Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

Better Believe It

(18,630 posts)
Sat Feb 18, 2012, 02:58 PM Feb 2012

Obama Administration Asks Supreme Court to Dismiss ACLU Challenge to Warrantless Wiretapping Law! [View all]



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 17, 2012
Obama Administration Asks Supreme Court to Dismiss ACLU Challenge to Warrantless Wiretapping Law
ACLU Argues Dragnet Surveillance of Americans Is Unconstitutional


NEW YORK - February 17 - The government today asked the Supreme Court to overturn an appeals court ruling that allowed the American Civil Liberties Union to challenge the constitutionality of a law that gives the government unprecedented authority to monitor international emails and phone calls by Americans.

At issue is an appeals court ruling that allowed the ACLU’s case to move forward. It rebuffed Obama administration arguments that the case should be dismissed because the ACLU’s clients cannot prove their communications will be collected under the law, known as the FISA Amendments Act. The ACLU said it was disappointed by today’s request.

“The appeals court correctly ruled that our plaintiffs have standing to challenge this sweeping surveillance law, and it’s disappointing that the administration is challenging that ruling,” said Jameel Jaffer, ACLU deputy legal director. “It’s crucial that the government’s surveillance activities be subject to constitutional limits, but the administration’s argument would effectively insulate the most intrusive surveillance programs from judicial review. The Supreme Court should leave the appeals court’s ruling in place and allow our constitutional challenge to proceed.”

The ACLU filed the lawsuit in July 2008 on behalf of a broad group of attorneys and human rights, labor, legal and media organizations whose work requires them to engage in sensitive telephone and email communications with people outside the U.S. such as colleagues, clients, sources, foreign officials and victims of human rights abuses. The coalition includes Amnesty International USA, Human Rights Watch, The Nation, the Service Employees International Union and journalists Chris Hedges and Naomi Klein. The Justice Department claims that the plaintiffs should not be able to sue without first showing that they have, in fact, been monitored under the program – information that the government refuses to provide.

In March 2011, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs do, in fact, have the right to challenge the constitutionality of the law. In September, the full Second Circuit rejected the government’s request for reconsideration of that ruling.

“The FISA Amendments Act is the most sweeping surveillance statute ever enacted by Congress. It allows dragnet surveillance of Americans’ international communications with none of the safeguards that the Constitution requires. This kind of law should not be shielded from judicial scrutiny,” said Alex Abdo, staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project.

Little is known about how the FISA Amendments Act has been used. In response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU, the government revealed that every six-month review of the Act had identified “compliance incidents,” suggesting either an inability or an unwillingness to properly safeguard Americans’ privacy rights. The government has withheld the details of those “compliance incidents,” however, including statistics relating to abuses of the Act.

The Act is scheduled to sunset in December 2012. The ACLU is calling for amendments that would limit surveillance to suspected terrorists and criminals, require the government to be more transparent about how the law is being used and place stronger restrictions on the retention and dissemination of information that is collected.

Attorneys on the lawsuit challenging the FISA Amendments Act are Jaffer and Abdo of the ACLU; Christopher Dunn and Melissa Goodman of the New York Civil Liberties Union; and Charles S. Sims, Theodore K. Cheng and Matthew J. Morris of Proskauer Rose LLP.

More information on the ACLU’s lawsuit challenging the law:
www.aclu.org/national-security/amnesty-et-al-v-clapper

More information on the ACLU’s FOIA lawsuit:
www.aclu.org/fixFISA

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2012/02/17-1
50 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If we had been allowed to "look back" in 2008, this would have all been annabanana Feb 2012 #1
This is why you never give up your rights, not even a little bit Mojorabbit Feb 2012 #2
+1 Vincardog Feb 2012 #3
True but since our rights are surrendered for us and sometimes done so covertly TheKentuckian Feb 2012 #4
Thank you for saying woo me with science Feb 2012 #6
You are welcome as always but I hate having to say it. TheKentuckian Feb 2012 #11
+1 woo me with science Feb 2012 #10
This is why both parties are EXACTLY the same on Liberty and privacy issues Dragonfli Feb 2012 #5
It is collusion, plain and simple. woo me with science Feb 2012 #8
Heh, even Saint Dennis Kucinich voted for H. J. Res. 64 which enabled warrentless wiretapping. joshcryer Feb 2012 #16
My biggest disappointment and shock from Obama is his..... Logical Feb 2012 #7
This does not constitute 'support'. The Doctor. Feb 2012 #35
Every day there is a new one. Every day. woo me with science Feb 2012 #9
Kick. woo me with science Feb 2012 #12
Do you seek out negative Obama/Democrat articles or are they sent to you? great white snark Feb 2012 #13
Common Dreams has always been a trusted source on DU over the years. girl gone mad Feb 2012 #14
Maybe he is just looking for pro-democracy and pro-civil rights articles. AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2012 #15
Do you have an opinion on the article or would you rather engage in drive-by personal attacks? Better Believe It Feb 2012 #17
You haven't posted an opinion on the article. FSogol Feb 2012 #28
Its a real shame when posting the simple facts ... bvar22 Feb 2012 #36
Your bolded line contains a misleading attempt to bash Obama. FSogol Feb 2012 #44
Don't let people discourage you. Rex Feb 2012 #29
Do you have an opinion about this specific policy, _ed_ Feb 2012 #20
+1...nt SidDithers Feb 2012 #23
-1 ...for stalking Better Believe It L0oniX Feb 2012 #46
Yes he does treestar Feb 2012 #40
What if the ACLU lost this case? Wouldn't it then become permanent as opposed to the possibility FarLeftFist Feb 2012 #18
By a more liberal administration? Fumesucker Feb 2012 #25
Doesn't have anything to do with liberalism. That's besides the point anyway. FarLeftFist Feb 2012 #26
Yeah, the conservatives are going to come down hard against a warrantless wiretapping bill.. Fumesucker Feb 2012 #45
Maybe it's a trick? Scalia will feel dirty if he agrees with Obama Lucky Luciano Feb 2012 #19
Must be brazillion dimensional chess, woo me with science Feb 2012 #21
I thought this has been litigated during the Bush era already. BTW, the White House doesn't... Honeycombe8 Feb 2012 #22
Nothing ever has anything to do with the President. woo me with science Feb 2012 #24
Remember how everyone was upset when Bush/Cheney got Republicans hired into the DOJ.... Honeycombe8 Feb 2012 #27
What part of... bvar22 Feb 2012 #30
The part Jakes Progress Feb 2012 #31
This may shock you, but the DoJ is part of the Administration. The Doctor. Feb 2012 #39
Right and the POTUS gains nothing by simply having the DOJ roll over on the case treestar Feb 2012 #41
Everybody knows the ACLU is jampacked with troublemaking "professional leftists". Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2012 #32
Ignorance fueled Outrage. The Doctor. Feb 2012 #33
+1. Spot on. n/t FSogol Feb 2012 #34
Is that a fact? bvar22 Feb 2012 #37
Really? The Doctor. Feb 2012 #38
No. bvar22 Feb 2012 #42
Please take an advanced civics class. The Doctor. Feb 2012 #43
It is YOU who needs the class in Civics. bvar22 Feb 2012 #48
The DoJ is supposed to be independent of the White House. The Doctor. Feb 2012 #49
Don't you ever get dizzy from all the spinning? bvar22 Feb 2012 #50
They want selective justice. If a Republican didn't challenge some despotic law... joshcryer Feb 2012 #47
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Obama Administration Asks...