Two Groups Planning to Sue Over Federal Eavesdropping [Hitchens is plaintiff against GW]

The NYT ^ | January 17, 2006 | ERIC LICHTBLAU

[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....

[imintrouble]

Congress seems to want to be locked in non-issue debate until the next Presidential election.

Are these high-paid whiners going to do any work for the people who elected them, or are we facing periodic charges du jour by the insane democrats and agenda-driven groups to smear the republican party?

We didn't hire a debate team to lob insults on a regular basis - there is more to being a member of the legislature than introducing this junk we keep witnessing.

Stop the partisanship and get back to work. They are all campaigning for their next election process - gives them more press/air time and it is costing us - the taxpayers.

[Sandy]

Unless one of the plaintiffs can show that his fourth amendment rights were violated, the courts won't touch this.
Besides, if the President actually believes he has the authority to ignore the law, then anything the courts say won't much matter anyway. All the courts can do is tell him to stop. Can't imagine he'd listen. Ultimately, this is a political question, and the remedy will have to be political. If enough people believe that he's crossed the impeachment line, then he'll be impeached. Certainly no lawsuit will stop him.

[spkpls4]

you're welcome!

[Jacquerie]

Yes, I suppose it could be a good thing. Maybe.

When a state is a party, the case goes directly to SCOTUS as directed by the Constitution. If the President is a party, I'm quite sure the case moves up the federal court food chain like any other dispute. Now, imagine it showing up in front of a reliable Jimmy Carter or Bent Willie appointee. Said appointee drools at the thought of b!tch slapping President Bush. He orders a halt of surveillance of Al Qaeda contacts in US. The Prez knows that several attacks have been thwarted in the past. What should he do? Obey the utopian judge or protect these United States? I say protect us, and declare the courts have no jurisdiction over his constitutional power as commander in chief. My two cents.

[Grut]

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.

It's not that the government lacks the "time or resources" but that it arguably lacks the authority, absent probable cause. What the administration is claiming is that they can listen in, under the President's authority as CinC, to any message and decide, at their own discretion, whether to continue listening. This may or may not be a good thing in practice but it certainly removes the Presidency from the system of checks and balances.

[summer]

Re post #25 and #45 -- I did not have a chance to post the entire article because of the excerpt requirement for the NYT, but here is some other text from the article:

The lawsuits seek to answer one of the major questions surrounding the eavesdropping program: has it been used solely to single out the international phone calls and e-mail messages of people with known links to Al Qaeda, as President Bush and his most senior advisers have maintained, or has it been abused in ways that civil rights advocates say could hark back to the political spying abuses of the 1960's and 70's?

"There's almost a feeling of déjà vu with this program," said James Bamford, an author and journalist who is one of five individual plaintiffs in the A.C.L.U. lawsuit who say they suspect that the program may have been used to monitor their international communications.

"It's a return to the bad old days of the N.S.A.," said Mr. Bamford, who has written two widely cited books on the intelligence agency.

I watched some of Al Gore's speech last night, and while he wsa clearly playing to the audience at times, there was also a theme running through his speech which was thought-provoking, in that he, too, mentioned Lincoln and other presidents whose use of expanded power eventually contracted over time.

The point Gore made which caused me to pause was that along with GW's expanded power (legal or not), the "timeframe" for using this expanded power appears to be in perpetuity, in light of the nature of this war, unlike past presidents. This would seem to me to bring about a fundamental change in our government, unless one believes our government is spying illegally all the time anyway. And, some voters probably do believe that, and so, no big deal to them.

But, I don't know. It's not an issue that I can see directly impacting my life at this moment. And, I do think a president has greater authority during wartime. So, who knows...

[Grut]

And, I do think a president has greater authority during wartime.

A point I've made in a number of places is that Congress has the authority "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." Unless this is simply hollow rhetoric, this means the Congress controls the military. As a result, when the President assumes the role of CinC, he puts himself under Congress as the highest-ranking member of a subordinate military.

