# In Other News of Outrage: Appeals Court Tosses Out Wiretap Case **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 6, 2007, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-other-news-of-outrage-appeals-court-tosses-out-wiretap-case/410780 "2007-07-06T22:42:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2007, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-other-news-of-outrage-appeals-court-tosses-out-wiretap-case/410780/21 "2007-07-08T02:55:54Z")
[QUOTE=Carol Stream] Is it not true that unless the court rules that the program is illegal, it’s presumed to be legal? [/QUOTE] For law-enforcement agencies, but not for the courts. That is, no court of law is bound by said presumption, and any court might properly rule it illegal _sua sponte_ regardless of arguments presented or not presented by either litigant – but **only** in connection with a case where its legality were at issue. ---
**Author:** ![Carol\_Stream](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@Carol\_Stream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carol_Stream)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2007, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-other-news-of-outrage-appeals-court-tosses-out-wiretap-case/410780/22 "2007-07-08T03:09:00Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] For law-enforcement agencies, but not for the courts. That is, no court of law is bound by said presumption, and any court might properly rule it illegal _sua sponte_ regardless of arguments presented or not presented by either litigant – but **only** in connection with a case where its legality were at issue. [/QUOTE] Ok, sorry if I’m be redundant or whatever, but how is the OP’s claim of “illegal wiretapping” valid? I mean, obviously a particular program is not illegal because a random poster on the SDMB says so; it takes a ruling by a court of competent jurisdiction to determine that, doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2007, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-other-news-of-outrage-appeals-court-tosses-out-wiretap-case/410780/23 "2007-07-08T03:15:49Z")
[QUOTE=Carol Stream] Ok, sorry if I’m be redundant or whatever, but how is the OP’s claim of “illegal wiretapping” valid? I mean, obviously a particular program is not illegal because a random poster on the SDMB says so; it takes a ruling by a court of competent jurisdiction to determine that, doesn’t it? [/QUOTE] Anyone may **argue** it is illegal. Only a court’s ruling is legally dispositive – and to date, none is, on this point. The question remains as open as it was before this decision. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2007, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-other-news-of-outrage-appeals-court-tosses-out-wiretap-case/410780/24 "2007-07-08T03:20:44Z")
In a very strict sense, that is so, no one here on the Boards is qualified beyond the reasonable opinion. And it is a reasonable opinion. One may say “Dick Cheney is an asshole” without being required to submit an affidavit from a proctologist. ---
**Author:** ![Carol\_Stream](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@Carol\_Stream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carol_Stream)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2007, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-other-news-of-outrage-appeals-court-tosses-out-wiretap-case/410780/25 "2007-07-08T03:51:41Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Anyone may **argue** it is illegal. Only a court’s ruling is legally dispositive – and to date, none is, on this point. The question remains as open as it was before this decision. [/QUOTE] Well, yeah, anyone may argue that the moon is made of green cheese, too, but it doesn’t make it so. Is the wiretapping program in question illegal, or not? Cite, please. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2007, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-other-news-of-outrage-appeals-court-tosses-out-wiretap-case/410780/26 "2007-07-08T04:03:13Z")
[QUOTE=Carol Stream] Is the wiretapping program in question illegal, or not? Cite, please. [/QUOTE] Since its legality remains to be decided by the courts, what you can reasonably ask for is not a cite but an **argument.** You can find some – on both sides – [here.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nsa_wiretapping#Legal_issues) ---
