A federal appeals court on Friday ordered the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging President Bush's domestic spying program, saying the plaintiffs had no standing to sue.
The American Civil Liberties Union led the suit on behalf of other groups including lawyers, journalists and scholars it says have been handicapped in doing their jobs by the government monitoring.
The case will be sent back to the U.S. District judge in Michigan for dismissal.
U.S. intelligence officials got mired for nearly 10 hours seeking approval to use wiretaps against al Qaeda terrorists suspected of kidnapping Queens soldier Alex Jimenez in Iraq earlier this year.
This week, Congress plans to vote on a bill that leaves in place the legal hurdles in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - problems that were highlighted during the May search for a group of kidnapped U.S. soldiers.
In the early hours of May 12, seven U.S. soldiers - including Spc. Jimenez - were on lookout near a patrol base in the al Qaeda-controlled area of Iraq called the "Triangle of Death."
Sometime before dawn, heavily armed al Qaeda gunmen quietly cut through the tangles of concertina wire surrounding the outpost of two Humvees and made a massive and coordinated surprise attack.
Four of the soldiers were killed on the spot and three others were taken hostage.
A search to rescue the men was quickly launched. But it soon ground to a halt as lawyers - obeying strict U.S. laws about surveillance - cobbled together the legal grounds for wiretapping the suspected kidnappers.
For an excruciating nine hours and 38 minutes, searchers in Iraq waited as U.S. lawyers discussed legal issues and hammered out the "probable cause" necessary for the attorney general to grant such "emergency" permission.
Finally, approval was granted and, at 7:38 that night, surveillance began.
The FISA law applies even to a cellphone conversation between two people in Iraq, because those communications zip along wires through U.S. hubs, which is where the taps are typically applied
The body of one soldier was found a few weeks later in the Euphrates River and the terror group Islamic State of Iraq - an al Qaeda offshoot - later claimed in a video that Jimenez and the third soldier had been executed and buried.
"This is terrible. If they would have acted sooner, maybe they would have found something out and been able to find my son," said Jimenez's mother, Maria Duran. "Oh my God. I just keep asking myself, where is my son? What could have happened to him?"
it's important to have civil rights and legal procedures. that ensures as best as possible that justice is served and the right man is arrested. like them or not, the more they're eroded to get the really nasty guys faster the more they're also eroded for you. in fact it seems odd that someone who says they went through law school and practice law as their life would have such little respect for the system they serve.
We're not talking about wiretapping US citizens in the country. This was about wiretapping terrorists on a battlefield in Iraq.
Even if you want to argue that the anti-wiretapping law is appropriate in a civil or criminal case on US soil, it seems patently ridiculous, if not deadly, to apply it to combatants in a war zone.
Chris Dodd has announced that he will put a hold on the bill granting retroactive telecom immunity.
Here’s his statement:
Originally Posted By: Chris Dodd
The Military Commissions Act. Warrantless wiretapping. Shredding of Habeas Corpus. Torture. Extraordinary Rendition. Secret Prisons.
No more.
I have decided to place a "hold" on the latest FISA bill that would have included amnesty for telecommunications companies that enabled the President's assault on the Constitution by illegally providing personal information on their customers without judicial authorization.
I said that I would do everything I could to stop this bill from passing, and I have.
It's about delivering results -- and as I've said before, the FIRST thing I will do after being sworn into office is restore the Constitution. But we shouldn't have to wait until then to prevent the further erosion of our country's most treasured document. That's why I am stopping this bill today.
Meanwhile, Pat Leahy throws Rockefeller under the bus — where he belongs — for letting things get so far down the road that this became necessary.
The battle is not over, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a hold so this is only the beginning. But good for Chris Dodd for having the courage to say “enough”
Quote:
Leahy: Intel panel about to ‘cave’ on surveillance By Manu Raju October 18, 2007 Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) on Thursday condemned Intelligence Committee Democrats for brokering a deal with the White House that would provide retroactive immunity for telephone companies that assisted the Bush administration’s controversial warrantless wiretapping program.... (more)
If you didn't do anything wrong, why would you need retroactive immunity?
