E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe U.S. Supreme Court today essentially put the government's expanded terror surveillance program beyond legal challenge, tossing out a lawsuit filed by a group of lawyers, journalists, and civil rights groups who claimed they were improperly swept up in the law's reach.
By a 5-4 ruling, the court said the challengers couldn't show that they were actually harmed by the government's foreign terrorist surveillance program, set up during the George W. Bush administration to allow the monitoring of suspected terrorists overseas. Congress eventually approved the program, with some changes.
The issue in this case was what happens when targets of the program talk by phone or e-mail with people in the United States. The challengers claimed that because their jobs required them to talk with people overseas likely to be targeted by the program, they've had to change how they operate – traveling overseas to meet with potential clients and sources instead of talking to them by phone.
In other words, while the challengers said they couldn't prove their conversations were intercepted, because the expanded terror surveillance program is classified, it was so likely that they had the legal standing to sue.
Not so, said the five-member majority, in an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito. Their theory, he said, "is too speculative." And even though the challengers say they've had to take expensive measures to avoid the surveillance they fear is taking place, they "cannot manufacture standing by choosing to make expenditures based on hypothetical future harm."
Writing for the dissenters, Justice Stephen Breyer said the harm the challengers claim "is as likely to take place as are most future events that commonsense inference and ordinary knowledge of human nature tell us will happen."
Related:
Leave a Comment:
Translation: "Big Brother is watching, and there ain't a damned thing you can do about it."
.
"the court said the challengers couldn't show that they were actually harmed by the government's foreign terrorist surveillance program" Idiots, what happened to protection against unreasonable search and seizure? The government doesn't have any damn business monitoring my communications even if I'm doing nothing wrong. People that think this is OK don't think far enough ahead to even see a slippery slope coming...
Another terrible decision brought to you by the Supreme Court.
Welcome one & all to the United Police States of America. The terrorist have already won if we must even fear our government & the lost of freedoms such a Freedom of speech & the right to bear weapons to defend oursleves again comon criminals & a criminal dictatorship.
Even in the best of times it is a good idea to have a healthy fear of the government, so, yeah when this stuff happens you know it is time to break out the real fear. The harm should have been inferred by the fact that their communications could be intercepted at all. There needs to be vary vary specific rules for the government to monitor communications and from what I see, the rules currently are no where near where they need to be to insure privacy and security of information.
Businesses should be peeing themselves right now. Any conversation of industrial secrets could be recorded and stored by the government and then that info could make it into the wrong hands via security breach into gov systems.
If we could all band together as Americans and refuse to pay any federal tax until the government again begins to again work for "we the people", maybe we could effect some change. As it is, the bought and paid for mainstream media keeps us bickering among ourselves while the New World Agenda continues to be advanced.
BooCoo what, you state the bought and paid for media, but you don't include the government?
Where are our Liberal friends for this story? No one wants to mention that the Obama administration was on the winning side of this case?
Sorry. I assumed the knowledge that the government was bought and paid for was a given. My apologies. Just think of professional wrestling with all its good guys and bad guys putting on a show for their audience. That is what government has become. The corporate elite, the new world order, the Illuminati, whatever you want to call it. That's who really controls government.
Occam's Razor: Good point , funny how selective some peoples outrage tends to be.
Defend this right if so & so attacks it. Don't show up, if so & so attacks it.
We'll defend this right, and this one, not this one, and make this one kinda change to the point of being useless.
Boo Coo: so right. Wish more people saw it.
Tell me again about there being no need for the 2nd Amendment?
Unlimited surveillance, unlimited imprisonment, killer drones on US soil, BILLIONS of bullets for DOMESTIC USE....... if I was paranoid, I'd think they were out to get us.......
all you anti-American liberals, just do not make any overseas calls, do not do any business with overseas company's or people, if your company has overseas locations, then just quit your job and go to work for a company that does not do any business overseas, if you have friends overseas then break off all contact with them; it is a easy as that; remember it is for your own safety that the government is doing this monitoring; heck i can't believe some of the weenie comments.
Yep, this paves the way for Mr. "Drama" Obama's 1,000,000+ Sqft $ 1,500,000,000 CyberSecurity data center in Utah from being held accountable after it is discovered that this "surveillance" center is spying on Main Street America.
Hah, this administration is saying the data center will be used only to deter Cyber Attacks from overseas.
Person of Interest - it's not just a TV show.
OK - I probably shouldn't be reading the conservative-types' comments, but I did , and I want to make sure I understand them clearly:
FISA was setup by Bush. It was vehemently opposed by non-conservatives, who were vilified as terrorists and traitors for opposing this stuff by conservatives who were demanding charges of treason. A group of liberals brought the suit, and not just this one.. The conservative justices blocked it,. The liberal justices were the minority opinion.
And you're blaming the liberals? For FISA? For the SCOTUS decision? Holy fooking projection. You're full of sh1t.
Again- conservative program which was opposed by liberals who were called terrorists for opposing it. Liberal plaintiffs in this suit. Conservative justices were the majority opinion in the decision - liberal justices in opposition.
How frickin delusional are you people? You just have no sense of accountability or decency, do you?
Why in the hell do some people always want to make this a conservative/liberal issue? Jesus, the government shouldn't be doing it PERIOD! Quit with the divide and conquer BS thought pattern..
There are a lot of things that the government shouldn't be doing but are, and a lot of things the government should be doing but aren't. What the government should or shouldn't do is always a political issue - or in your terms a 'conservative/liberal' issue.
If this article was about Michelle Obama's hair style or the President playing a round of golf, then I would agree with you that these things are not political issues. But FISA is a purely political issue. Even if you don't remember the history of FISA from just a few years ago, the political nature can be observed by the vote split along political lines in the Court's decision.
So, yeah, politics is political.
why are you people arguing over which party or wing is to blame? they all do the bidding of the corporations, they have just fooled the ignorant into fighting over insignificant details and blaming each other instead of working together to find a solution. this is wrong no matter which party did it. the potential for damage is very real. the potential for abuse of this power and the information gathered is very real. the potential to rob American citizens of their God given Civil Rights in secret and without the possibility of recourse is very real. stop with the asinine bickering and blaming and figure out how to stop this, because it is WRONG.
if we wanted security instead of freedom, we would never have taken this land from the British to begin with. this is not what our ancestors fought and bled and died for. We the People need to TAKE the power back.
Apparently, they are slightly less delusional than you...since Obama has been President for over 4 years and is currently the President and is responsible for the CURRENT status of the situation.
Obama campaigned on getting rid of the Patriot Act...he then flip-flopped (or "evolved" depending on your political point of view) and not only embraced the Patriot Act...he made it PERMANENT.
So...yes...Obama is to blame for the current state of affairs; this is 2013, not 2009...catch up.
No, why would he be is responsible actions of the previous administration or congress? A President can not nullify a law, nor can he simply proclaim a law, this is the responsibility of congress. Presidents don't make laws, they administrate them.
If by "Patriot Act", you mean 3 provisions of the entire act, and if by "permanent", you mean 4 years, then yeah.
If by "he made it", you mean signed after being passed in both Houses through support of mostly Republicans, then sure.
Well, I certainly can show, with witnesses, that I, as a legal professional and reporter, was "actually harmed by the government's domestic terrorist surveillance program," and the government's serial offenses of domestic terror or against the administration of justice.
Where's my Writ of Certiorari, Justice Alito?
I hear from my sources in Washington, DC that one must appear on Sesame Street with Big Bird or on the Tonight Show in order to get the attention of the United States Supreme Court.
so why haven't you filed if you can prove it?
You can prove your communications were actually intercepted? How can you do that with the information being classified? For standing, you need to show real harm or potential harm. It sounds like your harm is as speculative as the plaintiffs'.
You can file a writ of cert, after you've lost in trial court and in the appeals court.
ditto Clotho, no proof of harm (intended or otherwise) or intent to cause harm, no claim.
Clotho
Yes,with the right, vary expensive tech, you can indeed prove your communications where intercepted. The basic concept is digital salting. You can salt your digital communications with a code that will show change when that data is intercepted. Even passive interception has a vary good chance of being detected with a system like this. I can also think of a number of other ways to detect snooping that are not so expensive.
The question is not detection so much as having the resources to go up against a gov that wants to keep certain things secret and has extremely deep pockets to do it.
very. come on, now. this isn't a tough word to spell.
Uh huh. Sure you can. Bits is bits. Any router that those bits pass through can record those bits. The most your "very expensive equipment" might do is determine that your bits went through a router. Since a typical online message goes through a half a dozen routers on the way from you to its destination, you haven't proven anything other than that the Internet is working normally.
However much of the "snooping" in question is telephone conversations. Your "very expensive equipment" can't be used for that purpose because the conversation gets digitized at the telephone company central office, to which you, unless you are the telephone company, a government agency, or a criminal, do not have access.
