Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Judge Rejects Lawsuits in Wiretapping Cases
SAN FRANCISCO - A US federal judge dismissed dozens of lawsuits against telecom companies that participated in a wiretapping program without court authorization during the presidency of George W. Bush.
San Francisco-based US District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the companies had immunity from liability under the FISA Amendments Act (FISAAA), which the US Congress adopted in 2008.
A US federal judge dismissed dozens of lawsuits against telecom companies that participated in a wiretapping program without court authorization during the presidency of George W. Bush, seen here(AFP/File/Eric Draper) The measure granted retroactive immunity for telecommunications firms that participated in the warrantless government eavesdropping of telephone conversations and monitoring of e-mail messages following the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States.
Two rights groups, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) -- which represents 46 plaintiffs in the case -- plan to appeal the decision, arguing that FISAAA is unconstitutional.
"We're deeply disappointed in Judge Walker's ruling today," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn.
"By passing the retroactive immunity for the telecoms' complicity in the warrantless wiretapping program, Congress abdicated its duty to the American people," opined EFF attorney Kurt Opsahl.
After the September 11 attacks, Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on calls and email between the United States and abroad in cases that federal agents deemed may have a terror link, potentially picking up Americans in the sweep.
The wiretaps went ahead without the permission of a special court set up to watch over government wiretapping operations inside the United States, as provided for under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978.
The program caused public outcry when it was revealed in 2005. Opponents argued that US privacy guarantees meant the intelligence agencies should seek court warrants from the FISA court to conduct such spying inside the country.
- Posted in
97 Comments so far
Show All"By passing the retroactive immunity for the telecoms' complicity in the warrantless wiretapping program, Congress abdicated its duty to the American people," opined EFF attorney Kurt Opsahl."
They did abdicate their duty to the American people....and it seems to be a deliberate and ongoing crisis in a country with a Bill of Rights and Constitution which they swore to uphold.
So much for swearing on a bible!
Congress has no responsibility to working people, only to wealthy people. Most people can no longer afford to pay for democracy, so they don't get any. Once the IMF assumes the role of the major world bank, and the treasury is established at the United Nations, we will become completely expendable and population control in the form of bird flu etc., will confront us. Lack of health care is just one way to kill off the population. We are increasingly becoming targets for death. If you cannot see this, then you are just fodder.
Swearing on a bible?
What about swearing to defend the Constitution??
Oh, it's just a piece of paper...
How did Bush put it?
Just a G-D piece of paper!
The justice system is broken, It's time to strike for justice. The next time you have jury service tell the judge no justice no service, shut down the courts till these scum bags are brought to justice. A nation wide juror strike will get the attention of these Black Robed Shysters.
Revolting - absolutly revolting. Every step we take towards the future brings us closer to 1984.
And what about the 4th Amendment?
The new FISA does not require a judge to approve a warrant for a wiretap.
That's a violation of my rights!
It doesn't? That wasn't my take from the text of the bill, but that was when I read it last year when it was still in Congress. it may have changed since then.
From Glenn Greenwald's column, Salon, July 10, 2008:
...the extraordinary fact that the surveillance program implemented by Congress yesterday does not merely authorize most of the President's so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program" that gave rise to this scandal in the first place, but is actually much broader in scope even than that lawless program, because there is not even any requirement in the new FISA law that the "target" of the surveillance have any connection whatsoever to Terrorism, nor is there any requirement that the Government believe the "target" is an agent of a foreign power or terrorist organization, or even guilty of any wrongdoing at all. As Georgetown Law Professor Marty Lederman wrote today (emphasis his):
"The new statute permits the NSA to intercept phone calls and e-mails between the U.S. and a foreign location, without making any showing to a court and without judicial oversight, whether or not the communication has anything to do with al Qaeda -- indeed, even if there is no evidence that the communication has anything to do with terrorism, or any threat to national security."
Much more at:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/10/aclu/
Thanks, I'll check it out when I have time...like tomorrow night.
Not only that. But this case squashed most hopes of uncovering the larger domestic surveillance program that has been alluded to. Remember the AT&T switching room in SF?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0517-10.htm
"31 December 2005
I wrote the following document in 2004 when it became clear to me that AT&T, at the behest of the National Security Agency, had illegally installed secret computer gear designed to spy on internet traffic. At the time I thought this was an outgrowth of the notorious Total Information Awareness program which was attacked by defenders of civil liberties. But now it's been revealed by The New York Times that the spying program is vastly bigger and was directly authorized by President Bush, as he himself has now admitted, in flagrant violation of specific statutes and constitutional protections for civil liberties. I am presenting this information to facilitate the dismantling of this dangerous Orwellian project."