Since this is incompatible with the separation of powers, I further contend that CinC is in fact a separate position from President, with the only requirement for the job being that the person who is CinC must also be the person who is President. Because the job of CinC has less autonomy than the Presidency, and because its a different job than President, my final contention is that the assertion that functioning as CinC broadens the President's powers is, to use a technical term, hooey.

[Wasanother]

Lawsuits sponsored by the NY Slimes in order to cover their a*s. So far from all this "reporting" the Slimes have failed to make this case a "whistle-blowers" case and have failed to show the illegality of the program other than another he said, she said. I'm starting to think they ain't got nothing because Tice, one source, has nothing but is all over the air-waves with speculations of legal matters. After scrutinizing Risen's book, there's nothing but he said, she said legal questions to nothing more than speculative occurrences to "Americans" as reported from anonymous sources that we know now one is Tice.

[summer]

Because the job of CinC has less autonomy than the Presidency, and because its a different job than President, my final contention is that the assertion that functioning as CinC broadens the President's powers is, to use a technical term, hooey.

Maybe you're right, and if so, I hope this matter reaches the courts and the courts agree with you.

On the other hand, there is part of me still sympathetic, in a way, to whomever is currently our nation's CinC, because I do not want that person to be hampered in carrying out the very difficult decisions and tasks required of that person.

I would hope that person and Congress could agree on the best course of action in whatever instance, and that politics might be put aside for such an important matter as defending our nation. Unfortunately, politics always seems to get in the way...

[ashukla]

I know about the posting requirements. I missed Gore's speech. I'd take pause at what you mentioned also because it's a scare tactic which is how the left always makes its appeal, doesn't matter what's the issue. So Gore thinks because the war APPEARS to be in perpetuity we must limit the president's powers. Makes no sense. The President spelled it out very well as to the nature of the war. It would be long, fought on many fronts and those fronts were not all on the field of battle. If the Democrats (or anybody) wants to say something, I'll listen. Like Kerry-plan, I would have listened If he actually had one. He didn't. None of them do. Just throwing their lies to the media who sends them out to the echo chamber so they can get their votes in order to retain their glorious taxpayer funded lifestyle and perhaps seize power again so they can conspire more against the good people of this great nation.

[Grut]

On the other hand, there is part of me still sympathetic, in a way, to whomever is currently our nation's CinC, because I do not want that person to be hampered in carrying out the very difficult decisions and tasks required of that person.

As a practical matter, insisting that all the rules be obeyed all the time invites paralysis -- and not just in military matters. But a little 'practical' cheating is one thing, and claiming the wholesale invalidation of the rules is another.

[redgolum]

Has the statute of limitations run out for us suing Clinton over Echelon and Carnivore?

Kind of wondered that my self. Had an interesting discussion about that with my brother in law.

[Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin]

...I'm surprised it took the ACLU this long to dig up something...They're slippin'.

[imintrouble]

Isn't the nature of this "accused spying/evesdropping" supposed to be top secret?

If so, why do these accusers think it is ok to "out" a program being conducted in the utmost secrecy.

Why are people worried? Should they not be more concerned we are a country at war?

Why aren't they concerned Congress is just slip-sliding through their days doing very little of anything except accusation and partisan mud throwing.

[jw777]

I want the WH to sue the NY Times, find their source and try both for Treason.

[scannell]

if the courts rule against him

Dosen't really matter, there is only one court that counts on this SCOTUS, including Alito.

[Range Rover]

http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/rosenbergs-granddaughter-sues-nsa-over-spying/

One of the ACLU Plaintiffs is the granddaughter of the Rosenbergs...YES, THOSE Rosenbergs...

[fightu4it]

The ultimate responsibility for the protection of the citizens of this country falls squarely in the lap of the President of the United States.

It follows that the holder of that office would be given full power to take the actions necessary to accomplish that goal, whatever that action may be. Politics does not enter into it. If my well-being is at stake, I couldn't care less whether the the person holding the office of POTUS is democrat or republican. All I care about is that they have the power to do what is necessary to protect me.