And a group with the resources did go up against the government and could not prove their case to the satisfaction of a judge.
if you think it is impossible to determine if a communication has been intercepted just because the other end is classified, you just plain underestimate computer technology. everything leaves a trail
J Clarke--"And a group with the resources did go up against the government and could not prove their case to the satisfaction of a judge"
this group may or may not have the resources to do the detection, that is beside the point in this case because they had no specific examples to even try to detect. their case was based on possible damages arising in a hypothetical scenario...in other words not actual damage, but paranoia. i agree that the potential for damage and abuse is very real, and that should be a factor in determining the legality of this issue. one side is paranoid for with reasonable cause to be, and the other side is saying "trust us, we won't abuse it" even though politicians are notoriously untrustworthy and dishonest
Get used to it ! Big brother is watching you.
Who cares if government wants to watch me they are going to get board real quick. If your not doing anything wrong it would be a waste of time to watch you. How many people are in our country? How much money would it cost to watch everyone? To think some of you think they are watching you. My advice to you is to wrap your head in aluminum foil. For those of you who think that your government is watching you, your robbing us of oxygen.
How much money would it cost to watch everyone?
With technology, it gets cheaper every day. And what's cheaper than telling Google to just hand over anything they want? I want my virtual elbow room.
"Those willing to sacrifice freedom for safety, deserve neither." - B. Franklin
....must be bored if he's watching me.
I get what your trying to say but it's a narrow minded approach. You would be surprised how cheap it can be to monitor every incoming and outgoing call in the US. Yes, the government my not have an exciting task watching most of the humdrum stuff that Americans do and say, but it is not really all that safe to have this information saved and stored. government systems are breached all the time and invariably the data that the government will collect and save about you will include information that would let someone hijack your Identity or do any number of other things in your name.
It is not just about who is watching you, it is about who is watching the data they collect about you.
More than likely they are using web crawlers and watching for certain keywords, no way they have thousands of people watching millions of people's every move, anyway, it wont be long until all their socialistic laws will become moot and the USA is back in the hands of the people again.
I find this about as believable as George Corley Wallace's professed love of black people, after losing his "segregation forever" battle! Note, none of these "prominent" republicans is facing reelection, so they're safe in supporting gay marriage! Just another attempt to conceal the real GOP agenda!
You're on the wrong thread here, Hon.
If you're going to act superior and smart, you should atleast get your comments on the right message.
So if you are a lawyer or reporter who deals with potential terrorist then you have to spend money to fly overseas to talk to them. One I don't feel bad that you are having to spend money and two if you are dealing with terrorists please do not bother coming back to the US.
If, hypothetically, you were accused of terrorism and had done nothing wrong, wouldn't you want a lawyer to represent you?
No he wouldn't because Jwright apparently believes in the new American standard of "guilt by accusation". If someone says you did something then you must be guilty.
Justice and the Supreme Court mix like oil and water. That gang of nine will not protect us that is for sure.
If you want justice, go to a whore house
If you want to get f*cked, go to a court house...
Very true to he point.
Everyone need to get together and boycott ATT, Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner. They will start slowing internet speeds to PAYING customers for downloading a song. Post it on face book that they are partners with these big companies, hurting the little man for downloading a song.Transfer your service to your smaller local ISPs and post it on Facebook and Twitter as much as you can and let the world know what these companies are doing to us. Don't let them hide behind the scenes in the shadows and take our money and then punish us on behalf of the Entertainment people who is also paying them. Make them choose who is more important to them. Their PAYING customers or their fellow Big Business Buddies.
"The U.S. Supreme Court today essentially put the government's expanded terror surveillance program beyond legal challenge. . ."
This is simply not true. The court said the plaintiffs had no standing to sue for lack of demonstrable damage. This does not preclude plaintiffs from showing damage in the future, and therefore acquiring standing. Additionally, this will not prevent others from suing over surveillance based upon other grounds. SCOTUS actually doesn't declare legislation and acts of government "constitutional." It declares them "not unconstitutional for the reasons argued." This leaves all legislation and government acts open to challenge on grounds other than those that have already been settled. You can't make a challenge on grounds that have already been settled, unless you're asking for a rehearing, almost never granted.
Good point - but don't let the truth get in the way of a good story, right?
If the information a plaintiff seeks is classified and therefore inadmissible, then the surveillance program is beyond legal challenge. By the rules of discovery, the defense team should have to release & share information with the plaintiffs. But since it's the Justice Dept. they can claim it's classified, and any smoking gun piece of evidence that would prove the plaintiffs case is prohibited because of "national security" reasons. So in my view, reality undermines your argument.
Do the terms Catch-22, Double Secret Probation, or Groom Lake come to mind?
If it is classified, you are not allowed to see it and if you can not see you can can prove you were harmed by it.
