Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Asks Judge to Drop Suit on N.S.A. Spying
NY Times ^ | 6/12/06 | Adam Liptak

Posted on 06/12/2006 12:24:55 PM PDT by Oshkalaboomboom

A National Security Agency program that listens in on international communications involving people in the United States is both vital to national security and permitted by the Constitution, a government lawyer told a judge here today in the first major court argument on the program.

But, the lawyer went on, addressing Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the Federal District Court, "the evidence we need to demonstrate to you that it lawful cannot be disclosed without that process itself causing grave harm to United States national security."

The only solution to this impasse, the lawyer, Anthony J. Coppolino, said, was for Judge Taylor to dismiss the lawsuit before her, an American Civil Liberties Union challenge to the eavesdropping program, under the state secrets privilege. The privilege can limit and even extinguish cases that would reveal national security information, and it is fast becoming one of the Justice Department's favorite tools in defending court challenges to its efforts to combat terrorism.

The Detroit case was filed in January on behalf of journalists, scholars, lawyers and nonprofit organizations who contended that the possibility of government eavesdropping interfered with their work. In remarks to reporters after the 90-minute argument, Anthony D. Romero, the A.C.L.U.'s executive director, called the government's invocation of the state secrets privilege "Orwellian doublespeak."

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aclu; antiamericanjudge; jimhuhcarterjudge; nov21979appoitee; nsa; spying
The Detroit case was filed in January on behalf of journalists, scholars, lawyers and nonprofit organizations who contended that the possibility of government eavesdropping interfered with their work.

Only if their work is betraying our country.

1 posted on 06/12/2006 12:24:58 PM PDT by Oshkalaboomboom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oshkalaboomboom

I thought that actual damage had to be shown for a lawsuit to be valid. Am I wrong?


2 posted on 06/12/2006 12:31:14 PM PDT by federal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oshkalaboomboom
The Detroit case was filed in January on behalf of journalists, scholars, lawyers and nonprofit organizations who contended that the possibility of government eavesdropping interfered with their work.

Um, why? I'd LOVE to hear an example.

3 posted on 06/12/2006 12:35:16 PM PDT by Steel Wolf (- Islam will never survive being laughed at. -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oshkalaboomboom
The other big name plaintiff, after the ACLU is CAIR. CAIR claims that monitoring international phone calls without a warrant violates attorney-client privilege since people in foreign, muslim countries conduct business with lawyers in the U.S. Personally, those are the calls that need to be monitored the most.
4 posted on 06/12/2006 12:36:23 PM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oshkalaboomboom

Prior to her appointment to the Federal Court in 1979, Judge Taylor was a private practitioner, a legislative assistant, an Assistant Wayne County Prosecutor, an Assistant United States Attorney, an Adjunct Professor of Law at Wayne State Law School, and an Assistant Corporation Counselor, City of Detroit. She is a 1950 Graduate of the Northfield School for Girls, East Northfield, Massachusetts, and received her B.A. from Barnard College in 1954 and L.L.B. from Yale Law School in 1957. Judge Taylor was appointed to the bench on November 2, 1979.

She is a Trustee of the Detroit Institute of Arts, the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan and the Henry Ford Health System.

She is a member of the State Bar (Committees on Character and Fitness and on U.S. Courts), Federal Bar, Wolverine Bar, Black Judges Association and Women Judges Association.


5 posted on 06/12/2006 12:38:10 PM PDT by SmithL (If they can't find Hoffa, it proves he never existed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oshkalaboomboom

"the evidence we need to demonstrate to you that it lawful cannot be disclosed without that process itself causing grave harm to United States national security."





The cat is out of the bag anyway.


6 posted on 06/12/2006 12:42:59 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
Um, why? I'd LOVE to hear an example.

"Dude! I was, like, talking to one of my stoner buds about scoring some meth and I thought, whoa, what if George W. Bush is like listening to my calls? And then I got, like, all worried and stuff and couldn't finish writing my column for the New York Times or teach my classes at Harvard. So how much money do I get?"

7 posted on 06/12/2006 12:53:45 PM PDT by Bubba_Leroy (What did Rather know and when did he know it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy
"Dude! I was, like, talking to one of my stoner buds about scoring some meth and I thought, whoa, what if George W. Bush is like listening to my calls? And then I got, like, all worried and stuff and couldn't finish writing my column for the New York Times or teach my classes at Harvard. So how much money do I get?"

You laugh, but that's basically where their arguements are based.

8 posted on 06/12/2006 1:06:59 PM PDT by Steel Wolf (- Islam will never survive being laughed at. -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Oshkalaboomboom
I'm glad the court case was brought. The first headline and democrat talking point said "illegal" wire tapping. The court will rule and its my bet, in spite of Carter and Hillary appointees, on the final call, it will rule with Bush.
9 posted on 06/12/2006 2:42:48 PM PDT by Phlap (REDNECK@LIBARTS.EDU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oshkalaboomboom; All
This is the part that really says it all:

Ms. Beeson countered that her clients have suffered concrete harms. "Journalists' sources have dried up," she said. And lawyers for people suspected of terrorism have had to resort to alternatives to phone calls and e-mails to ensure the confidentiality of their communications, she said. "They have had to make expensive oversees trips to gather evidence," Ms. Beeson said.

So let me get this straight: we Americans have to risk another 9-11 so the ACLU lawyers do not have to spend monies (on trips) to talk to their "clients".
10 posted on 06/12/2006 3:44:47 PM PDT by bobsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson