way.
Considering that this is a district court opinion… not much.
Oh, hello, thread.
I know. Why would it count that the only 3 judges to consider the merits have ruled against you. Just wanted to keep you up to date on the issue. Maybe in another 5 years we’ll actually have a ruling by an appellate court on the merits.
Next time, use a new thread with, if necessary, a link to the old one.
This zombie is closed.