NSA Phone Snooping Cannot Be Challenged in Court, Feds Say

[The Straight Story]

The Obama administration for the first time responded to a Spygate lawsuit, telling a federal judge the wholesale vacuuming up of all phone-call metadata in the United States is in the “public interest,” does not breach the constitutional rights of Americans and cannot be challenged in a court of law.

Thursday’s response marks the first time the administration has officially answered one of at least four lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of a secret U.S. snooping program the Guardian newspaper disclosed last month. The administration’s filing sets the stage for what is to be a lengthy legal odyssey — one likely to outlive the Obama presidency — that will define the privacy rights of Americans for years to come.

The New York federal district court lawsuit, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, demands a federal judge immediately halt the spy program the civil rights group labeled as “one of the largest surveillance efforts ever launched by a democratic government.”

The Guardian last month posted a leaked copy of a top secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinion requiring Verizon Business to provide the National Security Agency the phone numbers of both parties involved in all calls, the International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) number for mobile callers, calling card numbers used in the call, and the time and duration of the calls.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/07/spygate-snooping-standing/

[dkf]

1. So we have no say in this? That shows the respect they have for democracy and transparency.

Everyone who is supporting this, Republicans and Democrats, must be removed. They have lost sight of where their powers end.

[ladjf]

16. I agree but don't think it would be possible. nt

[woo me with science]

34. They don't care. That they are this brazen at this point

indicates that they don't believe we can or will stop them.

They are openly dismantling the Constitution.

[kentuck]

38. Yep.

Cannot be challenged in the courts? Really!

[dkf]

2. As Jerrold Nadler noted, they seem to think they need EVERYTHING for the public interest.

[The Straight Story]

3. They can hide anything (transparent eh) using national security excuse. But then Snowden....

Kind of messed up some of their plans.

[dkf]

4. And they've shown how apeshit they will go on anyone else who tells us anything.

We need to turn this back NOW or there is no end to intrusion.

I've been thinking of actively participating in the upcoming primary for my senator who voted against FISA. I may have no choice but to throw myself all in.

[HooptieWagon]

5. If it were legal, it would withstand a court challenge.

Obama is desparate to keep it out of the courts, therefore it likely would be found unconstitutional. QED

[The Straight Story]

6. Yeah, but oathkeepers like snowden so none of this really matters I guess

[HooptieWagon]

10. Yea, the deniers can't defend the constitutionality of blanket spying...

So we have oath-keeping, pole-dancing, Ron Paul supporting racists who collect boxes in their garage. Quite a collection of strawmen. It would be pathetic, if it wasn't so hysterically funny.

[chimpymustgo]

7. So...it's constitutional and can't be challenged because the President SAYS so???

Nixon must be cheering from the grave.

[avaistheone1]

15. Nixon is having a damn party!

[woo me with science]

8. OBAMA ADMINISTRATION CLAIMS DICTATORSHIP

Good fucking god.

Never in my life did I think we would reach this point in this country.

[Hydra]

17. Under a (D) no less

I expect people like GWB, who was never elected, to do stuff like this.

For the D's to be happily flushing the Constitution...bad things coming.

[nebenaube]

22. That's the plan

set the stage for Jeb or Scott...

[HiPointDem]

67. my worst nightmare. except that democrats might get off their butts.

[woo me with science]

36. Most real D's have been replaced

by pod people corporatists in Democrat suits.

R versus D at this point has been mostly reworked as a tactic to keep the people divided and unable to resist.

[Hydra]

39. I know, but it's hard to watch someone who so clearly articulated

Why this was the wrong thing to do, to become the greatest champion and enabler of it.

[woo me with science]

46. I know. Our Constitution is being dismantled by the ones who promised to save it.

It's like waking up in some horrible B movie where pod people have taken over the good guys and the world turns dystopian.

And this dismantling of our Constitution must be seen for what it is: a necessary prerequisite to ensure the people can't resist the things they really want to do. Other countries have been pillaged into husks before us, but we Americans have not even seen the beginning of what corporatists and authoritarians are capable of.


Candidate Obama debates President Obama on government surveillance

[Hydra]

47. That's my fear

They're dismantling the law of the land. What's left after that?

What would they want to do that would require that?

B-Movie level of trouble coming.

