Posted on 01/17/2006 2:59:09 AM PST by summer
Two leading civil rights groups plan to file lawsuits Tuesday against the Bush administration over its domestic spying program....
The Center for Constitutional Rights plans to sue on behalf of four lawyers at the center and a legal assistant there who work on terrorism-related cases at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba,... Similarly, the plaintiffs in the A.C.L.U. lawsuit include five Americans who work in international policy and terrorism, along with the A.C.L.U. and three other groups....
One of the A.C.L.U. plaintiffs, Larry Diamond, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute, ...
Also named as plaintiffs in the A.C.L.U. lawsuit are the journalist Christopher Hitchens, who has written in support of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; Barnett R. Rubin, a scholar at New York University who works in international relations; Tara McKelvey, a senior editor at The American Prospect; the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; Greenpeace, the environmental advocacy group; and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the country's largest Islamic advocacy group....
Bill Goodman, legal director for the Center for Constitutional Rights, said that in suing in federal court to block the surveillance program, his group believed "without question" that Mr. Bush violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which governs wiretaps, by authorizing the security agency operation.
But Mr. Goodman acknowledged that in persuading a federal judge to intervene, "politically, it's a difficult case to make."
He added: "We recognize that it's extremely difficult for a court to stand up to a president, particularly a president who is determined to extend his power beyond anything envisioned by the founding fathers. That takes courage."
The debate over the legality of Mr. Bush's eavesdropping program will be at the center of Congressional hearings expected to begin next month....
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Sometimes it's hard to tell -- is this politics as usual, or something more?
BTW, I was surprised to see Hitchens' name as a plaintiff; yet, there's nothing on his website about this.
Actually this is a GOOD thing that will eventually go to the S.C. to be decided. The President says "I have these powers" to deal with this new style threat. Congress objects. So someone brings a lawsuit and it goes to Court system. That is HOW the system of checks and balances is suppose to work. This is a GOOD thing.
And by then Alito should be on the bench!
I don't see a court taking the case, absent a showing that the party to the case can surmount the burden of proof that he was surveilled in a way that is arguably contrary to the 4th amendment. The party must "be injured," not "think I might have been injured."
As a bit of a sideline, the argument of 4th amendment violation can also be made by a plaintiff (or defendant, in the case of an indictment involving evidence gathered by FISA-related authority), in the form of "the statute itself is unconstitutional because it goes beyond what the 4th amendment permits." I point this out mostly to illustrate that lawsuits are a dime a dozen.
Back to the "must be injured," that doesn't mean there has to be a showing of damages, only a showing of unconstitutional surveillance. Without that, I would expect the Court to rule that there is no standing.
I don't want this being decided at the supreme court with kennedy as the swing vote.
Kennedy is already going to vote with the liberal quartet on the texas redistricting case.
The congressional authority after 9/11 gave the executive branch the authority to go after al queda.
So it can't be illegal for something congress knew about also.
Wouldn't the defendant have to be someone that was affected by this?
How did this historical quote about FDR get in here?
Instead of, "surveillance program designed to identify terrorists both within and outside the U.S.". The bias at the NYT continues.
"if the courts rule against him -- that's not good news"
Perhaps the scenario you mentioned explains the Meiers nomination?
What bugs me about this whole
"eavesdropping" thing is the number of people who believe it automatically means the government is listening in on us all just willy-nilly. I had this argument with my sister over the weekend. There has to be something to make them want to listen...like a phone call to or from the US by a name on a list, for example...something that causes a raised eyebrow. I tried to explain to her that the government has not the time or resources to listen to her discuss soap operas with her friend.
Has the statute of limitatiions run out for us suing Clinton over Echelon and Carnivore?
see: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110007823
'Better Than Well Said'
Ben Franklin understood the need for secrecy in matters of national security. written by Pete du Pont
And that turns on the meanings (Congressional intent) of "go after" and "member of al Qaeda." IOW, is it "congressional authority" if the president steps outside of majority intent?
So it can't be illegal for something congress knew about also.
Sure "it" can. But at this point, we only have hints as to what "it" is, so the scope of speculation is quite large. Keep in mind the principle that courts can render opinions on government actions that are outside the law (not always finding the action to be unconstitutional), and inside the law (sometings finding the "legally/Congressionally authorized" action to be unconstitutional).
The term "illegal" is taken different ways by different listeners - some posters here take that to mean "violation of 4th amendment," for example.
Wouldn't the defendant have to be someone that was affected by this?
Plaintiff is the term for the person bringing the case, but yes - without being a target of surveillance, the party has no case. I don't think there needs to be a showing of "damages" in order to reach the conclusion that the party was affected. The government is forbidden to act outside of the Constitution - see removal of 1o Commandments from Judge Roy Moore's Courthouse, for example. Who had "damages?" Nobody, really. Yet the Courts found the display to be a violation of the 1st amendment and ordered it removed.
I don't think that they "don't" get it. I think to them it just "sounds" good.
I would ask next time to anyone that brings up the eavesdropping issue "how much money do you make?" How much did you donate last year to charity?" These are truly none of your business questions. So unless these same folks want to get all riled up about citizens having to give this information every year to the government, then I don't want to hear about collecting info on something to keep us all safe.
The question of the President's constitutional authority must inevitably wend its way to the Supreme Court, much the same as Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.