Obama Administration Asks Supreme Court to Dismiss ACLU Challenge to Warrantless Wiretapping Law!

[Better Believe It]

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

[annabanana]

1. If we had been allowed to "look back" in 2008, this would have all been

dealt with already.

I don't care which, or whose administration gets beat on this, as long as they get beaten.

[Mojorabbit]

2. This is why you never give up your rights, not even a little bit

you never get them back.

[Vincardog]

3. +1

[TheKentuckian]

4. True but since our rights are surrendered for us and sometimes done so covertly

buried in other legislation and under the cover of lies, I tend to feel my access to my natural rights is being stolen by criminals, playing at politics in order to run the con and by politicians playing at criminality to get money and avoid negative press.

I am also angry to the point of actual hatred at those who accept and promote such theft due to partisan loyalty and now there are plenty from now both parties that fit that description and they are misguided fools, easily twisted by fear and corrupted by hate of the other that any action can be defended, including that of the opposition one adopted by their camp.

It is these folks who allow this shit to happen, if they would say these actions and policies will not stand regardless of party because they are contrary to the existence of a free people and toxic to self determination then we could hold the line or at least make it tough for the crooks to have their way and ramifications if they sneak something through.

The system has failed us and the collective "we" have failed it by trading fear for accountability.

[woo me with science]

6. Thank you for saying

what I am too enraged to articulate right now.

[TheKentuckian]

11. You are welcome as always but I hate having to say it.

[woo me with science]

10. +1

[Dragonfli]

5. This is why both parties are EXACTLY the same on Liberty and privacy issues

“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,”

Democrats are way better on contraception,
but what about FISA?
or Habeus Corpus?
or the military industrial complex?

All the big anti-freedom/anti-constitutional planks that hold up the Republican party have become Democratic planks as well.
It is now about elections to determine the social issues only, the rest appears to be agreed upon between the parties already going in, including unfortunately many of the supply side voodoo economics policies that the third way and the GOP agree upon.

Even outsourcing jobs via "free" trade deals have become an agreed upon effort by both parties.

There are many differences between the parties, but far less than there used to be.

What concerns me the most are these relentless bi-partisan attacks on the constitution.
Soon we will be free in name only, in many ways we are already there.

[woo me with science]

8. It is collusion, plain and simple.

Last edited Sat Feb 18, 2012, 11:21 PM - Edit history (4)

The corporate Dems and Republicans are united on this. All the wedge issues are just a convenient way to keep us focused on and attacking each other instead of noticing that they are working together to build a corporate-controlled, authoritarian state.

Yes, there are differences between the parties...by design. They are used continually to push us into voting for the lesser of two evils. It is so easy to get people to vote for corporatism when you own both parties and can make the other one look even worse. People need to shake the delusion that simply voting for Democrats is doing a damned thing to reverse the path we are on. At the most, it keeps a train already barreling toward corporate fascism from speeding up.

People need to wake the hell up and face reality, because until you acknowledge a problem, you cannot fix it. BOTH parties are corrupted. Change is not going to come from inside this purchased system. Voting Democratic is no longer enough. We need to Occupy Now, because they are rushing structures into place to prevent us from occupying later.

[joshcryer]

16. Heh, even Saint Dennis Kucinich voted for H. J. Res. 64 which enabled warrentless wiretapping.

One cannot also overlook the overall "Patriotism" that was present after 9/11. If Bush wanted Martial Law passed he probably would've got it.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2001-342

[Logical]

7. My biggest disappointment and shock from Obama is his.....

support of the crap Bush put into place dealing with the fucking Patriot act. Disgusting.

[The Doctor.]

35. This does not constitute 'support'.

I can't know that Obama is averse to all of these policies, but it is my opinion that he is based on a good deal of evidence. What we have here is the DoJ simply doing what it's supposed to do, just like when it fought the challenge to DADT.

As you know by now, the DoJ was not acting on Obama's 'desire', it was acting just the way it is supposed to. Just as it is now.

[woo me with science]

9. Every day there is a new one. Every day.

"What no one seemed to notice. . . was the ever widening gap. . .between the government and the people. . . And it became always wider. . . the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting, it provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway . . . (it) gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about . . .and kept us so busy with continuous changes and 'crises' and so fascinated . . . by the machinations of the 'national enemies,' without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. . .

Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted,' that unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these 'little measures'. . . must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. . . .Each act. . . is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join you in resisting somehow.

You don't want to act, or even talk, alone. . . you don't want to 'go out of your way to make trouble.' . . .But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That's the difficulty. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves, when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. . . .You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things your father. . . could never have imagined." :

From Milton Mayer, They Thought They Were Free, The Germans, 1938-45 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955)

[woo me with science]

12. Kick.

[great white snark]

13. Do you seek out negative Obama/Democrat articles or are they sent to you?

Just wondering.

[girl gone mad]

14. Common Dreams has always been a trusted source on DU over the years.

Should they be shunned now because the facts they report on might damage the cult of personality?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

15. Maybe he is just looking for pro-democracy and pro-civil rights articles.

At any time that he wants, Obama can choose to vigorously protect our civil rights.

Why should he not know that is what we want, or at least what some of us want?

[Better Believe It]

17. Do you have an opinion on the article or would you rather engage in drive-by personal attacks?

Just wondering.

This is a discussion board.

So demonstrate respect for DU'ers and other peoples opinion.

I'm listening.

[FSogol]

28. You haven't posted an opinion on the article.

You only post attack pieces. Why require others to post an opinion when you haven't?

I'll answer for you: Since your opinion would get you kicked out of here.
Disagree?

I'm listening.

[bvar22]

36. Its a real shame when posting the simple facts ...

...is viewed as an "attack".

"Obama Administration Asks Supreme Court to Dismiss ACLU Challenge to Warrantless Wiretapping Law"

Labeling the PROVABLE FACTS as an "attack" is more than just a "shame".
It is frightening.




[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[FSogol]

44. Your bolded line contains a misleading attempt to bash Obama.

The DOJ is independent from the WH. The line should read, "DOJ Asks Supreme Court to Dismiss ACLU Challenge to Warrantless Wiretapping Law." But, don't let facts get in the way of your outrage.

[Rex]

29. Don't let people discourage you.

They only want the 'good news' and call anyone that reports 'bad news' a traitor...sad, but we are at that point. Nothing surprises me anymore BBI. The same posters that are mad at you for this, would be going apeshit if this was still the GWB era or at least I would hope so.

Our plutocracy makes them mad and confuses them somewhat. Forgive them.

[_ed_]

20. Do you have an opinion about this specific policy,

or do you just reflexively defend anything Obama does?

I remember when the ACLU was an organization that had respect around DU. I guess things have changed.

[SidDithers]

23. +1...nt

Sid

[L0oniX]

46. -1 ...for stalking Better Believe It

[treestar]

40. Yes he does

And this is a another fail on the lines of "how dare the government litigate a question" outrage. The Courts will decide, so there is nothing to be afraid of, and nothing to be gained by the government just rolling over. The question can still come up again later.

These outrages simply show a failure to understand the legal system.

[FarLeftFist]

18. What if the ACLU lost this case? Wouldn't it then become permanent as opposed to the possibility

of reversing this (possibly by another administration)?

[Fumesucker]

25. By a more liberal administration?

I doubt it, as we've been told innumerable times now on DU, Obama is the mostest liberalest president what has ever been or could ever be.

[FarLeftFist]

26. Doesn't have anything to do with liberalism. That's besides the point anyway.

[Fumesucker]

45. Yeah, the conservatives are going to come down hard against a warrantless wiretapping bill..

If the liberals don't kill it no one will.

I think no one will.

[Lucky Luciano]

19. Maybe it's a trick? Scalia will feel dirty if he agrees with Obama

...and accidentally do the right thing by automatically doing something against what Obama wants.

[woo me with science]

21. Must be brazillion dimensional chess,

just like using Al Qaeda "temporarily."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002327893



Occupy now. because we can't endure much more of this. It is bipartisan now.

[Honeycombe8]

22. I thought this has been litigated during the Bush era already. BTW, the White House doesn't...

defend lawsuits, I believe. It's the Dept of Justice.

I work in the legal services business. The way it works is that when some group sues the government, it's an automatic thing, usually, to defend the lawsuit by first challenging the group's right to bring the lawsuit, which is what this OP says. That's how it is decided, through the court system, who has the right, or not, to sue a government entity about something. It's a legal thing having nothing to do with the substance of the lawsuit or whoever is President at the time.

The POTUS does not direct the DOJ.

[woo me with science]

24. Nothing ever has anything to do with the President.

I feel sorry for him. It's a shame he really doesn't know anyone in Washington at all.

[Honeycombe8]

27. Remember how everyone was upset when Bush/Cheney got Republicans hired into the DOJ....

just because of their political party? And they pressured some Republican DOJ and federal court system lawyers to file suits or persevere in suits against Democrats, when the lawyers didn't think it was warranted?

We all said at that time how wrong that was, and how illegal, since the White House is supposed to be separate and apart from the judicial system, and to hire anyone in the US, or fire them, based on political party, is against the law.

You seem to resent the facts. But they are facts. It's confusing, since the DOJ does represent the executive branch in some lawsuits, and defend the Prez in lawsuits, etc. But he is defending the office of the Presidency, not the person. The Prez may have some influence, but it's not his call to fight or not fight a lawsuit, ultimately. He has his own job to do, the DOJ has its job to do. And the repercussions of a lawsuit doesn't apply just to one Presidency, so the DOJ is free to pursue litigation without interference from others. That's my understanding, anyway.

But the DOJ AND the W.H. will defend the lawsuit on the substance, though, we know, because the W.H. started and has continued the policy, claiming it's legal. So we know it will defend that position in court. It's just that, for now, the defense based on the standing to sue is a usual thing to start with and hopefully end it before it runs into more time & money and a possible loss based on the substance.

[bvar22]

30. What part of...

"Obama Administration Asks Supreme Court to Dismiss ACLU Challenge to Warrantless Wiretapping Law"

did you not understand?




[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Jakes Progress]

31. The part

that requires a set of principles as a guide rather than a personality.

[The Doctor.]

39. This may shock you, but the DoJ is part of the Administration.

That does not mean the executive directs the DoJ.

In fact, as has already been explained to you, the DoJ is independent of the White House and for good reasons. The President cannot instruct the DoJ whether to prosecute or defend. In this case, the DoJ is automatically in the position to defend the administration and must do so regardless. It's the DoJ's job to defend the policies of the Administration. I know it's complicated, but think back to DADT. A judge threw an injunction on it, the DADT fought back, and now we know damn well that Obama was personally against a policy the DoJ was compelled to defend. If it's really that confusing, I don't know what to tell you.

This desire that so many have to vilify the President through ignorance is very tiresome.

[treestar]

41. Right and the POTUS gains nothing by simply having the DOJ roll over on the case

That just leaves an unanswered legal question out there, with possible different conclusions by various districts and circuits.

These legal case based outrages are just ridiculous. They are saying that it is better to leave the question open than for both sides to be heard before a court. It partakes of that "wish the POTUS was a dictator" mentality that says if the President just opposes a thing, it will go away forever, even if enacted into law during a previous administration.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. Everybody knows the ACLU is jampacked with troublemaking "professional leftists".

Why, it's downright unDemocratic to hold a Democratic public servant accountable! Except in a democracy.

[The Doctor.]

33. Ignorance fueled Outrage.

Please, chill the hell out and think.

It's the DoJ's job to ask the court to dismiss a suit. It doesn't matter what the challenge is, the lawyers on the other side of the challenge will always ask for a petition/charge to be dismissed. They're doing it NOT because Obama is "for" warrantless wiretaps, but because it's their JOB to fight any challenge regardless of its legitimacy.

TPTB don't want to end the program, so you can bet it will remain in place until Obama's second term.

Then we'll just have to see.

[FSogol]

34. +1. Spot on. n/t

[bvar22]

37. Is that a fact?

The DOJ automatically sides with the government against challenges every single time,
and ALWAYS petitions the Supreme Court to dismiss every single challenge every single time?

The DOJ itself NEVER challenges the Supreme Court or established law?

The DOJ NEVER just lets things drop or abstains from offering an opinion?

The DOJ NEVER joins the Challengers to a law or a decision EVER?







Then HOW do you explain THIS?

"DOJ Joins Challengers in Calling for Supreme Court Review"
http://healthcarelawsuits.org/blog/detail.php?c=2433674&t=DOJ-Joins-Challengers-in-Calling-for-Supreme-Court-Review

[The Doctor.]

38. Really?

Do you have examples of the DoJ not defending the Administration's policies?

I apologize if I was not clear enough, but I'm not talking about the DoJ showing up on 'The People's Court'.

Are you saying that in requesting this dismissal, it's not doing its job?

[bvar22]

42. No.

I am successfully contesting your assertion that it is the "JOB" of the DoJ to ask the courts to dismiss every single challenge.

The DoJ, organized under the Executive Branch (the White House), has complete freedom to ask for dismissal or not.
This is nowhere near an automatic response to every challenge, as you suggested above.

The reason WHY the DoJ asked the court to dismiss this challenge is because the Executive Branch wants to protect their power to to spy on Americans without a warrant, and also becuase they want to protect their large Corporate Telecom donors from lawsuits,
NOT because they are:
Just Doing their Job, Folks.
Nothing to see here.

There IS an appropriate time and Place for legitimate OUTRAGE,
and THIS is one of them.

[The Doctor.]

43. Please take an advanced civics class.

This has already been explained to you. It is the DoJ's job to defend the policies of the Executive Branch.

Now accuse me of 'moving the goal posts' because it didn't occur to me that someone would not understand what I meant.

[bvar22]

48. It is YOU who needs the class in Civics.

You said:[font color=red]
"It's the DoJ's job to ask the court to dismiss a suit. It doesn't matter what the challenge is, the lawyers on the other side of the challenge will always ask for a petition/charge to be dismissed. "[/font]
This is a FALSE statement.


I supplied proof above that you attempted to discredit with unfounded snark.
Here is another example.
"AG Holder: DOJ Won’t Defend a Challenge to DOMA Brought by Members of Military.

"Attorney General Eric Holder sent House Speaker John Boehner a letter today to inform him that the Department of Justice will not defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in a challenge brought by current and former active duty members of the United States military. In the lawsuit, the litigants seek various federal benefits for their same -sex spouses — medical and dental insurance, basic housing allowances, visitation rights in military hospitals and survivor benefits."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1002&pid=329348

As shown above, the Department of Justice has discretion about WHAT they will defend,
and what they will let go,
AND the DoJ uses this discretion frequently.

Asking the Supreme Court not to hear the ACLU Challenge is NOT simply routine,
or "their job" as you would have people believe.
It clearly demonstrates an issue that is important to the Obama Administration.
They are choosing to defend what they see as their right to spy on Americans without a warrant,
and to shield the Telecoms from any consequences for violation of the 4th Amendment.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[The Doctor.]

49. The DoJ is supposed to be independent of the White House.

The DoJ DID defend DADT.

But then Obama had the DoJ stop defending it. Fine. So the ONE example we can come up with shows that Obama was on our side.

And now here we have a bunch of tantrum-throwers claiming that Obama directed the DoJ to do something it would have done anyway and without a shred of evidence to back it up.


These attempts to vilify Obama are contradicted by the reality at every turn.

So will you admit that in directing the DoJ to stop defending DADT Obama did the right thing?
Will you admit that you have no idea whether Obama directed the DoJ to defend Warrantless wiretapping?

No, of course you can't. Your desire to believe he's the bad guy won't let you.

[bvar22]

50. Don't you ever get dizzy from all the spinning?

I posted other examples above,
but ALL I need is one example to completely discredit your premise.

The DoJ has the freedom to chose ,
and White House Policy CAN be determined by what they choose to fight.
In THIS case, the White House is fighting FOR the Power to Spy on Americans without a Warrant,
and retroactive immunity for the Telecoms.

You said:

[font color=red]"These attempts to vilify Obama are contradicted by the reality at every turn.

So will you admit that in directing the DoJ to stop defending DADT Obama did the right thing?
Will you admit that you have no idea whether Obama directed the DoJ to defend Warrantless Wiretapping?

No, of course you can't. Your desire to believe he's the bad guy won't let you."

[/font]
The above is an Ad Hominem Logical Fallacy commonly used when someone loses an argument.
Your statement also contains two completely fabricated Falsehoods.
FAIL.
I have never mentioned President Obama,
and have discussed the facts and policy ONLY.
It YOU have decided that a truthful presentation of the FACTS are an attack on the President,
that is YOUR problem.



Let us apply the Bullshit Detector.

If the Bush White House was fighting for the Power to Spy On Americans without a Warrant,
and retroactive Immunity for the Telecoms,
would you be saying:
"Just doing their job folks.
Nothing to see here.
Purely routine."



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[joshcryer]

47. They want selective justice. If a Republican didn't challenge some despotic law...

...and it stood, they would be outraged.

Cronyism in the judicial branch regardless of which party is in control is a very very nasty thing.