One of the most amazing episodes in modern American journalism has emerged from a flagrantly inaccurate and misguided Time magazine column by Joe Klein. He’s a political writer whose work in this case may become Exhibit A for what’s wrong with the craft today.
Klein’s column attacked congressional Democrats’ effort to pass electronic surveillance legislation that would restrain the Bush administration’s wish for essentially no restraints or oversight whatever. In his piece, Klein got some vital facts dead wrong, giving a totally misleading message to his readers.
Needless to say, bloggers and others who care about truth and the Constitution jumped on this outrageous stuff. No one did a better job than Salon’s Glenn Greenwald, who pointed out the misstatements in great detail.
Klein, obviously responding to Greenwald (though never saying so), defended himself without actually dealing with the actual facts — and even more amazingly asserted that telecom companies should do whatever the government orders them to do, even if it’s completely illegal. Bloggers continued to attack both the original piece and his absurd justifications.
Then Klein sort of, kind of admitted error in a follow-up — though he made obvious something even more amazing: He hasn’t read the legislation he attacks. Meanwhile, neither Klein nor Time has put corrections into the original, flagrantly inaccurate column, which also ran in the print edition.
What makes all this so bad is Time’s reach and influence. Millions of people probably read the original. Very, very few will know, even now, that fundamental premises were false.
Why Time employs Klein is a mystery to me, though I suppose it shouldn’t be. He’s a member of the Washington journalistic establishment, where forgetting reality is all too common. As Wired News’ Ryan Singel noted, Klein’s record includes publicly lying about his anonymous authorship of the book Primary Colors (one of the best books about politics in recent memory, incidentally). Singel then adds, and I agree:
Quote:
But Time ought to stop Klein from writing about any substantive topic, especially FISA.
Because when it comes to these topics, Klein is well beyond stupid. He’s dangerous.
I’ve spent all morning on the phone trying to figure out who the editor at Time Magazine was on Joe Klein’s FISA column (the one Klein has now written about five times, fully admitting he never read the original bill). I finally confirmed that the editor was Priscilla Painton, and called her and identified myself. I asked her what the editing process was, and how a piece with so many errors made it into print.
“That assumes that there are errors,” she said. And hung up on me.
So again, the question must be asked: why would anyone give any credibility to Joe Klein or Time Magazine when reporting factual and researched stories are so patently unimportant to them?
Glenn Greenwald is really kicking ass here. I was mulling over whether to put this story here on in the "liberal media" thread. I chose here since it relates to eavesdropping. But this shabby piece is beyond the pale. And I've come to expect this sort of thing from TIME as of late.
Joe Klein has just posted yet again about his FISA confusion, and it has now moved well beyond farce into an almost pity-inducing realm. If Time has any dignity at all, someone there will intervene and put a stop to this. It's actually difficult to watch.
In the last five days alone, Klein has now written five separate times about his FISA debacle, and is further away than ever from having any idea what he's even talking about -- first was the column itself; second was the Swampland post the same day in which he emphatically defended the accuracy of what he wrote in response to my post; third was the post yesterday in which Klein said he "may have made a mistake in [his] column this week about the FISA legislation" -- the understatement of the year; fourth was an Update he added to that post this morning claiming that he did speak to a Democrat but "may have misinterpreted a Democratic source's point" and "if [he] did, a correction will appear in the print magazine next week"; and now, his fifth effort in tonight's post, actually worse than all the others, in which he still professes confusion after "spen[ding] the past few days nosing around in the ongoing dispute about what the House FISA Reform bill actually says."
The result of all this "nosing around": "I've reached no conclusions." And he then unleashes this:
I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right.
That's been the point all along (although one doesn't need "legal background" -- just basic reading skills and a molecule of critical thought).
This is evidence yet again as to why the blogosphere is becoming more and more people's choice for news and information. You just can't trust the "liberal media" to be accurate or um.. even "liberal" as people allege.
It's just odd and sad that real journalism and accuracy & truth has gone underground.
Ted Kennedy on Retroactive Immunity for the Telecoms:
Quote:
“We would be aiding and abetting the President in his illegal actions, his contempt for the rule of law, and his attempt to hide his lawbreaking from the American people”
Chris Dodd did it. Reid pulls Telecom Immunity bill off the table!!!!
