DOJ Urges Supreme Court to Halt Warrantless Eavesdropping Challenge - WIRED

[grahamhgreen]

The Obama administration is urging the Supreme Court to halt a legal challenge weighing the constitutionality of a once-secret warrantless surveillance program targeting Americans’ communications that Congress eventually legalized in 2008.

The FISA Amendments Act, (.pdf) the subject of the lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and others, allows the government to electronically eavesdrop on Americans’ phone calls and e-mails without a probable-cause warrant so long as one of the parties to the communication is outside the United States, and is suspected of a link to terrorism.

The administration is asking the Supreme Court to review an appellate decision that said the nearly 4-year-old lawsuit could move forward. The government said the ACLU and a host of other groups don’t have the legal standing to bring the case because they have no evidence they or their overseas clients are being targeted.
.............

The groups appealed to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that they often work with overseas dissidents who might be targets of the National Security Agency program. Instead of speaking with those people on the phone or through e-mails, the groups asserted that they have had to make expensive overseas trips in a bid to maintain attorney-client confidentiality. The plaintiffs, some of them journalists, also claim the 2008 legislation chills their speech, and violates their Fourth Amendment privacy rights.


MORE: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/02/scotus-fisa-amendments/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29

[sabrina 1]

1. When that was passed, we were told it would be 'fixed' once Democrats won a majority and

the WH. There was a huge uproar over that at the time, but to calm everyone down, we were told not to worry, it would be dealt with later. Has there been any attempt in Congress to do that?

[Rex]

15. Why is it the same thing over and over again?

Promises, promises and we always believe it.

[grahamhgreen]

16. Which is the same thing they said about health care, and what worries me about the new tax plan,

Sure, it is possible to raise more taxes by cutting loopholes and lowering the rate, but at the end of the day I fear they will ONLY lower the rate and effectively close no loopholes.

[sofa king]

17. Yes, there have been attempts.

S. 1692 (Leahy-Feinstein bill, 2009) reported, but died under threat of Republican filibuster

S. 2336 Republican/Lieberman version; buried in committee

H.R. 3845 (Conyers bill, 2010) died in House

H.R. 3969 (Reyes bill) died in House

S. 1686 (Feingold bill) died under threat of Republican filibuster

The upshot was that neither side had the votes to change the law, so they simply extended the provisions that needed extension in 2010. Some of the provisions were extended by only one year, and that fight dragged into 2011, and continues to drag.

Because Congress couldn't even agree on some sort of oversight, the Obama Administration has adopted its own oversight procedures largely based on the Leahy-Feinstein report recommendations, since the Democrats in the Senate were the only lawmakers capable of offering cogent advice at all.

In other words, Republican stonewalling effectively allowed the Obama Administration to follow the course recommended by the Democrats, largely as Senator Obama promised he would do, which is better than it was, but still totally fucked up.

More from The Paper Formerly Known as the St. Petersburg Times:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/180/end-warrantless-wiretaps/

[sabrina 1]

19. Thank you. If anything, that proves what people said at the time, it is far easier not to vote

for something with the idea of 'fixing it later' than to just go along for whatever reason, because I can't think of an instance where this was not the result of that kind of thinking. So, no surprise to all those who vehemently objected to any Democrat signing that bill at the time.

Thanks for the links, at least a few people tried.

Edited for errors

[msongs]

2. Geroge W. Obama and the perpetuation of the police state nt

[Vincardog]

3. Since the law is unconstitutional it does not matter what anyone can prove. It is illegal

[christx30]

4. The new standard is:

"It may be unconstitutional, but it's necessary, so we'll allow it." Or "We've been doing it this way all this time, thanks to an amendment buried deep in blah blah blah law, so now we're going to write another law that makes it all ok retroactively", as with NDAA.
The animals will, of course, never sleep in a bed with sheets. <looks at Snowball, holding paintbrush, standing by barn door>

[truebrit71]

5. +1

[FiveGoodMen]

6. Can you imagine how bad this would be under Bush????

[rocktivity]

7. The plaintiffs "don’t have the legal standing to bring the case

because they have no evidence they or their overseas clients are being targeted"? Well, why would there be evidence if they're being targeted without a warrant???


rocktivity

[stockholmer]

8. +100

Last edited Wed Feb 22, 2012, 07:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Regardless of the good he does in other arenas, President Obama simply is an utter lapdog of the military-industrial-prison-surveillance state when it comes to tossing aside civil liberties and constitutional protections. The worst thing is that someday, an utter tyrant can and will bring these abuses crashing down on the majority of citizens, as the recent precedents and legal foundations have already been laid by Poppy Bush, Bill Clinton, the despotic W Bush, and now Obama.

Systemic control at its most obvious. It is maddening that the US people cannot escape this sham 2-party-enabled security state.

[dreamnightwind]

10. And a +100 to you too

2-party-enabled security state is right on.

[24601]

9. Warrants aren't needed for collection on non-US persons not in US Jurisdiction. n/t

[Occulus]

13. So a second party who IS a citizen and IS on American soil has no standing either?

Not buying it.

FR is elsewhere. Perhaps you should check it out. You might be happier over there, given your posting history here.

BTW: you picked a piss-poor username. You resemble Javert far more closely.

[boppers]

14. "Being a citizen" isn't enough to sue the government over a law.

Last edited Thu Feb 23, 2012, 06:29 AM - Edit history (1)

You have to show that it has actually affected you in some way. "I'm scared that international communications are being monitored without proper paperwork" is what the court has to look at, and decide if being scared is a good reason.

The ALCU would have a much, much, better case, if they found somebody who was monitored, and arrested, with a warantless wiretap introduced in court as evidence against them.

[24601]

20. Javert - who reconsidered his position and let Valjean go? Awww, you never finished the story, did

you? Merde!

OK, back to the issue that you pretend to know something about - and you could, if only you bothered to do a tiny bit of research.

Start with basic definitions as used in Signals Intelligence. From NSA's pages:

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/ukusa.shtml

So, for a 2nd party person (national of Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, New Zealand) on US soil - yep a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approval is required.

But that wasn't what I addressed. The post to which I responded referred to collection of non-US persons (note that the rules apply with respect to US persons, not just US Citizens) who were not located in the United States.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/50C36.txt

Feel free to read the law - as I said, it does not address the collection on non-US persons who are not on US soil.

[Comrade Grumpy]

11. I side with the ACLU.

[FiveGoodMen]

12. Unfortunately, THEY sided with Citizens United

Don't really know who's side they're on these days.

[Uncle Joe]

18. Like any institution the ACLU makes mistakes or errors in judgment but the vast majority of the time

they're the first and sometimes only ones on the ramparts defending our civil rights.

The ACLU; more than any institution live by the ethos of Voltaire as stated by Evelyn Beatrice Hall .

"I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

[Hotler]

21. And the Wall ST. banksters still walk free.