Oregoncharles
A Bush administration official speaking with reporter, Ron Suskind:
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." For those who didn't like it, another Bush adviser explained, "Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered two to one by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read the New York Times or Washington Post or the LA Times."
You see, they don't care. I wonder if the same official is working for Obama now.
Cygnus--It also violates article 1, sec. 9 of the original Constitution: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto [i.e. retroactive] law shall be passed." So far I've heard nothing of anyone challenging either of these violations of the Constitution. It defies belief that the people who passed these acts into law and the person who signed them into law were unaware of either of these provisions--especially as most of the members of both houses of Congress started out as lawyers.
Rainborowe, I was thinking the same thing concerning ex post facto laws when the Military Commissions Act was being railroaded through congress. I asked an attorney about this and his reply was that this provision in the Constitution was intended to prevent laws from being passed after the fact (ex post facto) that would allow a person to be convicted of a crime that wasn't a crime when person commmitted an act he was being criminally charged for. It had nothing to do with immunity from being conviced of a crime that was a crime when committed and then retroactively being made noncriminal.
After the September 11 attacks, Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on calls...
--------------------------
WRONG.
The wiretapping began at least 6 months BEFORE 9/11.
From the Washington Post Oct. 13, 2007:
A former Qwest Communications International executive, appealing a conviction for insider trading, has alleged that the government withdrew opportunities for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars after Qwest refused to participate in an unidentified National Security Agency program that the company thought might be illegal.
Former chief executive Joseph P. Nacchio, convicted in April of 19 counts of insider trading, said the NSA approached Qwest more than six months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to court documents unsealed in Denver this week.
Do you know if Qwest still refuses govt access to conduct warrantless wire taps?
Chuk--Good point. They still did when the news about that broke a few years ago, I remember that.
Just a short note from one of those people who were 'introduced' to the 'constitution' by 'force'.
After the USA could not defeat us in a war(s) that they started, they brought treaties to us, and we of course signed them and ceased our hostilities.
Then less than twenty years later the USA began passing illegal legislation that "defied the treaties" making them 'null and void'---or---making all of the Native Americans; prisoners of war. This was a direct violation of the 'constitution' and its Art. 6.
So now, many Americans are 'discovering' that their 'constitution' is not as 'sacred' as they were taught and that depending whom "they elect to office---or power over them"--their constitution can be 'interpreted by some pencil necked little lawyer'---to mean something different.
Why this would be a surprise to so many Americans is a surprise to many of us Native Americans who learned long ago; that the US Constitution is simply a "document of convenience" that can be used AGAINST the people as easily as it can be used FOR the people and that directly depends upon which group of social parasites the 'people elect' into office.
Dear America,
In reality, whether you receive justice at the hands of your government often depends upon your definition of justice, or the definition of justice of those YOU put into power over you. When those 'elected officials' violate you, you have no one to blame but yourselves, because you gave them the power---with little or no checks or balances on how they will use that power.
And then to make it all easier: those 'violators' put others into power (like the judge in this story) who will uphold the violations using the same twisted logic and often having the same 'smirk' on their faces when they do it.
And to add to that; there are several hundred thousands of you 'Americans' who simply do not object to the violations of their 'document of convenience' ----if they are being kept 'safe'.
So how does it feel to be an "American"----?
Good Luck America, you really need it.
Perfect comment and thank you.
Yes, many of us have forgotten the "lessons" taught Native Americans - that what the Congress gives it can illegally ignore.
I pointed out before this amended FISA passed, that it was not worth the paper it was being written on.
First of all, you cannot grant immunity to lawbreaking retroactively. It is simply unConstitutional and makes a mockery of the original legislation.
Second, Congress was telling us that illegal wiretapping would never happen again, cuz this revised second generation FISA law prohibited it. But if the original law prohibited it, why would writing a second law prohibit it, especially if in the second law you were providing immunization to the lawbreakers of the original law?
