Posted on 02/20/2008 7:51:05 AM PST by SmithL
The U.S. Supreme Court's refusal Tuesday to hear a lawsuit challenging President Bush's electronic surveillance program left a critical balance-of-powers question - whether judges can decide the legality of the secretive program - in the hands of two federal courts in San Francisco.
The justices rejected an appeal by the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued on behalf of journalists, lawyers and academics who believed their phone and e-mail messages were being intercepted. That ended the only case so far to test the constitutionality of Bush's order that launched the surveillance program in early 2002.
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of Detroit ruled in 2006 that Bush had exceeded his powers and violated constitutional limits on government searches when he ordered federal agents to intercept phone calls and e-mails between Americans and suspected foreign terrorists without the warrants required by a 1978 federal law. A federal appeals court in Cincinnati overruled Taylor in July without deciding whether the program was legal.
Instead, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the plaintiffs had no right to sue because they couldn't prove - because of the secrecy of the program - that their calls had been monitored. The plaintiffs' claim that they had to alter their communications with overseas clients and sources because of possible government eavesdropping wasn't enough to establish legal standing, the court said.
The ACLU argued that the ruling allowed the administration to shield its actions from judicial scrutiny, but the Supreme Court denied review Tuesday without comment. The action leaves two legal challenges alive, both in San Francisco.
One case, now before the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, is a suit by AT&T customers who accuse the telecommunications company of illegally giving the government access to their messages and records without a warrant.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Paranoid people. Most liberals are paranoid!
OTOH, people will happily sign up for surveillance systems for their homes and cars so anyone can know where you are etc.. But, when it comes to TERRORISM and protecting the public at large, people fight it. Go figure!
For a moment, I thought that said Bush buggering in San Francisco...
The dirty little secret is that they HAVE been communicating with people they know to be international terrorists.
Time Magazine has a reporter imbedded with them. He was interviewed on Frontline and was with "the insurgents" at the time of Saddam's capture.
He later was escorted in (and sheiled from kidnap and murder) by his terrorist pals as he roamed among Al Qaeda agents.
They commit TREASON. They don't want to be executed for their crimes of supporting the enmey in a time of war.
They claim to be "neutral observers" but they have no qualms about leaking Ameircan military secrets.
They are not impartial in this war and should be prosecuted as the traitors they are.
39 More to go
They aren’t paranoid. They know they are violating law in their “research” and communications with the enemy.
Do you really think that CAIR was blindsided that their phony 9-11 charity was used to fund terrorism?
>The dirty little secret is that they HAVE been communicating with people they know to be international terrorists.<
I wouldn’t put it past some of our elected reps either.
ping
The NYT LOVES to post whatever under cover strategy we have going on - like following the money for terroists through “charities”. Remember how the NYT posted it on their front page. The Bush administration begged them NOT TO PRINT IT but you know how it is ... liberals side with our enemy.
The ACLU argued that the ruling allowed the administration to shield its actions from judicial scrutiny, but the Supreme Court denied review Tuesday without comment. The action leaves two legal challenges alive, both in San Francisco.
It's not just that they couldn't PROVE that they had been spied upon. They didn't have any evidence at all that they had been spied upon. They didn't even have reasonable basis for their suspicions.
If the courts allowed this to go forward, we wouldn't have any national security secrets. Any conspiracy theorist could simply say that had a theory that their rights might have been infringed upon, and therefore had a right to know the details of any government program that they suspected might somehow be infringing on their rights.
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.