Sometimes it's hard to tell -- is this politics as usual, or something more?
Actually this is a GOOD thing that will eventually go to the S.C. to be decided. The President says "I have these powers" to deal with this new style threat. Congress objects. So someone brings a lawsuit and it goes to Court system. That is HOW the system of checks and balances is suppose to work. This is a GOOD thing.
I don't see a court taking the case, absent a showing that the party to the case can surmount the burden of proof that he was surveilled in a way that is arguably contrary to the 4th amendment. The party must "be injured," not "think I might have been injured."
As a bit of a sideline, the argument of 4th amendment violation can also be made by a plaintiff (or defendant, in the case of an indictment involving evidence gathered by FISA-related authority), in the form of "the statute itself is unconstitutional because it goes beyond what the 4th amendment permits." I point this out mostly to illustrate that lawsuits are a dime a dozen.
Back to the "must be injured," that doesn't mean there has to be a showing of damages, only a showing of unconstitutional surveillance. Without that, I would expect the Court to rule that there is no standing.
How did this historical quote about FDR get in here?
Instead of, "surveillance program designed to identify terrorists both within and outside the U.S.". The bias at the NYT continues.
"if the courts rule against him -- that's not good news"
Perhaps the scenario you mentioned explains the Meiers nomination?
see: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110007823
'Better Than Well Said'
Ben Franklin understood the need for secrecy in matters of national security. written by Pete du Pont
The question of the President's constitutional authority must inevitably wend its way to the Supreme Court, much the same as Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus did.
How can any of them have standing to sue if it's not their "rights" that have been infringed? It seems that at least one of the groups would have to include someone who does talk to suspected terrorists abroad.
No, only Bill Clinton has this authority, no one else. Sheesh, can't you tell when the country is falling apart? Quick, let's surrender like our RINO representatives.
From the article at the NYT - not quoted in the excerpts posted here:
"Two leading civil rights groups plan to file lawsuits Tuesday against the Bush administration over its domestic spying program to determine whether the operation was used to monitor 10 defense lawyers, journalists, scholars, political activists and other Americans with ties to the Middle East."
Note the question is IF these specific people WERE monitored. I THINK this means the suit is to determine if they (specific people - Hitchens apparently included) were monitored. Now Gore has just called for a Special Prosecutor. I think the attempt is going to be made to subpoena NSA records to see if these people were monitored.
Am I wrong?
This is all politics. Many recent presidents, including Clinton, Reagan, Bush 1 and carter have used this power to conduct the same type of wiretype without court supervision or approval.
Many prominent legal and Constitutional scholars already acknowledge that Bush is within his rights as the POTUS.
These people are just laying the foundation for what is expected to be an impeachment attempt by the left later this year. We are simply witnesing the ugliest political infighting that has ever occurred in the history of the US. The danger here is that, depending on the amount of hyperbole, lies, bloviating and manipulation of the truth that is done by the left and their MSM handpuppets, we could well be witnessing the beginning of the end of our great Republic. The left would rather see America broken and divided into a gulag and a nation of free people with limited government, than give up these immature and dangerous attacks on the POTUS and the nation when we are at war.
You can always count on the ACLU to sue to weaken national security and advance their communist agenda.
The American people understand the issue and if some in the courts do rule against Bush, even though the new Supreme Court should rule for Bush, it would be a great opportunity to finally rid our system of those judicial activists. Remember federal judges can be impeached to and if they rule against our security I can see judges loosing their jobs because of the noise the people will make over this.
And I presume these folks can prove that their phones were wiretapped?
ACLU, if AQ is calling you I want to know why? Oh, that's right you're defending them.
Unless one of the plaintiffs can show that his fourth amendment rights were violated, the courts won't touch this.
Besides, if the President actually believes he has the authority to ignore the law, then anything the courts say won't much matter anyway. All the courts can do is tell him to stop. Can't imagine he'd listen. Ultimately, this is a political question, and the remedy will have to be political. If enough people believe that he's crossed the impeachment line, then he'll be impeached. Certainly no lawsuit will stop him.