Supreme Court to ACLU: “Fall Back”

The Supreme Court refused to hear the American Civil Liberties Union’s challenge to the NSA’s warrantless wiretap program.  As anticipated, the Courts continued with their previous position that the ACLU’s suit had legs that wouldn’t walk because the plaintiffs (the ACLU, other lawyers, scholars, and reporters) could not prove that they had been wiretapped by the NSA. 

“It’s very disturbing that the president’s actions will go unremarked
upon by the court,” said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU’s national
security project. “In our view, it shouldn’t be left to executive
branch officials alone to determine the limits.”

The ACLU clearly points out that the situations is a catch-22.  On the one hand, the Court makes it plain that a person would need firm proof that they were being surveilled without a warrant, yet this very information protected from public knowledge because of the carte blanch powers relinquished to Bush through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.  The activity is said to be part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which no longer exists.

For some reason, it’s not easy to find articles covering this topic.  Here’s one.
Read the ACLU’s Press Release.

Powered by ScribeFire.


~ by Anayah on February 19, 2008.

2 Responses to “Supreme Court to ACLU: “Fall Back””

  1. LOL “For some reason, it’s not easy to find articles covering this topic.” I wonder why….

    At the end of the day, the Executive branch of the US government still has unquestioned power and authority even over “autonomous” bodies such as the Supreme Court (afterall, who appoint the judges? exactly.)so the wiretapping program will go on. On one hand, I’m pretty offended that FISA gives the US a blank check as to the expenses and reach of their surveillance program, but on the other hand, I want to be assured that the US is doing whatever they need to do to keep tabs on the country’s security. Hmph…

    On a sidenote, Obama always seems to bring up the notion that under his leadership, the US gov’t will be “transparent” and I just need to know: (1) Is this an accurate statement…will we seriously know whats going on in the belly of the beast? (2) Should gov’t be transparent? I mean, in most US security cases general American ignorance continues the bliss that is being American.

    Food for thought…
    // TCS

  2. you’re on it tcs!
    even though i see the stats and know that i have consistent readers, nothing beats the exchange we can have through comments.

    i obviously agree with your first point about how shameful it is that this act allows government unquestioned access to information. this unchecked authority doesn’t, however, make me feel any more secure. i try not to be too naive about the reach of fundamentalist – islamic, christian, or otherwise. but, i know that my family, friends, and i are more likely to be assaulted, murdered, or otherwise negatively affected by the affects of poverty and racism than terrorism from abroad. so, i tend not to seek assurance in any of this anti-terrorism legislation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: