Supreme Court Rejects ACLU Domestic Spying Case
Posted on February 19, 2008
Basically because the case had nothing to do with spying on domestic citizens, was supposed to be a secret program, and common sense the ACLU lacks. What it came down to was that none of the plaintiff’s had any standing. The ACLU feared that some of their conversations with terrorist representatives might have been listened to, however they couldn’t provide any evidence of that.
The ACLU consistently insists that programs such as the NSA wiretapping program goes against civil liberties and opposing opinions just as consistently insist that National Security depends on being able to monitor calls and contacts from the U.S. to terror groups outside the U.S to be able to protect America from further terrorist attacks.
The courts are caught in the middle and have to walk a fine line between civil liberties and protecting America because ruling against one may “step on” the other.
However, in this case it was a position from the ACLU that was full of holes and couldn’t pass muster to even be argued. The ACLU are calling it a catch 22 because the program being secret keeps them from being able to prove whether they haved been listened to. Really, I hope the government is listening in on the ACLU phone calls.
“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.â€
The Terrorist Surveillance Program no longer exists, although the administration has maintained it was legal.
The ACLU sued on behalf of itself, other lawyers, reporters and scholars, arguing that the program was illegal and that they had been forced to alter how they communicate with foreigners who were likely to have been targets of the wiretapping.
I’m just curious as to why the ACLU had to alter the way they were communicating with foreigners. When did the Constitution provide civil liberties for anyone besides American citizens? What did the ACLU need to talk to foreigners about that they were afraid of the government knowing? Nice to see the ACLU slapped down with some common sense.
Michelle Malkin says, “America 1. ACLU 0!
If the ACLU is correct, it means that the lapsing of the FISA law is no big deal. In fact, law enforcement may now have more ability to monitor terrorist activities because of the compromises included in the new law which give FISA courts much more power to oversee law-enforcement monitoring activities.
Pirate’s Cove mocks the ACLU!
Liberty Pundit sums it all up nicely.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
11 Responses to “Supreme Court Rejects ACLU Domestic Spying Case”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
These ACLU folks just go to show that some villages are missing their idiots…
The Constitution doesn’t “provide” anything for anyone. Our rights are inherent in our lives. The Constitution guards them. And, BTW, you will find very few mentions of the word “citizen” in the Constitution. You know all this.
Ah, a dose of the “if you have nothing to hide…” argument for good measure. Would you like to waive your right to due process? I’m sure it would make us all safer. C’mon, let’s all do it, so the big benevolent government can protect us better. Whaddya say?
Molby,
Ah, a dose of the “if you have nothing to hide…” argument for good measure. Would you like to waive your right to due process? I’m sure it would make us all safer. C’mon, let’s all do it, so the big benevolent government can protect us better. Whaddya say?
Yeah. Not that any ACLU attorney, like, say, Lynne Stewart, would be actively assisting terrorists against the United States.
We have no business being curious. How dare we. Right?
You’re right Panday. There are simply too many evil people running around to permit pre-9/11 privileges like probable cause and the presumption of innocence.
Just think about how many lives are lost every day because we hamstring our government by our quaint insistence on the rule of law; our protectors must have the ability to improvise as necessary!
Oh, no. You must be right here. Neither the government nor the citizenry has any right to be even remotely suspicious of an organization like the ACLU. We should perish the very idea that any of these true, dyed in the wool patriots would ever think of subverting the law to sustain their political agenda.
As the leftists say, “Hate speech isn’t free speech”. I guess suspicious speech isn’t either. I am thoroughly abashed.
But Panday, that’s the genius of your plan: if there’s no law, they can’t possibly subvert it! We’ll just elect all the guys with white hats and trust them to round up all the bad guys!
All satire aside, go right ahead and be suspicious of everyone. That’s totally fine by me. Just make sure you do it within the confines of the 4th amendment.
The court made the right decision and the ACLU needs to stop taking the side of terrorists and fighting against keeping America safe.
Molby,
According to the Supreme Court, the government was working within the 4th Amendment…. and the ACLU can go piss up a rope.
The ACLU was representing American citizens located within the territorial boundaries of the United States who believed that based on what the Unitary Executive had admitted to the date of filing that one or more of them had had their conversations with individuals overseas (US or non-US) illegally intercepted by the government without a warrant. Not terrorists. Or even terrorist enablers. Just regular Americans trying to do their jobs.
The Unitary Executive declared that the program was secret, even though it had admitted its existence and the broad details of how it operated. It lied, again. And because the Judiciary typically give deference to the Executive Branch, even this Unitary Executive was able to say one thing, while doing another, and get the decision it wanted / needed.
Thus, a majority of the court decided the plaintiffs didn’t have standing. No decision was made on the legality of the purported actions being complained of.
if you don’t like the 4th Amendment, or any other Amendment to the US Constitution, change it or go somewhere else. Me, I’m tired of y’all dragging us through the gutter of anything goes so long as I feel safe (forgot whether or not anything this administration has done has even made us safe).
po,
It’s not about changing any amendment. One doesn’t have to if the right SCOTUS decision comes down.
If SCOTUS says something is constitutional, then it’s constitutional, and it doesn’t matter what you think.
Like po said, the court has not ruled on the merits of this case or any similar to it. It has simply ruled that the plaintiffs lack standing, which is true because the administration has locked away all of the information that would be necessary to determine who does and does not have standing. Permitting it to do so completely eliminates the court’s ability to act as a check on the executive. Not good, even if you happen to like the short term result.
And there you have it: the “living document” theory is alive and well on both sides of the aisle.
The surest path to hell on earth is the idea that you can leave the language intact, yet change the underlying definitions. There will always be new cases that test the limits of any given provision, but it is our responsibility, through the legislature, to clarify the language when SCOTUS gets it wrong. That is why it matters what we think.