Yahooooo—-Congratulations to Senator Dodd for showing what a little backbone can do. Harry Reid tabled the FISA bill just a few minutes ago.
Matt Browner-Hamlin writes:
Quote:
Without Senator Dodd’s leadership today, it is safe to assume that retroactive immunity would have passed. This is a great victory for the American people. His outspoken opposition to retroactive immunity and the Intelligence Committee’s FISA bill made it impossible to move forward now…read on
In his closing speech Dodd vowed to filibuster again in January if telecom amnesty is still part of the FISA legislation. This speech should be watched by every student, every member of Congress as well as all Americans who value their civil liberties. No matter which presidential candidate you support, you can’t get around the fact that this is what REAL, American leadership looks like. Bravo Senator Dodd, BRAVO!
Glenn Greenwald is really kicking ass here. I was mulling over whether to put this story here on in the "liberal media" thread. I chose here since it relates to eavesdropping. But this shabby piece is beyond the pale. And I've come to expect this sort of thing from TIME as of late.
It may be storming outside, but I’m definitely feeling sunshine breaking through some neo-con clouds..
Quote:
Two conservative Time magazine columnists are on their way out the door: Neither William Kristol nor longtime contributor Charles Krauthammer will be on contract with the magazine starting next month. Mr. Krauthammer confirmed the news to Off the Record, and a spokeswoman for Time said Mr. Kristol’s contract would not be renewed.
The exact reasons for the departures of Mr. Krauthammer and Mr. Kristol, both high-profile backers of the Iraq war, are not entirely clear.
But sadly, we’re not completely rid of rightwing hackery at Time:
Quote:
And according to two sources familiar with the discussions, Time is in negotiations with National Review editor Ramesh Ponnuru to sign him to a contributor contract. Mr. Ponnuru, who in 2006 published The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life, has written twice for the magazine over the past month.
I was begining to wonder why any reputable publication hires punditry "experts" who are repeatedly proved wrong on everything they assert.
Chris Dodd said something relative to the telecoms that said right on point last month. Let me quote this in full,
Quote:
“When one company gave the NSA a secret eavesdropping room at its own corporate headquarters, it was simply doing its patriotic duty. The president asked, the telecoms answered. Shouldn‘t that be an easy case to prove, Mr. President? The corporations only need to show a judge the authority and the assurances they were given and they will be in and out of court in five minutes. If the telecoms are as defensible as the president says, why doesn‘t the president let them defend themselves, if the case is so easy to make, why doesn‘t he let them make it? Why is he standing in the way?”
Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment tonight on Countdown was yet another scathing rebuke of President Bush and his lies about the pending FISA legislation and fear tactics during his final State of the Union address earlier this week. Bush has said repeatedly he would veto any FISA legislation that did not include immunity for the telecommunications companies who broke the law and betrayed the American people. However, as Keith points out, if the president were to veto the legislation and there was another terrorist attack inside the U.S., he, and he alone would be responsible for it — all in the name of protecting huge corporations over the American people he was charged with protecting.
Quote:
Sorry, Mr. Bush. The eavesdropping provisions of FISA have obviously had no impact on counter-terrorism, and there is no current or perceived terrorist threat, the thwarting of which could hinge on an e-mail or a phone call going through room 641-A at AT&T in San Francisco next week or next month.
Because if there were, Mr. Bush, and you were to, by your own hand, veto an extension of this eavesdropping, and some terrorist attack were to follow, you would not merely be guilty of siding with the terrorists, you would not merely be guilty of prioritizing the telecoms over the people, you would not merely be guilty of stupidity, you would not merely be guilty of treason… but you would be personally, and eternally, responsible.
The House has just passed the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3773, to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes, by a vote of 213-197-1. The revised House legislation to amend FISA grants new authorities for conducting electronic surveillance against foreign targets while preserving the requirement that the government obtain an individualized FISA court order, based on probable cause, when targeting Americans at home or abroad. The House bill also strongly enhances oversight of the Administration’s surveillance activities. Finally, the House bill does not provide retroactive immunity for telecom companies but allows the courts to determine whether lawsuits should proceed
Originally Posted By: Speaker Nancy Pelosi
“Why would the Administration oppose a judicial determination of whether the companies already have immunity? There are at least three explanations… None of these alternatives is attractive but they clearly demonstrate why the Administration’s insistence that Congress provide retroactive immunity has never been about national security or about concerns for the companies; it has always been about protecting the Administration.”