Of course, all of this pales in comparison to what happened to Native Americans. I happened to visit the Black Hills last year (my first and last trip I might add). As I understand it, this land was sacred land to Native Americans. What happened? It looks like someone vomited up the worst tourist drek imaginable on what was probably at one time extremely beautiful country. Terrible really.
On this same trip I visited the Little Big Horn for the first time. I was saddened to see the military battlefield on the bluffs, while below, the site of of the Indian village near the river, the U.S. government sought to build an Interstate Highway right through it (or close enough to trash the Indian village site). No, we need to keep the bluffs where Custer and his war criminals died pristine, but we will trash the site of the village by building a highway near or through where it was located.
God bless America!
Like all bullies, Amerika is a REALLY sore loser.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Hey now, wait just one minute! Aren't you all forgetting something?
Yeah, Obama supported this FISA legislation during the campaign. But that's because he was like Jackie Robinson-- he didn't dare put a foot wrong and give the racist wingnuts a chance to trip him up!
But all along, we just KNEW that once he got into OFFICE, he was going to FIX it!
Sure, he KNEW this court decision was coming-- in fact, he was COUNTING on it! See, besides being Jackie Robinson, Obama is also an master eleventeen-dimensional chess player. Are you all forgetting that?
He totally predicted that this court decision would happen, and stir up public outrage to such an extent that he will have the MANDATE to do the FIXING!
If there's one thing I can't stand, it's half-empty nay-sayers who lack FAITH in our anointed messi... I mean, elected politicians!
OK, maybe the fix is a "second term" thing. But it's coming! Trust me! No, I mean trust HIM!
· Yr Obd't Servant
Yes. Its all part of Obama's master plan.
Obama's allowing a complete usurpation of the Constitution in order to SAVE THE CONSTITUTION.
We're just not smart enough yet to see how he's going to accomplish it.
Once the Constitution has been fully shredded he's going to put it back together.
With ease.
Just trust him.
Remember - we had to burn the village in order to save it.
'Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. - Pete Townsend
Any judge can be bought and it appears this one may have been. His finances should be probed to discover who his political connections and alliances are with.
Judge Vaughn Walker has ruled and written favorably regarding the lawsuits against the telecoms in the past.
From Glenn Greenwald:
As Judge Walker ruled, the alleged actions by the telecoms "violate the constitutional rights clearly established" by prior Supreme Court rulings and "no reasonable entity in [the telecoms'] position could have believed [the spying program] was legal." Beyond that, the telecoms -- by allowing the Bush administration to spy on their customers with no warrants -- knowingly violated at least four separate federal statutes.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/17/hoyer/
It appears that Judge Vaughn Walker, in today's ruling, is simply interpreting the FISA law that Congress passed.
Hopefully the FISA law will be challenged for its Constitutionality.
He was appointed by Bush Sr. too.
I can't be surprised that San Franciscans stood by mum allowing Vaughn Walker to rule for years but these same people chose Pelosi over Sheehan so San Francisco is no true liberal city. Just reading these events makes me think that SF is nothing more than a trashy expensive city even if my uncle there thinks I'm nuts even when his own daughter moved to Houston and is loving it.
Following the money would be a good place to start but aren't there sites that keeps tabs on judges?
Like 'judicial watch' or 'rate the judge', don't they keep track of good and bad judges. At some point they get enough negative exposure forcing action to have them removed. IE.. Jay Bybee, John Roberts or this guy Vaughn Walker..
There should be a similar operation in place for lawyers that after enough negative reports come in they are up for judicial review and possibly disbarred. Thinking of Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo for example.
These so-called professionals that have an oath and license should be under the scrutiny of a watchdog in the event they do not live up to the standards or are in some way corrupted.
We need more checks and balances, it is glaringly obvious in our government and our judicial system and of course Wall Street.
FISA was clearly abused and the surveillance was clearly illegal.
So what's next.. Who you gonna call?
imo
http://opinionsandreasons.blogspot.com/
So let's get this thing straight:
1. ACLU, one of the plaintiffs who "lost" this case in federal court, is going to appeal it on grounds that FISAAA is "unconstitutional."
2. Now let's see, if the decision is challenged for its constitutionality, it will have to be adjudicated in the Supreme Court.
3. As of the moment the Court ended its last session, it had a vulnerable 5-4 majority of Justices who would usually find in favor of a constitutional rights claim over that of the government. One of the 5 is the retiring David Souter.