[martin gibson]

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.

my 'buddy' Mike actualy thinks Geo. W. is bugging his phone - not the FISA/NSA snafu but that W has a phone in the Oval Office on his desk and in the White House living quarters that rings when mike's home phone rings. Then, W. can pick it up and listen in. Mike knows this is true because he 'can hear the phone line click'.

Mike is a chronicaly unemployed commie whose wife has supported him over the years with any number of low-skill, marginal, minimum wage jobs. Mike refuses to work because he is 'too smart'. But Mike knows Geo. W. is listening in because Geo. W. 'fears and hates' Mike because of Mike's 'community activism' (i.e. Mike stays drunk at the bar and announces to anyone and everyone at the top of his lungs how much he hates Geo. Bush).

If you ever need to figure out how Geo. H. W. Bush paid Ossama to fly the planes into the WTC so that Dick Chaney and Haliburton could suck war profits from Saudi Arabia and the Carlysle Group and so that Geo. W. could become the theocratic holy new-roman emperor of the west, just ask Mike. He's got all the answers...

[summer]

Here's an update -- the two lawsuits have now reportedly been filed:

From AP:

Groups Sue to Stop Domestic Spying Program

By LARRY NEUMEISTER


(AP) Legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights Bill Goodman,left, talks to media...

NEW YORK (AP) - Federal lawsuits were filed Tuesday seeking to halt President Bush's domestic eavesdropping program, calling it an "illegal and unconstitutional program" of electronic eavesdropping on American citizens.

The lawsuits accusing Bush of exceeding his constitutional powers were filed in federal court in New York by the Center for Constitutional Rights and in Detroit by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The New York suit, filed on behalf of the center and individuals, names Bush, the head of the National Security Agency, and the heads of the other major security agencies, challenging the NSA's surveillance of persons within the United States without judicial approval or statutory authorization.

It asked a judge to stop Bush and government agencies from conducting warrantless surveillance of communications in the United States.

The Detroit suit, which also names the NSA, was filed by the ACLU, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Greenpeace and several individuals.

Messages seeking comment were left Tuesday morning with the National Security Agency and the Justice Department.

Bush, who said the wiretapping is legal and necessary, has pointed to a congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that authorized him to use force in the fight against terrorism as allowing him to order the program.

The program authorized eavesdropping of international phone calls and e-mails of people deemed a terror risk.

But the New York lawsuit noted that federal law already allows the president to conduct warrantless surveillance during the first 15 days of a war and allows court authorization of surveillance for agents of foreign powers or terrorist groups.

Instead of following the law, Bush "unilaterally and secretly authorized electronic surveillance without judicial approval or congressional authorization," the lawsuit said.

At a news conference, Center for Constitutional Rights Legal Director Bill Goodman portrayed the president as a man on an unprecedented power grab at the expense of basic democratic principles.

He said the public was starting to understand the assertion that the erosion of individual rights is a slippery slope that lets the government "brand anyone a terrorist with no right to counsel, no right to be brought before a judge and no right to privacy in communications."

The Detroit lawsuit said the plaintiffs, who frequently communicate by telephone and e-mail with people in the Middle East and Asia, have a "well-founded belief" that their communications are being intercepted by the government.

"By seriously compromising the free speech and privacy rights of the plaintiffs and others, the program violates the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution," the lawsuit states.

In its suit in New York, the Center for Constitutional Rights maintained its work was directly affected by the surveillance because its lawyers represent a potential class of hundreds of Muslim foreign nationals detained after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

It said its attorney-client privilege was likely violated as it represented hundreds of men detained without charge as enemy combatants at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station and a Canadian citizen who was picked up at a New York airport while changing planes, sent to Syria and tortured and detained without charges for nearly a year.

The group said the surveillance program has inhibited its ability to represent clients vigorously, making it hard to communicate via telephone and e-mail with overseas clients, witnesses and others for fear the conversations would be overheard.

Plaintiff Rachel Meeropol, an attorney at the center, said she believes she has been targeted. "I'm personally outraged that my confidential communication with my clients may have been listened to by the U.S. government," she said.

---

Associated Press writer Tom Krisher in Detroit contributed to this report.