NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

*finding link*

apparantly some analysts think this will be overturned as the people bringing the case may not have had standing to bring the case at all. Meaning they could not show that they had been harmed, or would be harmed in the future by the program.

The standings issue is certainly a grounds on which the ruling might be overturned and has nothing to do with the legality or constitutionality of the program itself.

However, since the government refuses to identify who has been the target of wiretapping it would be ironic that the government could make what would otherwise be considered unconstitutional de facto legal by making sure it is impossible to establish standing. (Well, in rereading the standing section of the decision I see that the judge made exactly the same point.)

I suspect the government will find it hard to win cases when their defense is "we can't make a defense because it would require sharing secrets."

The opinion does address the issue. To read the judge's take on the standing issue it is pages 15-24 of the PDF I linked above.

[innerSpaceman]

Mark September 7 on your calendars. That's the date of the hearing to decide whether the judge will stay her injunction on the NSA program. If she denies a stay ... the government will be put in the position of either stopping the program or directly defying a federal judge's specific order.

Doesn't matter then if they appeal to their hand-picked Supreme Court: until heard by the Surpremes, the law of the land will be NO NSA WARRENTLESS WIRETAPPING. I'm very curious to see if the Bush Administration will go outlaw that blatently.

[wendybeth]

They've thumbed their noses at nearly every criticism and complaint thus far, and I see no reason to expect them not to do the same in this instance. Of course, it is getting close to election time and certain cons are busily positioning themselves for whatever direction they think the electorate winds will blow, so who knows? It will be interesting to see if George does go against any court ruling- how many of his apologists will defend that? Of course, there will probably be a terrorist threat about that time, so everyone will just be relieved that George cares enough for our welfare to circumvent and defy the law of the land.

[katiesue]

I read the thread title and thought, when did NA get an evesdropproping program and how did scaeagles find out about it?

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Zip it, katiesue. You've said quite enough.

[Nephythys]

The NSA program has been ruled legal, much less constitutional, in 5 of the 11 federal courts. the ACLU went judge shopping, and brought it before this particular judge because she has a history of handing down rulings based on her personal political beliefs, instead of the law. this ruling will be reversed the second it hits a sane court. did you know that even the 9th circuit ruled in favor of the administration on the NSA program?

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

The NSA program has been ruled legal, much less constitutional, in 5 of the 11 federal courts.

Which 5?

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

The NSA program has been ruled legal, much less constitutional, in 5 of the 11 federal courts.

Even domestically?

Every federal appellate court to rule on the question in other cases has affirmed the President’s authority to conduct signals intelligence programs, but only in regard to foreign and not domestic communications. On the other hand, FISA explicitly covers "electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence information" performed within the United States, and there is no court decision supporting the theory that the President's constitutional authority allows him to override statutory law. This was emphasized by fourteen constitutional law scholars, including the dean of Yale Law School and the former deans of Stanford Law School and the University of Chicago Law School