Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- In Blind Poll, Republicans Choose Progressive Budget Solutions Over Their Own Party's
- Not Guilty By Virtue of Videotape, Which, Unlike the Police, Doesn't Lie
- The 'Land of 10,000 Lakes' Is Running Dry
- Manning: Before Wikileaks, Leaked Docs Offered to NYT, WaPo
- Bob Woodward Embodies US Political Culture in a Single Outburst
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Top Court Refuses to Hear Guantanamo Wiretap Case
WASHINGTON — The US Supreme Court on Monday threw out a plea by 23 lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees to be informed whether conservations by their clients had been subjected to wiretaps.
A member of the US military mans the guard post before sunrise at Camp Delta. (AFP) The
nation's highest court refused to hear the case, without giving a
reason, dismissing claims from the detainees lawyers that the
possibility that their clients had been subjected to eavesdropping was
complicating the cases.
Intelligence services were given the authority to carry out wiretaps without first obtaining court approval after the September 11, 2001 attacks. But the existence of such tapes was only brought to light in 2005.
Pointing to US law on the freedom of information, the lawyers for the detainees held in the US military base in Cuba, asked to be given any relevant documents by the National Security Agency (NSA).
But in the name of national security, the NSA has refused to confirm whether there was any eavesdropping in these cases, or to publish any documents.
The lawyers first brought the case to court in 2007 in New York. The federal court found in favor of the NSA, and the detainees then lost again on appeal.
"The Obama administration has never taken a position -- in this or any of the other related cases -- on whether the Bush administration's NSA surveillance program was legal," said Shayana Kadidal, one of the lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights.
"In this case they claimed that even if it was illegal, the government has the right to remain silent when asked whether or not the NSA spied on lawyers. Today the Supreme Court let them get away with it."
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
30 Comments so far
Show AllIt was ever thus. "Justice System" is a euphemism. A legal system that gives a better deal if you can afford better lawyers can hardly be called a "justice system".
I'm shocked! The Supremacist court has such a stellar history of upholding the Constitutution, workers' rights, and human rights in general.
Just another shining page in the neverending story of "American Justice."
Face it folks. If your illustrious ancestors thought that imperial tyrany under George III of England was bad, their descendants have now lost even the most fundamental habeas corpus rights of Magna Carta Libertatum. Once that's gone, you're pretty much screwed.
You'd better hope that one or more of the current empire's colonies retains some revolutionary potential. It sure ain't gonna happen domestically.
Here's the story in Court House News:
(CN) The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a ruling shielding the National Security Agency from disclosing whether it intercepted communications between attorneys and Guantanamo Bay detainees under its terrorist surveillance program.
The high court rejected the appeal of lawyers and inmates who lost their Freedom of Information Act requests to find out if the government had been wiretapping their interactions.
They claimed they had a "statutory right to the records they seek, and there is no legal basis for the defendants' refusal to disclose them."
But the government refused to either confirm or deny the existence of the records, citing national security interests.
The 2nd Circuit in Manhattan dismissed the case, saying it was "bad law and bad policy" to second-guess intelligence agencies' belief that confirming or denying the existence of such records could jeopardize national security.
The high court turned down the appeal without comment.
Apperently "citing national security interests." is the reason.
I think it's time for we the people to go to the Supreme Court and say:
COURT DISMISSED!
You mean "national corporate interest security", don´t you?
Wise up. The corporate criminals own the fake Justice Dept. Just as they own the bogus US Congress, body and soul. Our fake president of nothing is a whore for hire no matter the color which is entirely irrelevant.
Anything for a buck is the name of the game, and all the rest is just windowdressing for the truly ignorant.
You want basic human rights? An end to corporate tyranny?
Then fight or die.
B
It only takes four justices to approve hearing a case, so even the so-called Liberal justices kicked the can down the alley on this one.
Right you are.
Remember...vote for the Democratic candidate for President because Supreme Court Noninations Are At Stake!
If you can't trust SCROTUS, who can you trust?
They're ALL official court jesters, as far as I'm concerned, or, is it the person who appointed them, namely our illustrious POTUS?
True. But the establishment is suffering from a tremendous loss of credibility. I was stunned the other day when I visited the Huffington Post and found a plethora of voices hollering about government corruption and the USA is no longer a democracy, etc. That was unheard of a few months ago. A year ago it was censored.
And compare comments here or alternet with the comments a year ago. I've never seen people this angry. It's like people are reaching that point where they don't care about the homeland security and NSA goons cataloging our every bowel movement in order to bring up charges against us at some future date. We know we are the real patriots and we are losing our fear of big brother. I call that progress.
Perhaps for the same reason Israel has "peace talks."
...and the President can order someone's execution without due process, too-- all in the name of "national security." What country is this, again?
USA...Unified Satanic Army!
Are we ready to impeach the crooks yet?
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if 'we' are ready to impeach the criminals or not, does it?
"The US Supreme Court on Monday threw out a plea by 23 lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees to be informed whether conservations by their clients had been subjected to wiretaps."
_______________*
Whoah! What a shock! Actually, double-shock. 1) that the government wiretaps, and 2) that the supreme court threw out the case.
Fascism is like this
The U.S. Supreme Court is not a solitary entity - - there are nine members of the Court. Who was responsible for refusing to hear this matter? What was the vote? 5 - 4?
6 - 3? or what? Which justices voted not to hear the case, and which were agreeable to hear it? This is important information! It should not be withheld from the public - - especially in the light of the "Citizens United ruling!
Only one SC justice, Chase, has been impeached (1804) and acquitted.
IMO I think the solution lies in expanding the SC (based on population) to several hundred justices with the ABA nominating (with citizen approval) candidates from each state for the President to choose from and the House of Representatives to advise and consent. I hope by that time the Senate has been deemed unnecessary and the necessary Constitutional changes have been made that grandfathers that obsolete institution into oblivion.
IMPEACH THE SUPREME COURT FIVE!!!!!
They violated the Constitution with their decision giving corporations the right to spend as much money as they wish on political campaigns. Now they are upholding the violation of the law and the Constitution by the Executive Branch.
IT IS TIME FOR CONGRESS TO ACT!!!
It is long past time for Congress to act. They should have impeached the original five Supremes who installed George W. Bush to the Presidency.
I also totally agree with Mr. Brown that we need to be informed about which justices voted for and against any decision that the court makes!
US Top Court refuses to hear.....(several thousand item list including corporate whistleblower cases, government corruption, media coverups, vote machine tampering, anti-trust actions, RICO investigations, worker compensation, penis length requirements for male supreme court candidates or shoe size maximum for female supreme court candidates).
The Top Court is sort of like a Top Hat. You put it on to go to a formal event or stroll the streets or act in a play but you HANG IT UP when you sit down to go to work.
RATS and tools.
R oberts
A lito
T homas
S (guess)