While the media loses their nut over whether Barack Obama is really distancing himself from Rev. Wright (while secretly being a Muslim, mind you) , there are real issues that they (with the exception of outstanding journalist Charlie Savage) are ignoring.
Almost 32 years to the day after President Ford created an independent Intelligence Oversight Board made up of private citizens with top-level clearances to ferret out illegal spying activities, President Bush issued an executive order that stripped the board of much of its authority.
The White House did not say why it was necessary to change the rules governing the board when it issued Bush’s order late last month. But critics say Bush’s order is consistent with a pattern of steps by the administration that have systematically scaled back Watergate-era intelligence reforms.
“It’s quite clear that the Bush administration officials who were around in the 1970s are settling old scores now,” said Tim Sparapani, senior legislative counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union. “Here they are even preventing oversight within the executive branch. They have closed the books on the post-Watergate era.”
Ford created the board following a 1975-76 investigation by Congress into domestic spying, assassination operations, and other abuses by intelligence agencies. The probe prompted fierce battles between Congress and the Ford administration, whose top officials included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the current president’s father, George H. W. Bush. Read on…
Just another nail in the coffin of oversight. Remind me again, how did that whole Watergate scandal end up? Why, it’s almost as if Cheney&Co. wanted to ensure that couldn’t happen again.
Sorry, Mr. Bush. The eavesdropping provisions of FISA have obviously had no impact on counter-terrorism, and there is no current or perceived terrorist threat
i think your source should go back to sports center...
Barack Obama, who at one point was looking at least a little better than his predecessor on the issue of warrantless domestic surveillance, may turn out to be just as bad.
During his campaign he criticized the Bush administration for flouting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by monitoring communications involving people in the U.S. without a court order. But then he went along with amendments to FISA that legalized such surveillance, even giving in on the issue of retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies that facilitated it.
Now The New York Times reports that the National Security Agency has been abusing its new statutory powers, collecting purely domestic communications along with the international phone calls and email messages covered by the FISA amendments
[T]he Obama administration is trying to quash an Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) lawsuit aimed at holding Bush administration officials responsible for warrantless surveillance conducted prior to the FISA amendments, surveillance that Obama himself has said was illegal. It argues that allowing the lawsuit to proceed would harm national security—a claim frequently made by the Bush administration, which Obama has criticized as excessively secretive.
Obama's Justice Department has gone even further than the Bush administration, arguing that the PATRIOT Act immunizes government officials who participate in illegal surveillance, except when "the Government obtains information about a person through intelligence-gathering, and Government agents unlawfully disclose that information." As EFF puts it, "DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying [as opposed to disclosure]—that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes."
How do we all feel about this now that it's not Bush doing it? I'm still against it. There isn't enough of a check and balance. Do I have any company now that it's a democrat in place?
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man said on 12/23/05 10:59 AM
will you keep the same position if say Hillary Clinton became President in 2008?
Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh on 12/23/05 11:11 AM
If Hillary follows the law and uses the law to go after terrorists (as opposed to harassing political opponents), I don't see a problem with it.
Change “Hillary” to “Barack Hussein Obama” and my answer’s the same.
Oh, and speaking of Obama, he’s what he said about a resolution to censure the President for “illegal” wiretapping back in 2006:
Originally Posted By: the G-man of Zur-En-Arrh
The Washington Post has a hilarious description of Democratic senators, "filing in for their weekly caucus lunch yesterday" and reacting to Feingold's proposal to censure President Bush for fighting terrorism:
"I haven't read it," demurred Barack Obama (Ill.)....
Some things NEVER change....
Now, let’s find out how these posters feel, given what they wrote when Bush did it:
Originally Posted By: whomod
Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment tonight:
The eavesdropping provisions of FISA have obviously had no impact on counter-terrorism, and there is no current or perceived terrorist threat.... guilty of stupidity.... guilty of treason… ...
