More on striking down NSA spy program
From the Center for Constitutional Rights' website:
On August 9, 2007, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) appeared before Federal District Judge Vaughn R. Walker to argue that the NSA's program of warrantless surveillance is unconstitutional and should be struck down. The argument in CCR v. Bush comes days after Congress and the Bush administration passed the Protect America Act of 2007 which broadly expands the government's power to spy on Americans without getting court approval.
According to attorneys, there are substantial questions about whether the new law, which is temporary and due to expire in six months, is constitutional, and they will seek permission to file additional legal papers to that effect today. The law effectively removes oversight for spying from the FISA court and leaves it up to the Executive Branch to monitor itself, with Attorney General Gonzales having the primary responsibility for oversight. For that reason, CCR attorneys will argue in court today that the new law violates the Fourth Amendment's requirement that judges approve warrants for surveillance and do so only on evidence of probable cause.
Let's hope this goes somewhere since bush and the left and right wings of the corporate party have no intention of comprehending the document they swore to uphold.
I have to admit I am pessimistic if this judge is a bush hack appointee.
C-Span taped the court argument and will play it on Saturday. AT&T is going to get sued for handing the gov't the kitchen sink in monitoring info of its customers. The gov't response, this case should be thrown out because to defend its actions would mean it would have to divulge national security secrets. The old if I tell you I'd have to kill you defense.
I for one will tivo this one.
Antillectual @ 1:
Actually I believe Judge Walker is a Carter appointee.
If anyone knows the attorneys in this suit PLEASE PLEASE have them file a motion for change of venue to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), charged with overseeing FISA. This will immediately discredit the two main attacks that the government could win upon: (1) that disclosure of any information relevant to the case to the court would cause "grave damage" to the national security of the US; (2) That the plaintiffs dont have standing to challenge the "program" in the court they are in.
Since the FISC deals with these matters every single day, both arguments evaporate.
The government is left trying to argue what they did was not illegal. And the FISC is pissed at them anyhow for all these shenanigans.
The 50 states must radify any changes to the constitution, therefore anything that congress passes or anything that the Bush cronies do or did is against the law. So why isn't the seargent of arms arresting all these dumb fucks. Even the orginal FISA court rule is against the law as the constitution says nothing about a secret court judge issuing warrents. WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NMvoiceofreason @ 3:
Perhaps you could expand on your argument: Why would a FISC ruling be better; and how do you account for the non-public proceedings. Shifting this case to FISC hardly seems better. The secrecy has been the problem; more secrecy in the Judicial proceedings hardly seems beneficial.
Congress doesn't even know what they did by approving this program.
There are two Supreme Court cases that are extremely relevant here, which are United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. and Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. The Curtiss-Wright case is the favorite case for anyone who seeks an expansion of Presidential power.
Wikipedia
The second case, Youngstown, is even more relevant. Justice jackson's decision says it all.
Wikipedia
Thanks to Congress, we're sitting firmly in Case 1.
What happened to John Boehner's treason trial for leaking about the judge objecting to boosh practices?
Comments are closed on this entry