Of course you can prove you were "harmed by it". You have to show the harm. Are you missing a limb? Do you have scars? Were your bank accounts emptied? Did you lose your job? Was your reputation publicly besmirched? Those sorts of things are "harm". Once it has been established that "harm" occurred then the government's role in such harm becomes an issue.
And America dies just a little bit more.
Good, now put them to good use on our boarders, and arm them to take out the drug cartel's smugglers!
If you have boarders you can simply evict them...
Nice one us.
While I admit I am somewhat less than thrilled with the outcome. The decision was the correct one. There must be an active case or controversy for a suit. The 2nd Circuit got it right and the SC agreed.
The "liberal" side of the court must have missed that lesson in Con Law I.
Not the first time the SC has tossed a case for lack of standing either
Classic Catch-22. Even if your international calls are monitored you have no way of proving it, and the government will never comment on such allegations. Therefore you can't sue because you have no actual evidence your calls are monitored, even though they most likely are.
Decisions made to limit wiretapping by the Supreme Court are
a waste of taxpayers’ money. Any person with a few bucks can tap their neighbor
phone and escape detection. Private detectives are notorious for wiretapping
stock exchange members for inside information.
Manufacturers of eavesdropping equipment have seen their sales rise by
350% in the last ten years.
1.) The government is comprised of individuals voted to office by the public (except for a very small percentage of appointed individuals). Don't trust them? Vote for people you do trust next time around. 2.) Unless you are involved in counter-terrorism operations through military or law enforcement, it isn't "necessary" for you to have contact with terrorists.
If we do not like it, then lets have balls and and do what the people do across the world do. Stand up to our government and start some shyyyte. You see it happen all the time in the Middle eastern worlds, they do no like what their President is doing they over throw them. But us Americans are too much of wussy to do anything. So there fore take it without the lube. And enjoy it. Other wise stand up for yourselves.
So you're saying that Obama should be lynched by a mob? If not, what are you saying? He's gone at the next election anyway. However he "overthrew" the guy who was actually responsible for the current wiretapping policies and then didn't change them, so what makes you think that the next guy will be any different?
and here it is...... a power that we let the government have and they will never let it go, home land security B.S.......so much for liberty, we have sacrificed it to security,,,, one of the many things our forfathers were worried that what this government would become. too bad we didn't see there warrings...lets see how far the government will go...; next will be the guns travel permits, no more assemblies in large groups,
I don't think any 5-4 verdict should be valid because the constitutionality of an issue can't be determined to be just if the judges are appointed based on their political slant. I think a 2/3 majority would be a step toward decisions being made unanimously just as convictions in criminal trials must be 12-0.
What's the difference between a drone watching you and a satellite watching you, or one of millions of surveillance cameras posted on street corners and highways--which have been in-use for decades?
What's illegal about being watched in public? We live in an age of terrorism-- If you want privacy, go inside your house. Simple as that.
Dead Men Walking to a complete dictatorship.
I love it. Another group of lawyers trying to make another big lottery win gets shot down. I personally don't want to see another terrorist act like the one that happened on 9-11-2011 and if this is one way to protect the citizens of the United States then so be it. As long as your not getting ready to commit a terrorist act then you have nothing to worry about. This is now the world we live in and what they are doing is nothing that would really harm anyone, even those who claim the government is listening and again if they are not talking over the phone about commiting a terrorist act inside the United States then chill and don't worry about it. If you do have a big problem with this then I have a simple solution. Don't talk over the phone or better yet MOVE THE HELL OUT OF THE COUNTRY. Now that was simple wasn't it.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What a beautiful concept. The language is timeless and free of linkage to technology. Why are we willing to give this up in for a false sense of security? Is this what they teach in the public school re-education camps now?
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the conservative majority and was joined by by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
Tell us again, conservative ideologues, exactly how the right wing is protecting our civil rights? Where is the outrage by the Tea Party? LMAO....
I'm outraged, so are all my Tea party friends who just heard about this. I'm sure the DemocRATs are just besides themselves with joy.
Again the S.C. shows itself to not give a sh!t about the people who's right's it's supposed to protect! Maybe if were lucky they will all die of food poisoning at their next luncheon (i'll take 9 for 9 if that's what it takes) since death or retirement is the only way to get rid of these assh0less. No S.C. would be better then this one since all it can seem to do is reduce our rights one at a time... Why do we need a S.C. when they are the biggest threat to our constitution? Kind of like hiring a bodyguard who then mugs you!
If this is "Supreme" perhaps we should bring back "Mediocre."
"Occasionally the seeds of democracy need to be watered with the blood of tyrants"
How many of these justices do you think we could stomp into a watering can? I say at least five...
Anything to justify the continued spying on Americans. And we just take it like a shiny box on Christmas Day.