Originally Posted By: Jim Jackson
Who watches the Watchmen? That the President asserts that it's not infringing on civil liberties leaves me cold.
Originally Posted By: Jason E. Perkins
What he's doing now isn't legal. He should be investigated.
Poor Perkins....
Oh, and then there was this guy. He was pretty outraged and kept demanding a full investigation, posting about it repeatedly over the course of a couple of years:
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
... the Bush administration's spying scandal...
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
….so outrageous, so unrelated to the War on Terror and such an unconstitutional breach of authority that he knows that even a court that has rejected just 4 warrant requests in 25 years will reject what he's doing. ...
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
This was a case of the White House deciding it didn't have to follow a law.
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
The fact that his lawyers (that he picks) thinks it's OK doesn't make it Constitutional.
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
even Ashcroft had problems with Bush's wiretapping!
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
It never ceases to amaze me how quick some people are willing to chuck their rights just so that they can feel safe.
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
…care about the constitution & don't want a President operating above it when he didn't have to…
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Checks & balances folks.
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
This has to be investigated.
So, MEM, you say you're still against it. Do you still think that Obama is violating the law and should be investigated? And who should do the investigation?
Pelosi? Reid? Eric Holder? A Special Prosecutor?
Inquiring minds want to know, especially since, as noted above "Obama's Justice Department has gone even further than the Bush administration"
Do you also think, as the author of the piece I cited does, that Obama has gone farther than Bush? And, if so, what is your opinion of that?
Finally, given that you were adamant that Bush should be investigated, who do you think should investigate Obama?
It's about the same as Bush except Obama is saying he's doing it. Since the democrats helped legalize what Bush was doing last year there really isn't anyone there to undue it. It appears your principle that a president needs to have this expanded power with little or no oversight is here to stay.
i forgot Obama is for it. sorry to mistake you for a free thinker.
I'm still against the wiretaps basams but they were legalized while Bush was President last year. Since it's been legal before Obama became President what would a special counsel find other than he's not breaking the rules?
Your just acting stupidly partisan now. The wiretap law was changed so what would have been illegal to do a couple of years ago is now legal for an administration. I don't think it's right but it is now legal.
How am I partisan? I'm for wiretapping Islamic terrorists. I don't care who is President.
You on the other hand believed it to be unconstitutional, and as the story points out Obama has went beyond the scope of the law that you are referring to.
In my opinion if there is an imminent threat the President doesn't need to wait on a court order to authorize a wiretap.
Matter-eater Man argumentative User Fair Play! 6000+ posts 7 minutes 33 seconds ago Making a new reply Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Re: Obama does the (wire)tap dance
Your just acting stupidly partisan now. The wiretap law was changed so what would have been illegal to do a couple of years ago is now legal...
Talk about "stupidly partisan." Sometimes you're so transparent that I feel nothing but pity for you.
As others have pointed out you didn't just think there was a technicality in the law that Bush failed to comply with. You thought the whole program was unconstitutional. Congress can't pass a law to make the unconstitutional legal, only a constitutional amendment can do that.
Therefore, you once again did a complete 180 as soon as we started talking about a Democrat.
Seriously. Get help. This is bordering on mental illness on your part now.
Your just acting stupidly partisan now. The wiretap law was changed so what would have been illegal to do a couple of years ago is now legal...
Talk about "stupidly partisan." Sometimes you're so fucking transparent that I feel nothing but pity for you.
As others have pointed out you didn't just think there was a technicality in the law that Bush failed to comply with. You thought the whole program was unconstitutional. Congress can't pass a law to make the unconstitutional legal, only a constitutional amendment can do that.
Therefore, you once again did a complete 180 as soon as we started talking about a Democrat.
Seriously. Get help. This is bordering on mental illness on your part now.
I still thinks it's unconstitutional and that Obama is wrong doing it. You seem to be looking for a gotcha ignoring the parts where I said I didn't agree with Obama and that my position hasn't changed.
You think it's "unconstitutional" but "legal" when Obama does it. We get it.
There were changes to the law that made what Bush was doing legal as well G-man. If you've done any reading on them and have a different opinion please do share.
