100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Top court rejects ACLU domestic spying lawsuit | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Top court rejects ACLU domestic spying lawsuit
Supreme Court decision doesn't explain reason for turning down appeal http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23235602/ so it has come to pass that the supreme court dous not have to explain itself fascism has arrived officially now |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I recall, denying certoirari has never required an explanation.
Besides, the Supreme Court is controlled by right wingers, better to let the issue come up once the court is more liberal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 The whole $h!thouse is about to go down in flames.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wiley
on
Tue 02/19/08 12:05 PM
|
|
1 The district court granted the government's summary judgment motion with respect to petitioners' "datamining" claim, which challenged a different alleged surveillance activity. See Pet. App. 20a-21a. The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of that claim, id. at 158a, and petitioners do not challenge that determination in this Court, Pet. 4 n.9, 7 n.11. 2 The Al-Haramain court remanded for the district court to deter mine, in the first instance, whether FISA preempts the state secrets privilege. 2007 WL 3407182, at *14. That question is not presented here because petitioners have not challenged the applicability of the state secrets privilege and, in any event, have never claimed, in the lower courts or in their petition for a writ of certiorari, that FISA displaces that privilege. Moreover, no court has ever held that FISA has that effect. 3 Nor are petitioners (Pet. 15, 19, 26) correct that, under the court of appeals' decision, a plaintiff must prove surveillance "with certainty." Proof by a preponderance of the evidence would suffice. Here, however, petitioners' contention that they have been surveilled is "purely speculative." Pet. App. 163a (Gibbons, J., concurring in the judgment). As Judge Batchelder explained, "[t]he evidence establishes only a possibility not a probability or certainty that these communications might be intercepted." Id. at 128a (second emphasis added). 4 Petitioners' reliance (Pet. 26) on environmental cases is misplaced for similar reasons. See Pet. App. 154a-155a; id. at 161a-164a (Gibbons, J., concurring in the judgment). An environmental plaintiff can gene rally establish standing by showing that he uses an area affected by pollution and has reduced that use because he reasonably fears injury from the pollution. See, e.g., Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env'tl Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 183-184 (2000). As Judge Batchelder explained, however, just as environmental plaintiffs cannot establish standing "without any evidence that the defendant has polluted their particular river," petitioners here cannot establish standing without "evidence that the government has intercepted their particular communications." Pet. App. 155a; see id. at 161a (Gibbons, J., concurring in the judgment) (emphasizing that, in Laidlaw, "the plaintiffs * * * were in fact subject to defendant's conduct"). Thus, for example, in Laidlaw, the plaintiff submitted detailed declarations from its members explaining that they had direct exposure to the waterborne pollution at issue in that case. See 528 U.S. at 181-183. Petitioners here, by contrast, cannot show that they have ever been subject to the activity about which they complain. 5 At least one such case is pending, along with dozens of other cases involving related issues that have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a multi-district litigation proceeding in In re NSA Telecommunications Records Litigation, MDL No. 06-1791 (N.D. Cal.). Unlike this case, many of those cases involve claims for retrospective monetary relief. Looks pretty straight forward to me. The ACLU didn't have a case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looks pretty straight forward to me. The ACLU didn't have a case. Yeah seems pretty clear that it fails the "real and substantial" prong of the justiciability analysis...there needs to be someone actually harmed, not just a case brought under general public interest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looks pretty straight forward to me. The ACLU didn't have a case. Lindyy reports: You are very correct: Top court rejects ACLU domestic spying lawsuit Supreme Court decision doesn't explain reason for turning down appeal The ACLU sued on behalf of itself, other lawyers, reporters and scholars, arguing that the program was illegal and that they had been forced to alter how they communicate with foreigners who were likely to have been targets of the wiretapping. ACLU says it's caught in 'Catch-22' situation A federal judge in Detroit largely agreed, but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the suit, saying the plaintiffs could not prove their communications had been monitored and thus could not prove they had been harmed by the program. The government has refused to turn over information about the closely guarded program that could reveal who has been under surveillance. ACLU officials described the situation as a “Catch-22” because the government says the identities of people whose communications have been intercepted is secret. But only people who know they have been wiretapped can sue over the program. A lawsuit filed by an Islamic charity met a similar fate. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year ruled against the Oregon-based U.S. arm of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, concluding that a key piece of evidence is protected as a state secret. In that case, the charity alleged the National Security Agency illegally listened to its calls. The charity had wanted to introduce as evidence a top-secret call log it received mistakenly from the Treasury Department. A separate lawsuit against telecommunications companies that have cooperated with the government is pending in the San Francisco-based appeals court. A U.S. district court also is examining whether the warrantless surveillance of people in the United States violates the law that regulates the wiretapping of suspected terrorists and requires the approval of a secret court. The administration announced in January 2007 that it would put intercepts of communications on U.S. soil under the oversight of that court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The ACLU, in urging the justices to consider its case, said that because the administration voluntarily ended the warrantless wiretapping, it could easily restart it. The administration acknowledged the existence of the program in late 2005, after the New York Times published an article about it. The White House said the monitoring was necessary because the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act left dangerous gaps in the government’s eavesdropping authority. Last August, Congress made temporary changes to FISA that made the warrantless wiretapping legal in some instances and also extended immunity from lawsuits to telecommunications companies that help with the intercepts. Those changes expired over the weekend, amid disagreements between congressional Democrats and President Bush over the immunity issue. Existing wiretaps can continue and any new surveillance the government wants to institute has to follow the FISA rules, which could require court warrants. The case is ACLU v. NSA, 07-468. Lindyy Lindyy's own comment: ACLU ain't all that! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if they are fighting the constitutionality of the issue
then they have a case regardless and there is a question of the constitutionality where the 4th amendment is concerned Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if they are fighting the constitutionality of the issue then they have a case regardless and there is a question of the constitutionality where the 4th amendment is concerned Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Nope, there still has to be an "injury" (violation of that right). If they can't show a particular instance of it, then they can't bring a case...which seems to have been the situation here and hence proper dismissal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if they are fighting the constitutionality of the issue then they have a case regardless and there is a question of the constitutionality where the 4th amendment is concerned Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Sure. You just have to prove that they were going to be used in a criminal investigation. Then the "wiretaps" would fall under the 4th. The ACLU didn't even prove that their plaintiffs were "wiretapped." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if they ask for discovery
and it is refused then they are not given due process |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Tue 02/19/08 12:23 PM
|
|
if they are fighting the constitutionality of the issue then they have a case regardless and there is a question of the constitutionality where the 4th amendment is concerned Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Sure. You just have to prove that they were going to be used in a criminal investigation. Then the "wiretaps" would fall under the 4th. The ACLU didn't even prove that their plaintiffs were "wiretapped." where does it say unless not going to use it in court case in the 4th |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if they ask for discovery and it is refused then they are not given due process discovery A formal investigation -- governed by court rules -- that is conducted before trial. Discovery allows one party to question other parties, and sometimes witnesses. It also allows one party to force the others to produce requested documents or other physical evidence. The most common types of discovery are interrogatories, consisting of written questions the other party must answer under penalty of perjury, and depositions, which involve an in-person session at which one party to a lawsuit has the opportunity to ask oral questions of the other party or her witnesses under oath while a written transcript is made by a court reporter. Other types of pretrial discovery consist of written requests to produce documents and requests for admissions, by which one party asks the other to admit or deny key facts in the case. One major purpose of discovery is to assess the strength or weakness of an opponent's case, with the idea of opening settlement talks. Another is to gather information to use at trial. Discovery is also present in criminal cases, in which by law the prosecutor must turn over to the defense any witness statements and any evidence that might tend to exonerate the defendant. Depending on the rules of the court, the defendant may also be obliged to share evidence with the prosecutor. If they haven't done discovery by now, they really don't have a case at all... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's interesting the people who act like the ACLU is some great evil, that is until those people become the minority & need their rights protected.