**Author:** ![Carol\_Stream](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@Carol\_Stream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carol_Stream)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2007, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-other-news-of-outrage-appeals-court-tosses-out-wiretap-case/410780/27 "2007-07-08T04:16:58Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Since its legality remains to be decided by the courts, what you can reasonably ask for is not a cite but an **argument.** You can find some – on both sides – [here.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nsa_wiretapping#Legal_issues) [/QUOTE] Hell, at least you didn’t “cite” [thinkprogressive.org](http://thinkprogressive.org) or somesuch. Wiki is not much better. That said, the OP used the phrase “illegal wiretapping” as if it were a fact, and that’s rather clearly not a fact, but an “arguement”, in your own words. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2007, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-other-news-of-outrage-appeals-court-tosses-out-wiretap-case/410780/28 "2007-07-08T04:28:03Z")
By golly, she’s right, it is just an opinion! Bad **Tuckerfan**! Bad! Go lay down by your water dish! ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2007, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-other-news-of-outrage-appeals-court-tosses-out-wiretap-case/410780/29 "2007-07-08T05:29:13Z")
[QUOTE=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. [/QUOTE] I haven’t read the ruling, 'cause this is the pit and I don’t have to have facts or knowledge to respond. But there are exceptions to the standing doctrine (see, e.g., Roe v. Wade) that permit courts to take cases where the putative plaintiff doesn’t have standing. In Roe, as I recall (my memory is blurred by a decade or more’s distance from reading it, and maybe the martini next to me), they permitted the plaintiff to go forward even though she didn’t have standing because the pregnancy was already over by the time the case got to the appellate courts. In other words, there are legal ways to get around the lack of standing – a continuing wrong incapable of being righted due to the technicality of standing. So without reading the case, I don’t know if they discussed or considered that issue. > [@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? Well, no, because the US owns Canada. We just like to pretend like they’re autonomous. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2007, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-other-news-of-outrage-appeals-court-tosses-out-wiretap-case/410780/30 "2007-07-08T07:30:05Z")
[QUOTE=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’. [/QUOTE] It throws it into this weird legal limbo. No shit. I forget where I read this, but the Feds are trying to get **all** US telecoms to route their international traffic through the US, because of weird loopholes (and a lack of legal challenges) it’s easier for the US to monitor those calls. This means if a call from (say) England is made via AT&T’s network to France, instead of routing the call straight to France from England, they’ll route it to the US and _then_ on to France. I would imagine that there is a way for the parties on such a connection to figure it out due to the time lag caused by such a rerouting. IIRC, _Wired_ did a piece on calls which were domestic US calls that were being routed into Canada since this made it easier in the legal sense for the calls to be monitored. Might have even been a Pit thread on this as well. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2007, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-other-news-of-outrage-appeals-court-tosses-out-wiretap-case/410780/31 "2007-07-08T08:27:10Z")
Can you count as “damaged” by someone on the basis that you reasonably find you must refrain from engaging in some perfectly legal beneficial activity in order to avoid the possibility of suffering ill effects from some action of that person? Pretty vague question I guess. Well what do you say? -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![Carol\_Stream](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@Carol\_Stream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carol_Stream)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2007, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-other-news-of-outrage-appeals-court-tosses-out-wiretap-case/410780/32 "2007-07-08T23:54:36Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] By golly, she’s right, it is just an opinion! Bad **Tuckerfan**! Bad! Go lay down by your water dish! [/QUOTE] You know what they say about opinions…and everyone’s got one. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-other-news-of-outrage-appeals-court-tosses-out-wiretap-case/410780/33 "2007-07-09T00:18:10Z")
[QUOTE=Carol Stream] You know what they say about opinions…and everyone’s got one. [/QUOTE] Apart from “everyone’s got one,” what exactly **do** they say about opinions? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-other-news-of-outrage-appeals-court-tosses-out-wiretap-case/410780/34 "2007-07-09T00:21:42Z")