4. The proposed replacement for Souter, Sonia Sotomayor, may well determine the balance of the next Court on this very issue. However, in all the fuss about her right wing-alleged "racism" and being an "activist" judge, we don't really know (but what we can suspect from her record and her career biography is not really encouraging) which way she will swing on these and other civil rights issues; and no one in particular has even been raising this Question of Questions for the next Justice.
5. The current President of the ACLU has made a pronouncement the day after her nomination that is also not encouraging in terms of ACLU's supposed concern about "constitutional" issues for FISAAA or anything else:
"Anthony Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, wrote on his blog the day after Sotomayor’s nomination that 'while the ACLU does not officially endorse or oppose US Supreme Court candidates, I have never been personally prouder of any appointment.'"
6. As someone who contributes regularly to the coffers of the ACLU, I'd like to know what "my" organization is going to do about being a proactive voice to insert into the confirmation hearings of Judge Sotomayor this critical question about her "judicial philosophy" when a conflict arises between a law of Congress and any of the civil rights written in the Constitution that she and every other judge is bound to uphold. Mr. Romero, you can be as "proud" of a fellow Puerto Rican being nominated to the Court as you want, but you also have a duty to the principles of the organization you head. Which way will you go?
I don't know about you but I'm sick as hell about people being proud when someone of their religion, orientation, skin color or floating land mass gets a shot at a great job.
I support people of conscience, courage and character.
I don't give a flying f*** about any of that other garbage.
Where does Sotomayor stand on the 4th amendment?
Am I supposed to magically know the answer to this because she's Latin-American?
This is another example of the double-edged sword of identity politics.
Just to briefly grind one of my favorite axes: I occasionally think of the response to Pelosi's becoming Speaker of the House on a blog I used to regularly visit. One commenter wrote of having four generations of women watching the ceremony with tears running down their cheeks. I appreciate that this was a heartfelt and poignant moment for the writer and her female relatives, but I personally remained dubious about Pelosi's leadership.
Of course, the only thing about Pelosi that would bring tears to my cheek would be finding out that her funeral had taken place, and I missed it.
IMO, the unfortunate truth is that identity politics pays a dividend to monsters like Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, Alberto Gonzales, Nancy Pelosi, etc.; they benefit unduly from misplaced and reflective uncritical gender, racial and ethnic pride.
I'm not including Sotomayor in this group, just noting that although I understand the elation that comes with "one of our own" at last breaking through a glass ceiling of bigotry and justly taking their place in the highest and most prestigious centers of power, such elation indeed undermines, or mitigates against, a dispassionate appraisal of the person's intellect and character.
And I fear that the dog & pony show of the confirmation hearings will gloss over Sotomayor's positions on the range of Bush-maladministration anti-constitutional depredations that have been enthusiastically endorsed, perpetuated, and even "improved upon" by the Obama maladministration.
The hearings, as always, are mostly a chance for senators to get free air time by strutting and bloviating to the cheap seats. Thank God Biden won't be grandstanding this time around! I see no reason why the senators would pursue questions on matters controversial to civil libertarians, since they are allied with Obama in his determination to sweep these issues as far under the rug as possible.
Certainly the likes of Chuck Schumer and Arlen Specter are not likely to express "grave concerns" about Sotomayor affirming FISA immunity. At most, Russ Feingold will remark upon this issue-- on "Democracy Now", that is.
· Yr Obd't Servant
"Of course, the only thing about Pelosi that would bring tears to my cheek would be finding out that her funeral had taken place, and I missed it."
Awesome.
YOS, I know of course that the identity politics game is often played (and you left out the master of them all, Barack Obama, who played the "race card" to a fare-the-well); but the head of the ACLU: isn't that organization supposed to be about HUMAN rights? Years ago, when we--a white couple---were a adopting a racially mixed child, the politically correct social worker investigating our "case" asked: "what are you going to do about this child's black identity?" And, me being me, I committed the smart-assed answer: "Well I was hoping to work on her human identity. (And I think we did a pretty good job.)
CCR, the Center for Constitutional Rights, had a similar response right before Obama was sworn in to office. Since that moment of -an out of character show of praise- they have gotten back into the fight.
I hope Romero shows no further favoritism and keeps the objectives of the ACLU as clear as possible.