No excuse in my humble for warrantless wiretapping, much less for the neo cons to lie about the reasons. Good news is, karma is a bytch;^] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if they are fighting the constitutionality of the issue then they have a case regardless and there is a question of the constitutionality where the 4th amendment is concerned Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Sure. You just have to prove that they were going to be used in a criminal investigation. Then the "wiretaps" would fall under the 4th. The ACLU didn't even prove that their plaintiffs were "wiretapped." Exactly. You have to prove a specific instance of the complained about activity. The plaintiff themselves must have been "harmed". This is why Roe v. Wade required a woman being pregnant and getting refused an abortion before it could be decided. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if they are fighting the constitutionality of the issue then they have a case regardless and there is a question of the constitutionality where the 4th amendment is concerned Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Sure. You just have to prove that they were going to be used in a criminal investigation. Then the "wiretaps" would fall under the 4th. The ACLU didn't even prove that their plaintiffs were "wiretapped." where does it say unless not going to use it in court case in the 4th see "warrant" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If they haven't done discovery by now, they really don't have a case at all... I think adj4u is referencing the fact that the government is refusing to turn over records of who is wiretapped (due to that information being classified). However, classification of information is a legitimate impediment to discovery requests. It is a catch-22, but according to current jurisprudence, it is legally sound. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if they ask for discovery and it is refused then they are not given due process discovery A formal investigation -- governed by court rules -- that is conducted before trial. Discovery allows one party to question other parties, and sometimes witnesses. It also allows one party to force the others to produce requested documents or other physical evidence. The most common types of discovery are interrogatories, consisting of written questions the other party must answer under penalty of perjury, and depositions, which involve an in-person session at which one party to a lawsuit has the opportunity to ask oral questions of the other party or her witnesses under oath while a written transcript is made by a court reporter. Other types of pretrial discovery consist of written requests to produce documents and requests for admissions, by which one party asks the other to admit or deny key facts in the case. One major purpose of discovery is to assess the strength or weakness of an opponent's case, with the idea of opening settlement talks. Another is to gather information to use at trial. Discovery is also present in criminal cases, in which by law the prosecutor must turn over to the defense any witness statements and any evidence that might tend to exonerate the defendant. Depending on the rules of the court, the defendant may also be obliged to share evidence with the prosecutor. If they haven't done discovery by now, they really don't have a case at all... did you not see this part ....... ACLU officials described the situation as a “Catch-22” because the government says the identities of people whose communications have been intercepted is secret. But only people who know they have been wiretapped can sue over the program. ...... it is a shell game if the ""people "" try this they would be charged with something like lieing to law enforcement officer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if they ask for discovery and it is refused then they are not given due process discovery A formal investigation -- governed by court rules -- that is conducted before trial. Discovery allows one party to question other parties, and sometimes witnesses. It also allows one party to force the others to produce requested documents or other physical evidence. The most common types of discovery are interrogatories, consisting of written questions the other party must answer under penalty of perjury, and depositions, which involve an in-person session at which one party to a lawsuit has the opportunity to ask oral questions of the other party or her witnesses under oath while a written transcript is made by a court reporter. Other types of pretrial discovery consist of written requests to produce documents and requests for admissions, by which one party asks the other to admit or deny key facts in the case. One major purpose of discovery is to assess the strength or weakness of an opponent's case, with the idea of opening settlement talks. Another is to gather information to use at trial. Discovery is also present in criminal cases, in which by law the prosecutor must turn over to the defense any witness statements and any evidence that might tend to exonerate the defendant. Depending on the rules of the court, the defendant may also be obliged to share evidence with the prosecutor. If they haven't done discovery by now, they really don't have a case at all... did you not see this part ....... ACLU officials described the situation as a “Catch-22” because the government says the identities of people whose communications have been intercepted is secret. But only people who know they have been wiretapped can sue over the program. ...... it is a shell game if the ""people "" try this they would be charged with something like lieing to law enforcement officer So legally, how does the ACLU know who to sue for when they don't know who was "wiretapped" or if they were even "wiretapped" at all? Like I said, they have no case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If they haven't done discovery by now, they really don't have a case at all... I think adj4u is referencing the fact that the government is refusing to turn over records of who is wiretapped (due to that information being classified). However, classification of information is a legitimate impediment to discovery requests. It is a catch-22, but according to current jurisprudence, it is legally sound. And not one of the "plaintiffs" is being detained. Imagine that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
using some of this logic they can come to your house search it
then leave but because they found something illegal that they did not know about it is ok as long as they do not use the search in court but because they found it they start an investigation in regards to the find and in the course of said investigation they put together a case strong enough to convict you which would never have been put together if not for the illegal search |
|
|
|
|
