SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Immunity Sealed: Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Telecom Spying
Supreme Court on Tuesday rejects challenge to 2008 law allowing warrantless domestic surveillance
Oct 10, 2012
Telecommunications giants will continue to receive immunity for helping the U.S. government engage in widespread warrantless domestic spying, the U.S. Supreme Court decided on Tuesday.
The Court yesterday issued the blow to civil liberties when it rejected to hear a challenge to a 2008 law brought by rights groups Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU who charged that the practice infringed upon the rights of U.S. citizens and that telecom giants like AT&T, Spring and Verizon had violated federal laws.
"After 11 years and multiple congressional reports, public admissions and media coverage, the only place that this program hasn't been seriously considered is in the courts," Cindy Cohn, the legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said in a statement.
Reuters reports that Richard Wiebe, the lead lawyer for the customers whose communications had been accessed, said, "It's one more example of the court stepping back from taking any role in enforcing the rule of law in the war on terror."
Former constitutional lawyer and Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald writes that the decision is another example of the elite who "must not be and are not subject to the rule of law."
That the domestic spying was in violation of federal law was explained by National Security Agency whistleblower William Binney, who spent nearly four decades at the agency, to Democracy Now! earlier this year.
Binney says that "after 9/11, all the wraps came off" and that "between the White House and NSA and CIA, they decided to eliminate the protections on U.S. citizens" in gathering communications from U.S. citizens.
As the program changed in the wake of 9/11, Binney felt he had to leave the agency "because it was a direct violation of the constitutional rights of everybody in the country. Plus it violated the pen register law and Stored Communications Act, the Electronic Privacy Act, the intelligence acts of 1947 and 1978. I mean, it was just this whole series of--plus all the laws covering federal communications governing telecoms. I mean, all those laws were being violated, including the Constitution."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Telecommunications giants will continue to receive immunity for helping the U.S. government engage in widespread warrantless domestic spying, the U.S. Supreme Court decided on Tuesday.
The Court yesterday issued the blow to civil liberties when it rejected to hear a challenge to a 2008 law brought by rights groups Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU who charged that the practice infringed upon the rights of U.S. citizens and that telecom giants like AT&T, Spring and Verizon had violated federal laws.
"After 11 years and multiple congressional reports, public admissions and media coverage, the only place that this program hasn't been seriously considered is in the courts," Cindy Cohn, the legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said in a statement.
Reuters reports that Richard Wiebe, the lead lawyer for the customers whose communications had been accessed, said, "It's one more example of the court stepping back from taking any role in enforcing the rule of law in the war on terror."
Former constitutional lawyer and Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald writes that the decision is another example of the elite who "must not be and are not subject to the rule of law."
That the domestic spying was in violation of federal law was explained by National Security Agency whistleblower William Binney, who spent nearly four decades at the agency, to Democracy Now! earlier this year.
Binney says that "after 9/11, all the wraps came off" and that "between the White House and NSA and CIA, they decided to eliminate the protections on U.S. citizens" in gathering communications from U.S. citizens.
As the program changed in the wake of 9/11, Binney felt he had to leave the agency "because it was a direct violation of the constitutional rights of everybody in the country. Plus it violated the pen register law and Stored Communications Act, the Electronic Privacy Act, the intelligence acts of 1947 and 1978. I mean, it was just this whole series of--plus all the laws covering federal communications governing telecoms. I mean, all those laws were being violated, including the Constitution."
Telecommunications giants will continue to receive immunity for helping the U.S. government engage in widespread warrantless domestic spying, the U.S. Supreme Court decided on Tuesday.
The Court yesterday issued the blow to civil liberties when it rejected to hear a challenge to a 2008 law brought by rights groups Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU who charged that the practice infringed upon the rights of U.S. citizens and that telecom giants like AT&T, Spring and Verizon had violated federal laws.
"After 11 years and multiple congressional reports, public admissions and media coverage, the only place that this program hasn't been seriously considered is in the courts," Cindy Cohn, the legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said in a statement.
Reuters reports that Richard Wiebe, the lead lawyer for the customers whose communications had been accessed, said, "It's one more example of the court stepping back from taking any role in enforcing the rule of law in the war on terror."
Former constitutional lawyer and Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald writes that the decision is another example of the elite who "must not be and are not subject to the rule of law."
That the domestic spying was in violation of federal law was explained by National Security Agency whistleblower William Binney, who spent nearly four decades at the agency, to Democracy Now! earlier this year.
Binney says that "after 9/11, all the wraps came off" and that "between the White House and NSA and CIA, they decided to eliminate the protections on U.S. citizens" in gathering communications from U.S. citizens.
As the program changed in the wake of 9/11, Binney felt he had to leave the agency "because it was a direct violation of the constitutional rights of everybody in the country. Plus it violated the pen register law and Stored Communications Act, the Electronic Privacy Act, the intelligence acts of 1947 and 1978. I mean, it was just this whole series of--plus all the laws covering federal communications governing telecoms. I mean, all those laws were being violated, including the Constitution."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.