San Francisco is just an expensively trashed city disguised as "liberal" and will yet happily elect rightwingers such as Pelosi and anti-American judges such as Vaughn Walker. Even here in Virginia Beach, not a single judge would support dismissing lawsuits such as these ! Just reading these events makes me think that SF is nothing more than a trashy expensive city even if my uncle there thinks I'm nuts even when his own daughter moved to Houston and is loving it.
You my friend are correct about San Francsico. I have lived here 26 years. Just to add to your point 1/18 African-Americans males whom reside in the city are in our county jail right now!!!! 1/18 imagine that in the "so called" liberal city!!!
That's certainly doesn't bode well. I'll have to check out the incaration rate back here in VA Beach. It's bad enough that minorities and the ones jailed for harmless crimes get more jail time while the violent and drunk driving ones get a better shot at expedited paroles.
P.S.: I forgot to mention Bechtel as well. SF is catching up to Dallas at this rate.
Article one, Sec. 9. Has a "no ex post facto" law provision.
Two provisions are of interest:
" The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
Seems like Mr. Obama is working to nullify this section of the Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
"retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed "
That's what an Appeals Court is for. And after that, the Supreme Court. It's not over yet.
zmann, but it may BE over as if we get the "wrong" Justice on the court and 5-4 for the Constitution becomes 5-4 for unfettered Presidential prerogative. Taking any bets on Sotomayor?
I know very little about her rulings on subjects like that. Do you? And it goes to an Appeals Court first...and hell if quick enough, it might hit the Supreme Court before Souter retired.
zmann: 1. Souter retires this month, court reconvenes in October; likely that there will be a new Justice though Souter will "stay on" til new appointee in place; very likely that the FISAAA decision, if it gets to the Court, wouldn't be before end of current session.
2. As to SS position on similar issues: I've spent most of my time so far just trying to get people to look at this critical issue, since the court is balanced on a 5-4 teeter-totter that could swing with just one more vote of a "pragmatic" Justice who would pretty much allow President and Congress to do as they will. Obama so characterized her, and the "record" as I've seen it so far would seem to bear out that fear.
3. Another key issue in her "record" or really more in terms of her professional "biography" was brought out in an article yesterday by Bruce Dixon who focussed on her years as a corporate lawyer and what he described as her "passionate" defense of "intellectual property" rights of fashion industry clients opposing "knock off" versions of their wares. Maybe another straw in the wind toward a Justice who might further the Court's protection of the rights of corporations, treating them as "people" whose rights (to free speech for example) they seem more disposed to protect than those of "real" people.
The Dixon article is: http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/sonia-maria-sotomayor-shes-no-clarence-thomas-no-thurgood-marshall-either
4, I'm not opposing or support Sotomayor's nomination, I'm just saying let's get this stuff on the table for a decision the consequences of which we are likely to have to deal for a very long time.
Thanks for the extra info. And bring it up with your Senators...if they'll bother with it.
Not quite. Think more about "Bill of Attainder" and how it differs from ex-post-facto. All sorts of things have been legalized after they were made criminal. Prohibition was a big one. EPF refers to punishing acts done prior to their being made illegal.
Bob,
Not quite. Any ex post facto law deals with retro activity. In this case, it makes a prohibited act, legal by an act of legislature. But, in so doing, it denies our (the publics)rights to due process. The public has been offended against, and the miscreants are given amnesty. We loose our due process and privacy rights, the criminals get to continue the illegal activity.
Remember under our laws and constitution, the people are the sovereign; therefore, all power flows from us, not the other way around.
This law "retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law." And the change is continuing.
These ex post facto laws cannot give amnesty under the international criminal court, however.
Are you saying that, after it was repealed, we should have prosecuted all those who violated the Volstead act during the period of its efficacy
as I read the Constitution, one of the very weak points is lack of a people's process for removing Representatives from office...although it does seem to allow for direct arrest for treason, felony, and breach of peace?
Section 5. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time: and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Sadly, what we need are our own lobbiests. That's what Congress was meant to be, but they've been captured.
The carnage from the Bush error just gets worse the further away we are from it.
Mr. Nacchio of Qwest is an american HERO! When we so often hear of our governments and corporate douche bags showing no sign of morality or ethics, Mr Nacchio suffered personal hardship (trumped up charges)when he stood up for what is right. I have seen this so often, when those of us who still try to do the right thing, stand up to the status quo and get punished for it. Sickening. We live in a lawless society, where power and privilege trump the law.