In Other News of Outrage: Appeals Court Tosses Out Wiretap Case

[Tuckerfan]

Illegal wiretaps can stay secret.

A US federal judge has ruled in favour of government agencies’ refusal to release classified information related to a controversial surveillance programme.

AP reports that a lawsuit filed against the Defense and Justice departments by the New York Times was dismissed, on the grounds that the information withheld was exempt from the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.

The Times had sought information regarding the hotly-disputed National Security Agency (NSA) mass wiretapping effort against international communications from within the USA, which was authorised by President Bush in the wake of 9/11 on his sole authority.

Normally, any attempt by US intelligence to eavesdrop on US citizens must be conducted with a judicial warrant, if necessary issued by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FIS) federal court. The NSA programme was reportedly placed back under FIS jurisdiction in January, but details of its conduct are still unclear.

Of course, all is not lost.

However, the issue of enhanced powers conferred on US security and intelligence officials in the wake of 9/11 remains a live one. The Senate judiciary committee has issued subpoenas requiring that legal evaluations of the NSA programme be handed over. Other organisations are engaged in lawsuits and manoeuvres on the same general topic.

The question is though: Will they comply with the subpoenas or not?

[Gary_Robson]

You’re not surprised, are you?

There were three judges: one appointed by George Bush Sr., one appointed by Bill Clinton, and one appointed by George W. Bush. All three voted the straight party line.

[Tuckerfan]

Damn activist judges!

[Omegaman]

Um,
So?

Old news and what can you do about except bitch? I save my bitching for temps over 120 and gas prices over 3.00. But I’m just a commoner. I didn’t vote for Lord of the Dumbasses GWB. Did you?

[Tuckerfan]

Nyet.

[elucidator]

TG, IANAL but I see some wiggle room in that bit about standing, saying that if you can’t prove you’ve been violated, you can’t call for a line up of suspects. I suppose.

[Omegaman]

@Tuckerfan

Nyet.

What can you do except wait. It sure isn’t easy but when I saw the news I thought “Fuckers!”,you just know, there is no law with these sidestepping dickstains in power. :rolleyes:

[Tuckerfan]

NPR was reporting that someone had actually gotten information which indicated that they were wiretapped (the Feds screwed up and gave them the info). The DOJ was arguing to have that evidence tossed out, since it was inadvertantly given to the defense. How that will play out in court remains to be seen.

[Carol_Stream]

@Tuckerfan

Illegal wiretaps can stay secret.

Apparently, the wiretaps are not illegal.

[Merijeek]

@Carol Stream

Apparently, the wiretaps are not illegal.

Hey bot, Rush forgot to remind you that it’s a registration site. Try again.

-Joe

[cerberus]

I thought that the ruling was not substantial, but procedural, with the plaintiff lacking the standing to engage the court. One really can’t draw substantial conclusions in such a case, as the court’s thinking would come into play only when the plaintiff had standing.

[Frank]

@cerberus

I thought that the ruling was not substantial, but procedural, with the plaintiff lacking the standing to engage the court.

I think we’ve got discussion of two different cases going on here. This is the dismissal by an appeals court of an ACLU suit.

Assuming that that is what you’re talking about, I agree. That’s my understanding as well. Even though the ACLU presented itself as an assumed victim, it’s going to take a victim who can prove he was secretly wiretapped to show standing.

[Gary_Robson]

Just to make sure everyone’s clear on this, the recent ruling did NOT say that the wiretaps were legal. It said the the lawyers who filed the suit didn’t have the legal standing to file it. I haven’t read the details (although hopefully one of our board attorneys will jump in shortly), but my understanding is that nobody involved in the case could show that they had reason to believe that they (a) had been wiretapped or (b) were likely to be wiretapped in the immediate future.

In other words, if someone who has actually been tapped wants to file a suit, this ruling won’t affect them.

@Omegaman

I save my bitching for temps over 120 and gas prices over 3.00.

120? I start bitching at 90 unless I’m inside somewhere with air conditioning.

[Carol_Stream]

@InvisibleWombat

Just to make sure everyone’s clear on this, the recent ruling did NOT say that the wiretaps were legal. It said the the lawyers who filed the suit didn’t have the legal standing to file it.

That’s not all it said though. The Appeals Court ordered the trial judge to dismiss the case, “reversing a ruling the judge had issued last year that the program was unconstitutional.”

Seems we’re back to the program being presumptively legal again, unless and until there’s a contrary ruling.

If I’m missing something, please point it out and I will stand corrected.

[John_Mace]

@InvisibleWombat

You’re not surprised, are you?

There were three judges: one appointed by George Bush Sr., one appointed by Bill Clinton, and one appointed by George W. Bush. All three voted the straight party line.

Not really. The judgements rested on the issue of “standing”. You can’t sue in court just because you don’t like a particular law or action-- you have to have been adversely affected by that law or action. I don’t know how the judge appointed by Clinton figured that the folks suing had been affected by the action, as they clearly had not demonstrated that they were.

[Muffin]

If a call from one place in the USA to another place in the USA gets bounced up and back from a satellite, or is routed on land lines that cross over into Canada and back, does that make it an international call?

Just askin’.

[David_Simmons]

It’s a sort of Catch 22. You can’t bring an action in court without standing. You can’t get standing as you don’t know you’ve been wiretapped because it is super secret.

Except for learning about it by accident as described above and the government is trying to get that information tossed out so as to negate standing.

[BrainGlutton]

@elucidator

TG, IANAL but I see some wiggle room in that bit about standing, saying that if you can’t prove you’ve been violated, you can’t call for a line up of suspects. I suppose.

I am a lawyer and that’s my conclusion. The court did not rule the program is constitutional, only that the plaintiffs in that particular case lacked standing to sue.

[BrainGlutton]

@Carol Stream

That’s not all it said though. The Appeals Court ordered the trial judge to dismiss the case, “reversing a ruling the judge had issued last year that the program was unconstitutional.”

Seems we’re back to the program being presumptively legal again, unless and until there’s a contrary ruling.

If I’m missing something, please point it out and I will stand corrected.

The earlier ruling was reversed only on the grounds of lack of standing. No court ruling now stands to the effect that the surveillance program is constitutional – nor (owing to this reversal) that it isn’t. The question remains open.

[Carol_Stream]

@BrainGlutton

The earlier ruling was reversed only on the grounds of lack of standing. No court ruling now stands to the effect that the surveillance program is constitutional – nor (owing to this reversal) that it isn’t. The question remains open.

Is it not true that unless the court rules that the program is illegal, it’s presumed to be legal?