Bush Administration Faces New Challenges to Spying Powers
A federal judge in San Francisco is asked to strike down Congress' grant of retroactive immunity for domestic wiretapping, and to allow a lawsuit over monitoring of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation.
A federal judge who earlier rejected Bush administration claims that it was exempt from laws governing domestic surveillance was asked Tuesday to strike down an act of Congress that grants retroactive immunity for illegal wiretapping.
In a separate challenge of presidential power over national security affairs, lawyers for the now-defunct Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation asked the same judge in San Francisco to allow them to sue for illegal monitoring by the National Security Agency.
U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled in July that President Bush couldn't rely solely on state secrets privilege to justify warrantless spying.
Federal courts have tended to uphold Bush administration claims to broad wartime powers to protect the nation from terrorism, so Walker's decision offered civil libertarians a new chance to convince the courts that the president abused his powers in bypassing a special court that authorizes domestic spying.
The court created by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act wasn't consulted before Bush ordered surveillance of Al-Haramain, a global charity suspected of Al Qaeda ties. Nor did the administration seek a warrant for NSA scrutiny of the phone and e-mail records of millions of U.S. telecommunications customers.
After the American Civil Liberties Union sued, alleging rights violations, Congress enacted the FISA Amendments Act to shield the telecom companies from the lawsuits.
In a class action against AT&T, the Electronic Frontier Foundation asked Walker to rule the FISA Amendments Act unconstitutional, saying that it violated individual privacy rights and granted excessive latitude for the attorney general to decide the legal responsibility of carriers that gave data to the NSA.
Justice Department lawyers reminded Walker that the congressional action was intended to shield the telecom carriers from liability for complying with government orders, and urged the judge to dismiss both challenges.
The ACLU action alleging that Bush overstepped his powers was dismissed by the Supreme Court in February, when the justices said that the rights group had failed to prove actual privacy violations.
In the Al-Haramain case, Oakland attorney Jon B. Eisenberg submitted what he said was abundant evidence that his clients' rights were violated, even without relying on evidence that the government had accidentally disclosed to them and then rescinded and sealed.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals late last year rejected the Al-Haramain assertion that it was illegally wiretapped, but sent back to Walker the issue of whether FISA preempted government state secrets privilege claims. Walker ruled that it did.
In questions submitted to the lawyers ahead of Tuesday's hearings, Walker seemed to look askance at the government's argument that allowing the lawsuits to go to court would reveal national security policy to potential enemies.
Walker's rulings aren't expected before Bush leaves office, bequeathing the battle over the reach of presidential powers to Barack Obama.
"They would want to get rid of these cases, to move on," Pepperdine University law professor Douglas W. Kmiec said of the incoming administration. "But I also think there will be a proper impulse within the Obama Justice Department to get the law right. It's one thing to have a clean worktable, and another to have a clean worktable where the laws have been brushed to the floor and all lie broken and scattered."
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
10 Comments so far
Show AllYou've gotta admit, the Cheney/Bush gang is pretty clever.
"I'll do all sorts of illegal spying, searches, renditions, etc., and then I'll seal all records of those spied upon, those rendered, etc. Then the courts can throw out all of the allegations and dismiss the cases because there is no 'evidence!' It is all locked up in the unbreachable National Security files."
I've never declared that the United States was perfect, but I'm over seventy and I can certainly remember when it was a hell of a lot better than it is. It even used to be somewhat responsive to its people.
When bush took the oath of office, is when his pathological lying began, didn't he swear to uphold and defend the constitution? then he turns around and calls it "just a god damned piece of paper". to me that's treason, but then my thoughts about the entire "administration" as, conspiring to commit war crimes, seems to be just that, my thoughts, America has no morals anymore, that's too bad.
What happened?
bob-oso December 4th, 2008 4:04 pm: "...America has no morals anymore, that's too bad. What happened?"
Bob, short answer: "Yuppies," and I say that as a Baby Boomer, but not a Yup. Bush is, thankfully, our Last Yuppie President; the "I got mine, you get yours" types who infest our financial markets and economic system, mostly at the top and middle levels. The 'Yuppie Creed' is indistinguishable from sociopathology; lying, cheating and a complete lack of compassion for your victims to get ahead is acceptable, even desirable to the 'Me First' Yuppie creep.
Many years ago, I had a disagreement with a middle-management member of Yuppiedom over NAFTA -- of course, she thought it would be good for white-collar business and was all for it, regardless of how many blue-collar union jobs went down the drain. Just the cost of doing business in our new global economy and all that. Interestingly, she mentioned that she was raised in a blue-collar home -- her dad was an autoworker -- and was only able to go to college and become a middle-management Yuppie thanks to the wage and benefits provided by his union job. When I called her on this point, she blandly replied, "Oh, yeah, well, things are different now."
And they were made that way by this sort of Yuppie thinking. In the decade since that conversation, I've met Yups similar to her who had lost their jobs and homes as their employers blithely and with little warning replaced them with someone cheaper overseas, a fate they never thought they'd face as a salaried white-collar worker. It's truly incredible how many suddenly found compassion for the average worker, and even the poor, and a use for such things as food stamps, welfare and free pantries, those 'socialist programs' they once loathed supporting with their taxes. Of course, there were a few extremists who believed the government should support them and people of their class, but no one else, but I think most of them found jobs in the Bush Administration. Watching Dana Perino on TV the other day, I did notice more than a passing resemblance to the Yuppie I argued with about NAFTA more than a decade ago.
"After the American Civil Liberties Union sued, alleging rights violations, Congress enacted the FISA Amendments Act to shield the telecom companies from the lawsuits."
Get ready for the next Congressional enactment to "shield" the Banking Cartel from violations of anti-trust laws as they use taxpayer bailout money to establish a monopoly among the few.
After Obama is officially inaugurated on January 20th, it's said there are hundreds of whistleblowers inside the government who will be coming forth to give testimony on the Bush Era. Odds are that, among them, there will be some who will offer a true assessment of how much good Bush's illegal surveillance did to quell terrorism, and whether it was used to listen in on the GOP's political opposition, as Nixon wanted to do, which was the reason for the FISA laws in the first place.
Once this happens, we'll have a whole new ballgame and I suspect we'll discover that Bush's illegal surveillance did little to stop terrorists and was mostly used to advance the political interests of the Republican Party. If that's the case, I don't think Obama's DoJ will have any choice but to prosecute. We may see Karl Rove frog-marched in handcuffs yet.
Congress (you know the legislative body that creates laws?) has already spoken on this issue. We don't activist judges deciding to sidestep our system of Constitutional checks and balances. Congress recognized these cases created a risk to national security. Also, it would be very, very unlikely for any future Department of Justice to decline to defend the constitutionality of the statute. If we want to overturn this law, Congress is the only way to proceed.
I believe that the Judicial branch IS part of the checks and balances. I also believe that it was the Congress, not some "activist" judge, which sidestepped the Constitution in colluding with the Bush executive "Decider" branch.
One can only hope!!
So far tho', it looks like more of the same, just different faces with same agenda as before.
But I could be wrong ! - and in this case I hope I am.
One can only hope that this the beginning of the avalanche that crushes the Dubya, Cheney, & Co. systematic third worldization of the Bill of Rights.
www.wunderman-comics.com