[Maedhros]

29. RE: OBAMA ADMINISTRATION CLAIMS DICTATORSHIP

If we can accept that the President is empowered to kill American citizens, anywhere in the world, with no due process, simply by declaring a citizen an Enemy of the State, then what - exactly - will we NOT accept?

[Hydra]

41. Don't forget the torture

They tortured Bradley Manning, a US citizen, in front of us.

Laws? Who needs 'em?

[woo me with science]

49. +1

[woo me with science]

48. You're right. We crossed the line shredding the Constitution some time ago.

It just keeps getting more and more nightmarish.

[AZ Progressive]

9. The reason the president or other government officials don't swear an oath to the country...

...or to the people, but rather the constitution, is because of bullshit like this, where anyone can try to justify their actions as being in the interest of the country or people. When you swear an oath to defend the constitution, you cannot use "end justifies the means" and other bullshit to defend your actions.

[Luminous Animal]

11. We have a constitutional right to privacy but we are not allowed to defend it in court. Got it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Maybe "the public" should be consulted in what's in its interest.

But, of course, we wouldn't be allowed to know about what's in our interest for reasons of "National Security".

[ChairmanAgnostic]

31. Bah.

The next thing you'll demand is accountability from security officials, or even worse, some preposterous demand that the extent of surveillance will be put up for a democratic vote! The peoples aren't smart enough for that! Perish the thought!

[woo me with science]

13. This is beyond outrageous.

This cannot stand.

[Waiting For Everyman]

14. It's only an answer to the suit filed by ACLU.

The judge still has to decide. It's not surprising that the Feds would answer the suit, and that the Feds would insist that they're right.

What is interesting to me, is that they are admitting to and defending the practice of wholesale collection, rather than denying that they're doing it.

[Hydra]

18. They're going all in

They've floated the idea of dismantling the operation(moving it back into the shadows), but I think they'd really rather have all of these powers and let us know that they're watching and we can't do anything.

It's also a declaration of dictatorship, as Woo mentioned further up.

What do we do now?

[Waiting For Everyman]

21. The ACLU's suit hasn't been decided yet, it could still be won.

Those interest groups have some very good lawyers, so I'm not entirely hopeless on that. And a lot of scrutiny is on these surveillance programs publicly now, which doesn't hurt. There are other suits too, recently filed on Snowden's evidence.

Even if all that fails, Sensenbrenner has said point blank that if the program (specifically 215, the business record section) isn't changed a lot, the Congress will not renew it. He didn't sound at all like he was bluffing.

In any case, unless I'm reading it very wrong, this suit is only begun, it's not over. The defendant (the Feds in this case) always files an answer stating its own side of the case. That's all that was done here, that I can see.

[Hydra]

28. Oh, I agree there is a process

But how the Executive Branch is doing this is not encouraging. They've been off the tracks about other constitutional issues this week and it seems to be getting worse.

My question about "What do we do now?" is probably an echo of someone during the Nixon admin. What do you do with a President who thinks they are outside the law?

[Waiting For Everyman]

32. I see, yes, it's very alarming alright.

That's why I'm shocked at people here still wanting to take up the other side. This isn't some small thing that doesn't matter.

[woo me with science]

19. K&R This can't be allowed to sink.

This is the administration "going all in," as Hydra perfectly put it.

This is our administration lining up with Dick Cheney to declare our Constitution just a goddamned piece of paper.

[Puzzledtraveller]

20. k&r

[Union Scribe]

23. Gotta love that checks and balances. nt

[Life Long Dem]

24. Phone Snooping?

How about storing phone numbers in a database with no names.

[forestpath]

25. Obama feels like a combination of Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes

all rolled into one person.

[BlueCheese]

26. How I deplore the Catch-22 nature of these arguments.

Citizen: I'm going to sue to stop the secret surveillance program.

Government: You can't prove we're spying on you in particular, so you have no standing to sue.

Citizen: Well, are you spying on me?

Government: We can't tell you. It's secret.

So in other words, nobody has standing to sue about the secret program, because the program is secret.

[Zorra]

57. +1

[woo me with science]

61. +1

[JoeyT]

69. And it is and will continue to be legal

because no one can sue to have it ruled illegal. So every time anyone brings it up people will run around screaming "NO ONE IS BREAKING ANY LAWS! WHY DO YOU HATE HIM?!?!?!"

[neverforget]

27. It's in the "public interest" to spy on Americans.

[KoKo]

30. kick

[WillyT]

33. K & R !!!

[Civilization2]

35. Power corrupts,.

Kafka just got an idea for a new story.

[snappyturtle]

37. I.am.very.angry. Since when does the executive branch tell the

judicial branch what is or isn't constitutional and therefore cannot be heard? The Feds did not say it was only their opinion and that the courts would have to decide.

The statement stinks on the face of it but also because it leaves an odor that the administration *really* doesn't want to risk the chance of losing it (the scooping up of data)....and why, I ask? I know what the government's reasons are but.............

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this:

The government said that, despite it scooping up telephony metadata from “certain telecommunication service providers,” it only queried the database using “300 unique identifiers” searching for terrorist activity last year under a standard of “reasonable, articulable suspicion.” Because the ACLU cannot prove that any of its employees were surveilled under the program, they have no right to sue under a legal concept known as standing.

How can the ACLU gain 'standing' if it's all a secret?

It's Friday news dump time....so many won't hear a word of this on teevee.

[davidn3600]

40. Executive branch to Judiciary branch: "We no longer give a shit what you say...."

How much longer before the executive says the same thing to the legislative branch?

[Hydra]

43. Funny you should say that

Congress is getting hot under the collar for having fingers pointed at them when they didn't know about it.

I'm guessing the WH is going to tell them to STFU too soon.

[Volaris]

64. Yeah, well unlike the Judiciary,

I FUCKING PROMISE YOU that Congress will raise all Holy Hell about this if there's even the slightest possibility of political advantage to be found in attacking the Executive Branch. The Elected Congress can make hay out of this in a way that would never be useful to the appointed Judges, and you can bet your ass that they will, if they think they need to in order to keep getting elected.

Checks and Balances: Still useful after all these years...

[Rex]

42. Sure why not! Not like they asked us if it was OKAY to bailout

the companies that caused the 2009 economic meltdown! We are just serfs. It really is true.

[Brewinblue]

44. OK, unconstitional and unlawful actions of our federal government cannot be challenged in court.

Got it. So what redress options are left? The ballot box no longer works, the only real choices are between Their criminally insane Teabaggers and Our criminally corrupt DINOs.

The Administration is essentially daring the people to try and do anything about it. They seem to be banking on the theory that Americans are just barely comfortable enough to allow ANYTHING to pass that does not overly impinge on their immediate comfort. Eventually everyone will awaken to the truth, hence the NSA'a pre-emptive strike via massive domestic surveillance of all US citizens.

The war against American Democracy and the Constitution is being waged, but it's supposed to be a secret. Shhhhh!

[Catherina]

45. Fuck that. This Administration does not tell us what we can and what we can't challenge.

In the courts or without the courts. It's their choice.

[Logical]

50. LOL, is this from the onion? Please tell me it is.

[MotherPetrie]

51. The true dictator revealed

[alarimer]

52. Those are the same arguments the Bush administration made.

Obama is not that much different, sad to say. I expected so much more, but am disappointed yet again by this turncoat of a Democrat.

[historylovr]

53. K & R

[lordsummerisle]

54. Gee

and to think I was naive enough to believe in the checks and balances concept...

[ohheckyeah]

56. If things keep going like this,

some day you, too, can be a cynical old person.

[ohheckyeah]

55. Are you fucking kidding me?

Really? Really? (I sound like the SNL skit).

Since when does the executive branch tell the judicial branch what can be challenged in court?

[randome]

58. They are making clear their position, that's all.

You may not agree with their position but the Executive branch is not 'telling' anyone what to do.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[woo me with science]

60. +1

[Volaris]

65. Since Nixon, and the advent of the Unitary Executive (see: IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY)

But you're right, it didn't fly then, it won't fly now.

[Logical]

59. Kick n-t

[woo me with science]

62. Kick. This is outrageous.

[Catherina]

63. Why not? That terra thing again?

Since the year 2000, 7500 people have died from acts of terror and 200 million people have died from poverty.

They WANT that police state. It has nothing to do with keeping people safe from terror. The people we need to be kept safe from are them.

[stillwaiting]

68. Well, isn't that special? #churchlady nt

[woo me with science]

70. kick

[indepat]

71. The freakin' court ain't got no right to challenge big brother's breathtaking-broad intelligence

gathering in the name of keeping us safe from terra, no matter how much our constitutionally-protected freedoms are eviscerated in the process.