[QUOTE=Frylock] Can you count as “damaged” by someone on the basis that you reasonably find you must refrain from engaging in some perfectly legal beneficial activity in order to avoid the possibility of suffering ill effects from some action of that person? Pretty vague question I guess. Well what do you say? -FrL- [/QUOTE] Legally speaking, it is too vague a question to be meaningfully answered yea or nay without more specifics being supplied. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-other-news-of-outrage-appeals-court-tosses-out-wiretap-case/410780/35 "2007-07-09T00:25:53Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Apart from “everyone’s got one,” what exactly **do** they say about opinions? [/QUOTE] That they all stink. The usual version of the quote that I’ve heard is “Opinions are like assholes: everyone’s got one, and they all stink.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-other-news-of-outrage-appeals-court-tosses-out-wiretap-case/410780/36 "2007-07-09T02:50:59Z")
[QUOTE=Frylock] Can you count as “damaged” by someone on the basis that you reasonably find you must refrain from engaging in some perfectly legal beneficial activity in order to avoid the possibility of suffering ill effects from some action of that person? Pretty vague question I guess. Well what do you say? -FrL- [/QUOTE] Well, that all depends on how “reasonable” the claim is, right? To me, it would only be “reasonable” if someone had actually been affected by the action. IOW, if you could show that person A, B or C had been prosecuted or charge with a crime based on NSA wiretaps and that you were engaged in activity comparable to what that person was engaged in. Otherwise, it’s just an open invitation to say that you are being intimidated by some action the administration is taking. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-other-news-of-outrage-appeals-court-tosses-out-wiretap-case/410780/37 "2007-07-09T03:16:07Z")
[QUOTE=Carol Stream] Is it not true that unless the court rules that the program is illegal, it’s presumed to be legal? [/QUOTE] Carol Stream, stop being a bitch. You know that since the court lacks jurisdiction, even if it is illegal the court can’t step in. Saying it’s “presumptively legal” is just fucking weasel words. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-other-news-of-outrage-appeals-court-tosses-out-wiretap-case/410780/38 "2007-07-09T03:44:38Z")
Yeah, good luck with that, **Blalron**. Say as long as you’re up, I’d like a pony… ---
**Author:** ![Carol\_Stream](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@Carol\_Stream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carol_Stream)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-other-news-of-outrage-appeals-court-tosses-out-wiretap-case/410780/39 "2007-07-09T03:46:05Z")
[QUOTE=Blalron] Carol Stream, stop being a bitch. You know that since the court lacks jurisdiction, even if it is illegal the court can’t step in. Saying it’s “presumptively legal” is just fucking weasel words. [/QUOTE] Pretty much everything is “presumptively legal”, unless the court rules otherwise. I’m still waiting on the cite that the wiretapping program is illegal. So far, no luck, go figure. As for calling me a bitch, what’s wrong with you? Were you raised by wolves? ---
**Author:** ![if6was9](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e47c2d/32.png) [@if6was9](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/if6was9)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-other-news-of-outrage-appeals-court-tosses-out-wiretap-case/410780/40 "2007-07-09T03:46:29Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] [QUOTE=Frylock] Can you count as “damaged” by someone on the basis that you reasonably find you must refrain from engaging in some perfectly legal beneficial activity in order to avoid the possibility of suffering ill effects from some action of that person? Pretty vague question I guess. Well what do you say? -FrL- [/QUOTE] Well, that all depends on how “reasonable” the claim is, right? To me, it would only be “reasonable” if someone had actually been affected by the action. IOW, if you could show that person A, B or C had been prosecuted or charge with a crime based on NSA wiretaps and that you were engaged in activity comparable to what that person was engaged in. Otherwise, it’s just an open invitation to say that you are being intimidated by some action the administration is taking. [/QUOTE] Not to presume to speak for **Frylock** … I get the sense he/she is asking, what if I wanted to enter a business deal with someone in Germany? Something perfectly legal and above board. But because of fears of the gov eavsdropping on our correspondence, I decide to just drop the deal. The damage would be the potential lost profits from said deal. It is pretty vague, but would it have any standing with the courts? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-other-news-of-outrage-appeals-court-tosses-out-wiretap-case/410780.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-other-news-of-outrage-appeals-court-tosses-out-wiretap-case/410780.md?page=3)