Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:39 AM
IDemo (12,305 posts)
Supreme Court blocks challenge to anti-terrorism law
Source: USA Today
WASHINGTON -- One of the most controversial anti-terrorism laws passed in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks may be beyond normal judicial review, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday. In a 5-4 decision, the court's conservative justices ruled that lawyers, journalists, human rights activists and others lacked standing to challenge a law passed in 2008 that increases the government's ability to intercept international communications. The plaintiffs had contended that even the potential of government snooping – which, they said, would violate the Fourth Amendment – was forcing them to change the way they communicate with clients and sources. The question before the high court wasn't whether the law itself, passed near the end of the Bush administration, was constitutional. It was whether those challenging it even had the ability to find out. Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/02/26/supreme-court-wiretapping-surveillance-foreign-intelligence/1948569/
|
7 replies, 1407 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
| Author | Time | Post | |
| IDemo | Feb 26 | OP | |
| TwilightGardener | Feb 26 | #1 | |
| Kelvin Mace | Feb 26 | #3 | |
| msanthrope | Feb 26 | #5 | |
| nineteen50 | Feb 26 | #2 | |
| Comrade Grumpy | Feb 26 | #4 | |
| DallasNE | Feb 26 | #6 | |
| blkmusclmachine | Feb 27 | #7 |
Response to IDemo (Original post)
Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:42 AM
TwilightGardener (39,681 posts)
1. Who has the legal standing to challenge it, then?
|
Last edited Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:44 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1) Edit to add: I guess someone would have to prove their rights were violated?
|
Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #1)
Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:19 PM
Kelvin Mace (9,830 posts)
3. Kafka is lying in his grave
|
very confused.
|
Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #1)
Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:35 PM
msanthrope (16,505 posts)
5. Someone who has had their rights violated. I say this after only reading
|
the article..not the decision, though.
|
Response to IDemo (Original post)
Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:51 AM
nineteen50 (837 posts)
2. That
|
other race of persons the corporate person.
|
Response to IDemo (Original post)
Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:35 PM
Comrade Grumpy (3,383 posts)
4. We've gone through the looking glass. It's Malice in Terrorland.
Response to IDemo (Original post)
Tue Feb 26, 2013, 02:06 PM
DallasNE (2,957 posts)
6. This Stands On Its Head
|
The notion that we have 3 co-equal branches of government when there is no oversight of the executive branch when it comes to foreign surveillance. Abuse will be the predictable outcome of this decision and it will haunt the court to have this blood on their hands.
|

