Skip to comments.US judge to rule on legality of warrantless wiretaps
Posted on 07/10/2006 9:21:25 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
CHICAGO (AFP) - A federal judge heard arguments in a suit arguing that US President George W. Bush overstepped his authority when he authorized the use of warrantless wiretaps on Americans.
The arguments came less than two weeks after the Supreme Court ruled that the Bush administration overstepped its authority in setting up military tribunals to try war on terror detainees held at a US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The American Civil Liberties Union asked a judge in Detroit, Michigan to rule that the wiretaps are illegal because they circumvent the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires the executive branch to obtain a warrant before engaging in electronic surveillance of Americans.
Those warrants are obtained in a secret court which has only denied three requests in nearly 30 years and which allows law enforcement to initiate surveillance before the warrant is obtained, Michael Steinberg, legal director of the ACLU of Michigan, told AFP.
"Our democracy depends on checks and balances," he said. "Obtaining a court order before intercepting people's personal communication serves as a check on unbridled executive power."
A spokesman for the Department of Justice declined to comment on the case.
In a motion, the department argued that "The United States submits that the actions authorized by the President are essential to meeting a continuing and grave foreign terrorist threat and are well within lawful bounds."
It argued that to demonstrate this "would require evidence that must be excluded from consideration under the military and states secrets privilege" and as a result the judge should throw out the case in order to avoid "grave harm to the national security of the United States."
The ACLU argued that the existence of the program was far from a secret: it has already acknowledged and defended the spying program to the public and issued a 40-page paper discussing in detail its legal defenses and justifications in January.
"If the court accepts the government's state secrets argument we would be facing a constitutional crisis because the government is essentially arguing it can ignore the law and is thumbing its nose at the constitution and the courts can't do anything about it because it's a secret program," Steinberg said. "There's no conceivable end to this argument."
Steinberg said the ACLU's case was strengthened by the recent ruling over the Guantanamo tribunals, which reaffirmed that the president does not have unlimited authority to act without Congressional approval during its "war on terror."
A ruling is expected in the coming weeks.
The ACLU is also filing suit against the telephone companies which participated in the program in violation of their obligations to customers.
This official White House photograph shows US President George W. Bush speaking during a telephone call from the Oval Office of the White House, 06 July 2006 in Washington, DC. A federal judge heard arguments in a suit arguing that Bush overstepped his authority when he authorized the use of warrantless wiretaps on Americans.(AFP/White House-HO/File/Kimberlee Hewitt)
That's what this is all about anyway.
I really can't tell what is a bigger threat to this country anymore.
Islam or the ACLU?
Its like one big blur......
It does seem telling that this isn't happening in New England or Florida.
Do the plaintiffs have standing to sue? is the question that the USSC will probably rule on, saying no.
White House Returns Fire On Spy Critics I don't know the answers to your questions, but I will tell you right now, CAIR was the organization that brought the whole issue up to begin with. This isn't about regular Americans' privacy. It is about profiling Muslims. And our Dhimmicrat party is in their pocket.
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.