SCOTUS Rejects Warrantless Wiretapping Case
By Nicole Belle Monday Feb 18, 2008 3:28pm
The Supreme Court turned down Tuesday a request to take up a challenge to the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping program, adding to the Administration's string of legal victories in challenges to the controversial, five-year-long program.
The ACLU, representing lawyers, journalists and Muslim groups, challenged the program in 2006, arguing that the warrantless spying on international communications violated the Fourth Amendment and put a chill on the free speech of journalists.
The suit started in a Detroit federal court room, where in 2006 Judge Anna Diggs Taylor issued an injunction against the spying, which she found to be unconstitutional.
In July 2007, the Sixth Circuit reversed that decision simply on the issue of standing -- in layman's terms, having the right to sue. The court found that the plaintiffs couldn't prove they were spied on, so therefore could not sue.
In October, the ACLU asked the Supreme Court to review that 2-1 decision, which it called a Catch-22.
However, the Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear the case, effectively blessing the appeals court decision.
It's a little difficult to prove you're an injured party (in this case, that you've been spied upon) if the government won't release the information, isn't it? Here's the appeal filed by the ACLU (.pdf) Christy @ FireDogLake:
Ultimately, it looks as though SCOTUS found the standing argument compelling enough here not to delve more deeply into the issues involved which, sadly, is not at all a surprise considering this particular court's record on national security cases.
This decision does not, however, negate the pending case(s) in San Francisco in which the EFF and ACLU, among others, represent the interests of plaintiffs who discovered their phones had been monitored through whistleblower information that the government inadvertently produced in discovery -- those cases are ongoing.
[..] John Dean had a fantastic discussion of "state secrets" and why it shouldn't be used to cloak potential wrongdoing in this case.
And Glenn Greenwald doesn't spare anyone:
That's exactly how our country operates now. When high political officials here are accused of breaking the law, they need not defend themselves. Congress acts to protect and immunize them. The courts refuse even to hear the lawsuits. And executive branch officials are completely shielded from the most basic mechanics of the rule of law.
Login or Register to post comments.
Sieg Heiliburton!
We will see how this changes under a Democratic regime...
Don't need no stinking immunity if you can't ever get the cases in court!
This brought to you by Bushco (JR and SR)
Time to force the telecoms to let us eavesdrop on the Bushies.
If anybody needs another reason for making sure repugs don't get into the whitehouse for 4 more years, this is it. Dems better get their shit together or we are all screwed. I now don't care if its Hillary or Obama, just pull together and beat these facist pigs.
Why have a Supreme Court anymore? Why have a Congress anymore? The Founding Fathers set up three branches of government with the expressed purpose to prevent or at least contain abuses of power.Both branches are now rubber stamps for the Monarchy. My country is Gone.
This is the New World Order Bush I crowed about, the Total Information Awareness society.
George Orwell is rolling in his grave.
Phillip @ 2:
In won't change unless a conservative justice croaks or quits.
Phillip @ 2:
What the fuck-please tell me-will change with Dems 'in power'? Give it back? Right.
David Hawes @ 7:
Its not gone yet, but we are on the edge. If people set their differances aside and vote in mass to try and change this drift to facism, then the country is gone.
Joementum @ 9:
Or 2 more justices are added - it's possible.
[Deleted. Off topic. Same as yesterday. Find an open thread, please. Site Monitor]
Goodbye Rule of Law in the U.S. of A. Government soooo secret that they can't show you why you being spied on or even what charges are filed against you and you might be swept off the streets to some foreign country for "interogation". Goodbye Land of The Free, at least until 01-20-09 when hopefully the Democrats can place another progressive Judge to the Courts and even up the score.
Until then, it's Status-Quo for the next 340 odd days.
Meanwhile the POTUS goes on spouting gibberish about the Economy being in trouble not because of his 15 Billion dollar a month war, but because the building industry built too many homes. Yes American People, it's all YOUR fault that the U.S. is in such bad shape, not bush, not the boy genius, the man of dog (sic), whom god himself spoke into his ear and told him he needed to Smite Saddam.
Voting for any of the candidates for prez will not change a fucking thing. Voting back in The Crooks and Liars on capitol hill will change Nothing. This place is fucked and We all know it
This is a loss, in a sense, but it's less of a loss than if the Court had taken the case and ruled in the Administration's favor (which you know they would have). The issue could conceivably come before the Court again if a suitable plaintiff is found.
Rusty Shackleford @ 16:
So ... the glass is 1/3 full?
You make a good point though, they skirted around having to actually show they are Traitors to America and just decide not to even look at the complaints.
David Hawes @ 15:
Speak for yourself, not the rest of us. Do I think things will change overnight? Hell no, put we can make a step away from the abyss. Giving up is just what the facists want.
Should have been. but we can make a step away from the abyss.
Cheney learned this when he did not want Nixon to resign.
Open up the prisons.
I think I could be a Supreme Court Justice.
I could totally handle not having to examine cases nor having to actually make rulings. I'd be perfect for the job.
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
>When high political officials here are accused of breaking the >law, they need not defend themselves. Congress acts to >protect and immunize them. The courts refuse even to hear the >lawsuits. And executive branch officials are completely shielded >from the most basic mechanics of the rule of law.
Wasn't that the MO of the Soviet Union? Didn't we want to destroy the good old USSR for behavior like that?
Looks like the Founding Fathers were right; Somewhere along the line you have to destroy your own government.
Sounds ok to me. I approve.
This form of governmet failed in the end; BUT we are getting closer to putting together a government FOR the people and not in the end government FOR the civil servants called elected officials. Supreme Court needs to be reformed as well.
diamondmc @ 18:
Agreed. I don't want McCain making any appointments to the court.
How can they legally do that? They should have to justify their actions. They are public employees, I don't care who appointed them or what their qualifications are, this is just plain wrong.
The Supreme Court will not judge the illegal activities of the administration they selected for us. This is not going to happen.
I keep wondering how American citizens who "allegedly" passed off classified intelligence having to do with Iran (the Aipac/Rosen/ espionage case that the MSM will not report about) who were wiretapped would be effected in the FISA challenge. Also those "allegedly" wiretapped by the F.B.I (Marc Grossman) in the alleged sales of classified U.S. nuclear technology to Turkey, Pakistan and Israel.
Hells bells I want "alleged" traitors like this wiretapped. I don't care if they are Americans tape their phone calls.
David Hawes@15: If you believe what you say, you have three choices. 1. Work to change the direction the system is going. 2. Sit out, don't vote and do nothing. 3. Take up arms. I suspect you will sit in your basement and tell the rest of us how fucked we are.
diamondmc @ 27:
Military coup? Hahahaha.....sorry....I thought I'd add a 4th option but forgot, the military is kinda busy Splurgin'.
At what point do we say we've had enough and throw them out? And if that point comes, do you think we can win?
It's not time to start a revolution, but it's time to start asking questions (form an exploratory committee, if you will).
Joementum @ 24:
HOPE is My favorite word. BUT 'not Giving up'means I have something left to lose. The president (whichever one) has dictatorial powers granted in law from Congress. What politician is gonna give That back? The elections are rigged,the Media is in bed with whoever is in power via The Coperatocracy.We are trillions in debt to a 'communist 'country. Is there something these weasels haven't stolen from Me? I have nothing but My dignity left.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5704
Sibel Edmonds' Charges of Nuclear Treason Crack the U.S. Mainstream Media
If the F.B.I and C.I.A were wiretapping Marc Grossman or any other American who 'allegedly" was undermining U.S. National Security via sale of classified intelligence. Wiretap them and nail their asses.
ConcernedCanuck @ 28:
Good one.
Blue Lensman @ 12:
Even if we don't always get the decisions we want, it only takes 4 justices to agree to hear a case to commit the entire Supreme Court Panel.
In this case, perhaps only 1 or 2 justices would've meant the case would be heard.
diamondmc @ 27:
I don't have a basement.I live in Florida. I'll leave it to You wiz kids to clean up the mess. Good Luck.
and that is why bush stacked the court....not to overturn roe but to cover for this criminal government
David Hawes @ 15:
David Hawes @ 15:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N7F1HZBfBU
No, in a civil suit it's not merely enough to prove the defendant broke the law. First and foremost, the plaintiff has to provide evidence they were actually harmed. If a plaintiff had actually been harmed by the illegal spying, surely they would know and be able to provide evidence of it, even if it's a simple distress claim. Only after that's been established and accepted by the court does the case proceed to a judgment as to what proportion of the injury was caused by the defendant. Maybe a lawyer reading this thread can express it in proper legalese, but this is the gist of it.
David Hawes @ 30:
Give up and you will loose that to. But what the heck, cry me a river.
If O'Connor was still there instead of Alito, I'm sure they would have gotten four votes to grant cert.
Even if Obama/Hillary wins, SCOTUS is so Bushed-up that it will be a decade before our civil liberties can start to come back to us.
David Hawes @ 30:
Got a link to back up that claim?
diamondmc @ 18:
You bet things are fucked. Our nation just created a situation in Iraq where a genocide could take place. Feith, Bolton, Cheney, Ledeen, Perle, Wolfowitz were well aware of all of the ethnic and sectarian tensions. They knew if they did not send in enough troops, did not protect Iraqi National treasures pulled the Iraqi army out, disenfranchising thousands of soldiers in Iraq, sent in private contractors that would inflame the situation in Iraq that a genocide would take place. These were techniques used in Sabra and Shatilla and throughout history. Create a situation where these ethnic tensions would explode and the Bush administration and the Office of Special Plans did just that in Iraq.
Millions of Iraqi people have lost their lives are a direct consequence of our illegal invasion of that country. We are responsible for this genocide.You bet we are fucked! But the problem is that most Americans have their pedals to the metal with their heads in the clouds and could give a rats ass.
Our nation is morally and spiritually bankrupt and the whole world knows it!
Kathleen @ 31:
This Sibel Edmonds affair is intriguing alright, but why won't Bill Moyers touch the story?
diamondmc @6 says:
"If anybody needs another reason for making sure repugs don’t get into the whitehouse for 4 more years, this is it. Dems better get their shit together or we are all screwed. I now don’t care if its Hillary or Obama, just pull together and beat these fascist pigs."
Memo to diamondmc:
Ever hear that old adage, "A case of the pot calling the kettle black???"
The facts are quite obvious to the entire world that the individuals you mentioned, Hillary and Obama, have been "going along to get along" with these "fascist pigs" for years!
Have you heard Hillary or Obama railing against our use of depleted uranium munitions in Iraq? Have you heard Hillary or Obama complaining that our civil liberties have been systematically legislated away since 9/11? Any complaining about the unconstitutionality of The Patriot Act, The Military Commissions Act, The Homegrown Terrorism Act, the use of waterboarding and other forms of torture or spying against the American people???
I just read that the U.S. is now doing pre-emptive strikes in Pakistan!!! Iraq and Afghanistan aren't enough for us. As I recall, Obama mentioned in one of the debates that he would consider using pre-emptive military strikes against AQ targets inside Pakistan....even without the consent of the Pakistan government.
Good God.
GoodScout @ 39:
Didn't Bill Clinton get rid of a bunch of judges after he was swore in, and replaced them with his own?
"That’s exactly how our country operates now. When high political officials here are accused of breaking the law, they need not defend themselves. Congress acts to protect and immunize them."
WHY does he feel the need to exaggerate? Congress acted to immunize high government officials? Really?
What the hell is he talking about? Apparently he thinks that the Senate Intelligence Committee is "Congress."
Nevermind that the House refused. Nevermind that 1/3 of the Senate refused. The hyperbole from GG just keeps on rolling.
peaceful easy feeling @ 42:
good question. go to his site and ask
Bangkok Bob @ 17:
I prefer to think of the glass as 2/3 empty.
It very much reminds me of the famous words of one Richard M Nixon. "If the president does it, that very fact, means it is not illegal".
ConcernedCanuck @ 44:
What makes you think that a President can "get rid" of judges?
Presidents hire U.S. Attorneys -- they do not select or remove judges (which requires impeachment).
Kathleen @ 41:
And your point is what? We should be like Hawes@15 and just stay home and give up, or do we try and change the way we are going? Just asking.
ConcernedCanuck @ 25:
Every year the Supreme Court receives hundreds (maybe thousands) of petitions for certiorari (that is, people asking for review of lower court decisions). The Court simply cannot review every case, so most of the petitions are denied, and most of the time no reason is given - as happened here.
diamondmc @ 50:
Kathleen @ 41:
We're in good company, then. Why select this country as your poster child for human immorality? Name the pure countries.
The ILLEGAL invasion of Iraq, and the ILLEGAL things which were and are being done there, are (ahem) illegal. The collapse of justice is not because of public spiritual bankruptcy, as you would know if you were one of the ardent protesters I hang out with. Public inaction is mainly a result of propaganda -- and even with the propaganda the R party which supported these crimes is heading for the toilet at a high rate of speed. Why do you suppose that is? Spiritual bankruptcy? H'yeah, of the R party.
diamondmc @ 50:
I have been obsessed with trying for 35 years. (since I was 20 and am now 55) I marched, lobbied, wrote , made phone calls etc etc. as did millions of Americans before the invasion of Iraq. To what purpose I ask. I have come to accept that the bulk of Americans do not give a fuck..flat out do not give a flying fuck. This is a racist war based on Israel and oil and I am coming closer and closer to accepting that most Americans could care less about other peoples lives. That is my point and you know it.
And yes I may give up
diamondmc @ 50:
http://www.strike-the-root.com/81/stevens/stevens1.html
Without the courts...there is no democracy.
Fascism must end here and now.
My grandfather and his generation fought against this evil, and now that those same heroes are passing it springs up in our own land.
Even on his deathbed he saw this to be true, calling Bush 'Hitler jr.'
Remember history and honor our military heroes by standing against this threat to the world.
Impeach and put these tyrants on trial for crimes against humanity.
I know how much Georgie loves his electric chair- lets give him the full tour, for the sake of us all.
Kathleen @ 54:
The facist rightwing repugs will love ya.
Kathleen @ 41:
Sadly, I must agree.
Seymour Hersh on the bombing of Syria. Even Seymour says not "many people care"
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021408A.shtml
Kathleen @ 46:
Good idea. Done. :)
diamondmc @ 58:
Those "fascist rightwing thugs" are not Repubs they are neo theo oil cons Israeli firster zealots. The "real" Republicans are terrified by these crazy psychopaths
Kathleen @ 54:
Please spread the defeatism of your analysis to as many people as possible. Make all your efforts a JOKE.
I don't regret a single moment of my forty years of protesting, ongoing. If you thought this was the easy citizenship, you got rooked. We have to work our asses off in the cause of freedom today, last week, and over many decades. My father's entire band of brothers and cousins went to WAR against fascism, and guess what? So did their nephew, and so will their grandchildren and so on. And I could not be more proud of those of us who heed that patriotic call to duty.
As for what it accomplishes, our protest work has helped stop a fascist takeover in part by strengthening free speech. We have mostly dismantled their completely illegal voting system, and we have mostly outed their crimes using the blogs. These are excellent accomplishments, and it is only because you underrate the scope and power of the military industrial complex that you feel your efforts are futile.
We're going to pick up 40 seats in the House and five in the Senate. This is an election year. Rather than spread despair, why not clear YOURSELF out of the way and go back to work fighting for change? It's not about you, as you should know.
Kathleen @ 62:
Oh I see now, its a Jewish thing again.
Kathleen @ 62:
Bushco is NOT "israeli firster zealots." They are neither concerned for Israel, nor religious zealots. They are corporatist leaders installed by coup, with a war plan they decided undemocratically to foist on us for their warmongering profit and the chance at the Caspian gold ring. It has ZERO to do with Israel, and everything to do with Saudi Arabia and MONEY.
Kathleen @ 54:
I know how you feel we are of similar ages and background politically, every once in a while it all becomes so overwhelming, my outrage bucket is full, it can't hold any more and then there is a new outrage. I wonder sometimes if I just wouldn't be happier if I didn't pay attention, if I didn't know what was going on. But I can't help myself. I have to read and protest and call and write and fight for all I am worth.
Paul in LA @ 63:
And while we may win seats in the Senate (remember the Democrats are as responsible for taking our nation into Iraq as the Republicans). Millions of Iraqi women men and children are dead...dead due to our invasion we do not know how many are injured and there are 4 million Iraqi refugees. Sorry to bust your bubble with a reality check! You may be tickled pink about Senate seats. I want to witness those responsible for lying our nation into an illegal and immoral war held accountable. That will be my focus for as long as I stay in this country.
diamondmc @ 64:
No it's an Israeli oil, theo con thing.
Kathleen@62: Another thing. If 'real' Repugs are terrified by these psychopaths, Why did they vote twice for them then? Must be something in the water.
Kathleen @ 60:
Sy Hersh is an ECONOMIST. His opinion of how many people care is not equivalent to a fact. Most economists are accustomed to thinking of people statistically -- but one Martin Luther King Jr. can change history.
Any of us could be the agent of change. It does not and has never required everyone or even most people to lead. Real leadership is not a numbers game.
Kathleen @ 68:
Wrong. It's a American oil, theo con repug thing.
Kathleen @ 68:
Find a 'theo con' in Bushco. Other than say Wolfowitz, most of them have zero religious impulse or activity. Cheney hasn't been to church in his lifetime, except to spit in the holy water. Boy Wonder himself is FAR too lazy to have anything to do with religion.
If you want to see theocrats, there are plenty to point at. These bastards are not in their league -- they do what they do for PROFIT, not because they are delusional about religion.
Kathleen @ 67:
That's a LIE. I don't spend time 'remembering' lies.
Paul in LA @ 65:
It has a great deal to do with Israel. Go spend some time at the Aipac website( which I have been doing for years) Go watch what they are lobbying and pushing for. They have been focused on Iran the minute after we invaded Iraq.
U.S. checking possibility of pumping oil from northern Iraq to Haifa, via Jordan
The Kurdish Pipeline
http://www.lookingglassnews.org/printerfriendly.php?storyid=4766
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=332835&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
Go spend some time at Muzzlewatch
http://www.muzzlewatch.com/
Kathleen @ 67:
I love that. PLEASE FLEE. Run away from the RESPONSIBILITY.
I have not yet begun to fight, in the parlance.
It remains true: "If you want peace, fight for justice."
On that count we agree. Your suggestion that you fight for justice and then flee is HILARIOUS. You fight for justice, and then one day it comes.
Paul in LA @ 72:
Lieberman
Watch the focus of Aipac and you will learn a great deal
They have been focused on Iran for the last five years. They are focused on lobbying for sanctions against Iran and for a long time were pushing for a pre-emptive strike on Iran.
http://www.aipac.org/
Kathleen @ 74:
That does not make Bushco a Zionist plot. Removing Iran as an obstacle is key to accessing the Caspian sea oil wealth. Setting up airbases in Iraq is key to that effort.
The rightwing sluts in Israel are being sold a pound of maggoty mutton by oil men who could not care less if Israel disappears into an explosive cloud, which is why they did NOTHING to guard Iraq's dangerous materiel. They DON'T CARE ABOUT ISRAEL, they want the money.
Kathleen @ 76:
Great, you found one, who is not a member of Bushco, but rather another delusional Zionist who THINKS, against logic, that killing Arabs is the path to their dream.
Paul in LA @ 49:
If the Prez doesn't "select" the judge, how pray tell does he get on the SCOTUS? Levitation?
Paul in LA @ 75:
Do you ever tire of flaming and trolling???
Kathleen @ 76:
Why isn't it a Saudi thing?
ConcernedCanuck @ 80:
Confirmation in the Senate.
Kathleen @ 54:
Sadly, you probably are pretty much close to the truth. You see a little despair for the Iraqis, but most of what you hear is "support the troops" and "elect the Dems"....they pay no attention to a Dem Prez the bombed the shit out of the same country on a daily basis softening them up for the inevitable invasion. Guess some people don't know military tactics when they see them.
ConcernedCanuck @ 80:
The president nominates people for federal judgeships, who must be confirmed by the Senate. Removal of a federal judge requires impeachment.
CC, Bill Clinton replaced U.S. Attorneys, not judges. U.S. Attorneys work for the Justice Department. Most presidents replace at least a few of their U.S. Attorneys upon taking office.
Paul in LA @ 73:
Lie’s were told about WMD’s in Iraq and are being told about an “alleged” nuclear weapons program in Iran.(hope you share your wrath with those who lied our nation into this war) Wolfowitz and the rest
I am certainly inaccurate in that 23 Senators voted against the 2002 Iraq war resolutio. 21 were Democrats 1 was a Republican (Lincoln Chaffee) and one was an Independent.
http://www.senate.gov/legislat…..vote=00237
Kathleen @ 86:
OK, so 40% of the Senate Dems remained loyal to the nation, as did 60% of House Dems. Compare to a complete laydown by Republicans.
So your claim that Dems are just as guilty is false.
2002 Senate vote
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
Rusty Shackleford @ 85:
I stand corrected. Thank you. Guess then you guys are stuck with these judges that will not see cases and won't say why. Unbelievable.
Kathleen @ 86:
It's not an 'alleged' weapons program in Iran. We know they are or have been working on weapons, it's not just a civilian energy program. What is false is that they intend to destroy themselves for religion or out of hostility to Israel.
tonight on Frontline
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/haditha/
Rules of Engagement
The inside story of what happened in Haditha, Iraq, where 24 Iraqis were killed by U.S. forces. Many in the media branded it "Iraq's My Lai."
----------------------------------------------------
Have audio taped several young soldiers who have been back to Iraq three and four times. They have said there is more of this indiscriminate killing than most Americans want to think about and soldiers (who are obviously under a great deal of pressure) want to talk about.
ConcernedCanuck @ 89:
The SCOTUS commonly refuses to take up cases when they can deny standing. That's nothing new.
Three of the justices (Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy) are impeachable any time we have enough votes for impeachment.
Your attempt to attack Clinton failed.
Remember when the Mob used to have their cases thrown out because the only witnesses kept disappearing? No Witness=No Evidence= No Problem. I wonder what happened to that phenomenon? /snark
Paul in LA @ 90:
You are so full of ..it.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18636.htm
No Evidence Iran Building Nuclear Weapons : Mohamed ElBaradei
By The Associated Press
http://www.truthnews.us/?p=533
No evidence Iran is making nukes: ElBaradei
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22664498-5005961,00.html
Kathleen:
I've got your back on the whole "Israeli" (NOT Jewish!) quagmire.
You may or may not be aware of the one of the biggest "false flag" operations that ever happened: The attack of the USS Liberty in 1967 by Israel. With the full knowledge of Lyndon Johnson. Israeli defense forces bombed the Liberty for over two hours on June 9, 1967 then tried torpedoing it when it would not sink. Almost the entire crew were killed and many were wounded. The covert op was called, "Operation Cyanide" and its purpose was to create an "incident" where the American people would be so outraged that they would demand war against....Egypt. Only problem is that it was Israel who clearly attacked the Liberty longer than the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.
Can you imagine the U.S. and Israel being in cahoots to kill hundreds of American soldiers ("support the troops!") in order to drum up support for a war to take over the entire Middle East and that might potentially have brought in the Soviet Union?
We actually had fighter jets airborne with nuclear weapons on their way to nuke Cairo when they were called back at the last moment.
And do you suppose there was ever any investigation into this? No. This BBC documentary I am linking here interviews many of the survivors from that day who have been BEGGING for a full investigation for YEARS!!! Even good ol' Mac told them to go F themselves (being a good Navy man and all). How many ways can you spell T-R-E-A-S-O-N???
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cAxk7Y_pTkw
And here's a little more "back-up" information:
http://ussliberty.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/post-attack-rescue-june-9-1967/
BTW, no mention of this from Obama or Hillary either. No mention of the Sibel Edmonds case either. "State Secrets Privilege". Sssssshhhhhhh...................
Kathleen @ 91:
Genocide is based on indiscriminate killing (and destruction of culture). This is genocide, not just war, and no, it isn't news to me that American soldiers have been degraded by a C-in-C who hates their guts, or the Pentagon that stood by on Nine-eleven, apparently applauding.
koko @ 21:
And if you were a justice in the mold of a John Roberts, Scalia, or Alito you would automatically rule in favor of the government and corporations in each case.
Kathleen @ 94:
No evidence they ARE building, but they WERE building until 2003, and Bushco has been HELPING THEM.
Put the two and two together on Sibel Edmonds, and on the publication of Hussein's Arabic nuclear weapons plans on the internet for six months, and on the cozening of Pakistan. Because you blame the Jews/Israel, you are ignoring the nuclearization of the Muslim world, which A.G. Khan and some of the biggest traitors in world history have been doing.
Scott Ritter's Primer on Iran
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20080115_scott_ritters_iran_101_pri...
Scott Ritter on the NIE report on Iran
http://www.truthdig.com/podcast/item/20071204_scott_ritter_on_the_nie_re...
The only saving grace of this is the Supreme Court left it open so the case could be retried if a whistleblower within the government or one of the telecoms comes forward with information. Other than that, these cases are DOA.
Abbybwood @ 95:
Sure. Under what President?
Paul in LA @ 98:
Scott Ritter and many others have stated that there is no "hard evidence" that Iran had ever had a nuclear weapons program. Where is the evidence Mr. L.A.? Where is that evidence.
Hopefully not from Micheal ledeen, Dick Cheney, John Hannah, Rhode, John Bolton, or Douglas Feiths sources.
Frybread @ 100:
That's incorrect. Declining to hear a case without comment does not mean those cases cannot be heard at a later date.
Kathleen @ 102:
Pakistan has nuclear weapons, correct? So does Russia. Iran is in search of a deterrent. Thinking they are not building nukes is based on what exactly? That they say they aren't?
You go ahead and believe they are angels. I don't think they're development of nukes is the end of the world; Iran is quite capable of being at least as stable a gov't as Pakistan, without any doubt.
Paul in LA @ 101:
Damn, Paul, you beat me to it!
Abbybwood, Johnson wouldn't bomb the dikes in North Vietnam, let alone nuke it when plans for both were presented. Why would he nuke Cairo when Israel(armed, mainly, at that time by France) was the aggressor in that war?
Yeah, I find the USS Liberty incident outrageous, and I have yet to hear plausible explanations for it, but you have just jumped the shark....wearing a tinfoil hat!
Ya say ya want a revolution? Sur les barricades!
I'm suppose to be surprised that the SCOTUS took this position on that case and its privacy issues, let alone the constitutional issues and questionable legalities underlying it???? After the way Bush did all he could to pack it with 'his' kind of suckup closet fascist wannabe assholes over the last seven years???? Listen folks, they will dodge this case and the ones in SF every which way they can in purpetuity.....JD
Paul in LA says:
Abbybwood @ 95:
"We actually had fighter jets airborne with nuclear weapons on their way to nuke Cairo when they were called back at the last moment.
Sure. Under what President?"
According to the BBC documentary, "Dead in the Water", it was Lyndon Johnson. You should take the time to watch it. They actually interview Helms and several others. It's worth a watch.
Dearest Andy K:
You say: "Yeah, I find the USS Liberty incident outrageous, and I have yet to hear plausible explanations for it, but you have just jumped the shark….wearing a tinfoil hat!"
Until you take the time to watch "Dead in the Water" and listen to the testimony of many U.S. Navy men who SURVIVED the attack (WHAT AN "ORDINARY" THINKING PERSON MIGHT CONSIDER TO BE PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATIONS), please do not try to "kill the messenger" by accusing me of "jumping the shark...wearing a tinfoil hat".
This is hardly the "peak" of my commenting here (unless the site monitor tells me to shut-up).
Love,
Abby
This story needs to be on the front page of every newspaper and the top story on any news station. Aside from KO, and maybe the NY Times, I doubt that we will see it anywhere. Other than getting out of Iraq immediately, I think this is the most important issue we deal with today. If all avenues are closed to check this kind of thing, it could become dangerous to post on this blog, or talk negatively about the government.
Its not right, and it needs to be changed. The Supreme Court is supposed to be there for us when the President and the Congress are not. They were quite instrumental in the Civil Rights movement and in establishing a woman's right to choose when no other branch was. They are supposed to protect the minority, and yet it seems they have sold out to the majority...
Abbybwood @ 108:
SCROTUS!!!! Supreme Court Republicans Of The United States
Phillip @ 2:
Or will we?
paul in LA @ 73
Kathleen is correct. Paul, get off the Democrats can do no wrong kick. Wake up! Many of them gave GWB the power with their votes. Granted, they may not have realized what they were doing with their vote. Many of these same Yo-yos did the same thing with their vote on Iran. Did Senator Clinton admit that she made a mistake with her votes? How many actually read the “Patriot Act” when they voted for it? As I said to you before, you sit in LA looking to criticize. The democrats are fallible like everyone else.
sc(R)otus: "Which hand do I have it in NOW ?"
rcca @ 114 "Kathleen is correct."
No, she is overgeneralizing.
"Paul, get off the Democrats can do no wrong kick."
I have never held such a spurious belief. A majority of Democrats in the Congress voted NO on the Iraq resolution. That's a fact.
"Granted, they may not have realized what they were doing with their vote."
There is very little evidence of that. The very same DINO Senators who voted for Bushco then, vote for Bushco now. And the loyal are still loyal.
"How many actually read the “Patriot Act” when they voted for it?"
Although the public finds it hard to believe, the US Congress does NOT read the bills before voting, and has not for at least 50 years. They read summaries, prepared for them by the staff.
Trying to make D=R has been the leftist canard lo these many years. I find it suggestive, as I have for a long time, that the same logic, here via kathleen and maybe you, comes attached to defeatism and the wish to leave the country and abandon the fight.
That rhetoric, in other words, is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, as if the purpose was to reduce the number of protesters. Why is that?
D to the Izzle @ 112:
Or the ....... Supreme Court Republicans Of The United Moneybags?
I was delighted to see My comment get so much discussion. And My thanks to Kathleen for a spirited stand. .....While My comments were emotional,My views still stand based on 55 years on This planet. The country I grew up in is Gone. And I mean politically, and the culture of politics not some mooning for 'the good old days'. As I stated in My original comment the three branches of government have been subverted into what is now a Monarchy. The 'media' which was a tool for the people to hold those in power accountable has Now become a tool of The State. This country has become the New Soviet Union . With a nazi twist for good measure. While I appreciate those who condemn My 'giving up',I am just pointing out The Obvious. You can bang a brick wall only so long until either You get a headache OR have no remaining head. I have decided on keeping my head for the remaining years it can serve me.
Phillip @ 2:
Meaning it won't?
David Hawes @ 118:
Defeatism apparently finds many ways to be proud.
Why don't you get over yourself, already?
The problem with the Supreme Court saying, "No one has standing" is that there's something else going on. Remember the NSLs, and the NSA-related contractors who were processing data for media messaging? The problem the NSA has is that these contractors have foolishly created public records asserting that there's been "illegal disclosures" of this activity. The problem is that the "disclosures" they're claiming are illegal were ones the US government, NSA personnel, NSA contractors, and telecoms themselves made.
The NSA-related litigation, which the US Supreme Court said, "No one has standing," is related to surveillance allegations. But there's no comment on the other litigation related to the NSA contractors (not telecoms) which have been involved with the NSA surveillance. The court cannot prevent counter-suits when the NSA contractors bring allegedly dubious, frivolous claims about "illegal disclosures of non-public information" when the companies themselves were the sources of those inadvertent disclosures.
Floating around are the secret settlements the NSA-related contractors' legal counsel have with the public:
- Websites have been shut down;
- Content has been deleted;
- E-mail communication passwords have been changed;
- InfraGard contractors have provided information to JTTF, local law enforcement, and the NSA.
THe government, through the NSA-affiliated contractors and legal counsel, content that the public discussion of the activity is a state secret. That's impossible on issues the US Courts have declared illegal: Domestic use of propaganda in violation of the Smith Act; the use of illegally captured information to created domestic propaganda for media messaging and public relations campaigns.
- Which of the NSA-related legal counsel have attempted to use NSL-like mechanisms to gag the public from discussing private settlements?
- Who has been induced to redact public information about alleged war crimes in exchange for the NSA-affiliated legal counsel promising not to litigate?
One challenge will be to find a foreign power that can provide this information without being charged/challenged as interfering in the domestic affairs of the US; and conversely, convincing that foreign power to disclose what they know about illegal US government activities/war crimes, and compromising that foreign powers' intelligence capabilities.
There is a solution to this. Private citizens in other countries have stepped up to the plate. Think back to the wikileaks redaction/injunction: The bank in the Cayman Islands is connected with Switzerland. It stands to reason that the concern isn't just with the bank, but the perceived risk that NSA-like data from an entity connected with the Cayman Islands could be disclosed. One such entity that would fit this bill is the NSA-related auditors who have moved off shore, and they are incorporated/HQ in similarly vulnerable locations like the Caymans.
Think also about the CIA agents providing to the EU/EC the data related to the rendition effort. Who in the US government or private industry has information about the NSA-related surveillance that shows a relationship between illegal FISA violations, and the use of that illegally gathered information to implement prisoner abuse? This is alleged war crimes evidence, subject to universal jurisdiction. The answer to getting the US government to respond on the NSA-related violations may be to see what information foreign courts may be able to review shedding light on the US government's surveillance.
- Are there any foreign countries that are aware of the NSA-related surveillance going on in the US; and what private citizens are in those countries who are willing to provide information in the open media about known NSA activities inside the US; and/or the connection between the NSA and war crimes around the globe?
- Do any foreign powers with knowledge of the NSA activities in the US have insight into what the NSA was doing to coordinate information between the US government, contractors, and those committing war crimes; what information do private citizens in other nations have that they would be willing to disclose to the world media to assist the United States' citizens?
- What foreign powers can shed light on the US government's illegal activities in the United States by disclosing the NSA-related activities within their country; what access do private citizens within those foreign powers have to this evidence showing the NSA is violating the US Constitution? [Ex: GCHQ Gunn ]
Paul in LA @ 120:
Get over Myself? I find You here almost 24 hours. What i said was heartfelt and spoken with reluctance. Fuck You blowhard.
David Hawes @ 122:
You seem to be the resident expert on EVERYTHING and YOU tell Me to get over Myself? Look in a mirror .
Keep in mind the secret room in San Francisco where EVERY communication is data mined.
"No standing?" We ALL have standing in the crimes of this administration.
Impeach. Indict. Imprison.
...
paul in LA @ 116
Congress not reading the bills is a large part of the problem. They should not vote for something that they have not read. If the summaries are inaccurate or incomplete, then there are problems with their staff. That is how they get to slip in the little “extras”.
Paul, I am not a defeatist, and I doubt Kathleen is one.
I do not follow a “party line” with blind allegiance.
The two parties have become very much alike, as I mentioned to you last week. As far as the use of logic, let me point out that Hitler used it to get his people to follow his ideas. Take a look at Mein Kampf. I doubt his family collects any royalties. GWB and the rest of the neo-con-artists have been doing that since 9/11. They continue to do so. They need to listen to our calls to keep the nation safe, and yet, they are a very closed administration.
People here are expressing their opinions, which is excellent, but you offer little. The facts that you like to hit people with, are open to interpretation. Look at the comments on this page. There are 100+, on the page, and how many have you made a comment on? In my opinion, the bottom line is you sit there criticizing people all the time, but you offer little. Go out and see the “real” world. Talk to others. Get a life. Too much CSPAN. I did not enjoy telling you this.
if the bush/cheney govt are going to break the law, then following the very words
of our constitution and declaration of independence, we have the right to
overthrown this terrorist tyranny govt.
As a Dreamer of Dreams and a Traveling man
I have chalked up many a mile
Read dozens of books about Heros and Crooks
And I learned much from both of thier styles
Where it all ends I can't fathom My friends
If I knew I'd toss out My anchor
So,I'll cruise along just search'n for songs
Not a Lawyer Not a Thief or A Banker
rcca @ 125 "Congress not reading the bills is a large part of the problem. They should not vote for something that they have not read."
Shoulds do not run the world.
"If the summaries are inaccurate or incomplete, then there are problems with their staff."
The summaries are not prepared by the individual rep's staff, but by the staff of the Congress, in case that was unclear.
"Paul, I am not a defeatist, and I doubt Kathleen is one."
Odd, because talking about leaving the country and the fight are defeatist by definition. What, are you going overseas to mount a rescue? No, it's rhetoric which is defeating YOU.
"I do not follow a “party line” with blind allegiance."
Who does? I am a Democrat, lifelong, and proud of my party. I naturally defend my party from lies, overgeneralizations, and lack of context.
"The two parties have become very much alike,"
No, they have not. Name the R in Congress who have voted against any Bushco policy. Compare with the majority of D in Congress. Do the math.
"Go out and see the “real” world. Talk to others..."
Oh, you mean like stand in the street with protest signs and talk to HUNDREDS of people every week, like I have done for 650+ hours since 1990? Like I will be doing tomorrow?
What will you be doing for the cause? Sleeping in?
Mother Mother Ocean...After all These Years I've found
An 'Occupational hazard' bein an occupation just not around
I feel like I'm down Gonna head uptown
I feel like I'm drowned Gonna head up town.
Another "w" for Dubya, another L for the ACLU
Paul,
I find I am waisting my time with you. I tried to be nice.
I do not plan on leaving the country. What have you been protesting since 1990? 650 hours is about 16 or days. Now since 1990, that is less than 1 day a year. I did more than that I my senior year in High School alone.
I started my protesting during the Viet Nam War. I am proud of what I did. Fill me in about your protests
rcca @ 131 "I find I am waisting my time with you. I tried to be nice."
Cry me a river.
650 hours is about 16 or days. Now since 1990, that is less than 1 day a year."
Sorry, I mistyped. 650+ hours since 2000.
"I started my protesting during the Viet Nam War. I am proud of what I did."
I was a member of SDS, and did some protesting in that era (I was too young for the draft).
You may not be planning on leaving the country, but kathleen referred to it, which is why I referenced it. David Hawes spread as much defeatism as he could manage upthread.
The dems should investigate the hell out of the 2004 voter fraud in Ohio. If they show Bush stole the election, they should impeach Alito and Roberts, as Bush would have had no standing to appoint them.
Either that, or expand the court to 13, and appoint 4 very progressive judges. The current neocourt, is going to be shoving a corporate fascist shit sandwich down this countries throat for years to come. Long after the neocon repukes are extinct from the political landscape, and the GOP has been reduced to a 35% national party..
NoGWBpolicyleftinplace @ 133:
We don't have the votes for that. It would be easier to impeach Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy for failing to recuse themselves in 2000.
Paul in LA @ 98:
along with Perle,Rosen, Grossman and others "allegedly" involved in the black market sales of classified intelligence and nuclear plans
No there is a fouth and final power and that is the people and right now it looks as if they are broken and need a foot in the a...
Kathleen @ 135:
Those are the traitors I'm talking about, yes.
Hussein's high-precision machine tools are all gone, looted and taken to Iran for their use should they want to continue refining nuclear fuel into weapons. Iran has received a great amount of help from Bushco, and is a greater threat as a result of all of Bushco's actions (so far).
As soon as we have a Democratic president, you will see every congressman and woman, every court in the country and every republican voter in the country suddenly decide that illegal wiretapping of Americans is reprehensible, illegal, unconstitutional, a criminal act, anti-American, unnecessary, an abomination, any expletive you care to attach, and they will call for the president's head. And all the "Blue Dog Pit Bulls" who lied and cheated, claiming to be democrats to get elected will be the first to howl.
God Bless America.
Just so the Democrats can be blamed for ALL King George's and Vlad the Impaler Cheney's crimes.
Remember that the Supreme Court once ruled that Dred Scott, a slave, was property; that separate but equal was obtainable. The Supreme Court is a reflection of the times. We want to have a great educational system while believing that evolution is a fluke and that creation is the only way that a very complex God could create a living world. This Supreme Court isn't close to being supreme; it is a disappointment at best and it makes FDR's suggestion of packing the court with about six more extremely intelligent people a very pleasant idea.
AHhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..................
These morons make me want to scream. Every day it is another erosion of reality, our constitution, and politics. How did these Right-Wing nutjobs get on the "Supreme" Court?
We have all been violated because the warrantless wiretapping was done. The attack on our liberties cannot be seen - but - it's there just the same. The Supreme Court is showing their republican colors in siding with a crook instead of the public. I'll be glad when the strutting banty rooster leaves. Sigh...he sure has left a mess.
From the lawsuit:
The plaintiffs in this action include journalists, academics, and lawyers who regularly
communicate with individuals located overseas, who the plaintiffs believe are the types of people
the NSA suspects of being al Qaeda terrorists, affiliates, or supporters, and are therefore likely to
be monitored under the TSP. From this suspicion, and the limited factual foundation in this case,
the plaintiffs allege that they have a “well founded belief” that their communications are being
tapped. According to the plaintiffs, the NSA’s operation of the TSP — and the possibility of
warrantless surveillance — subjects them to conditions that constitute an irreparable harm.
D to the Izzle @ 112:
SCROTUM!!!! Supreme Court Republicans of the United Mericans!
Login or Register to post comments.