Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Warrantless Wiretapping Case Dismissed by Federal Judge (CCR v. Bush)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 02:48 PM
Original message
Warrantless Wiretapping Case Dismissed by Federal Judge (CCR v. Bush)
Source: Center For Constitutional Rights

CCR Warrantless Wiretapping Case Dismissed By Federal Judge
Obama Administration Wins Right to Keep Any Records of Illegal Surveillance


February 1, 2011, New York and San Francisco – Last night the federal district court in San Francisco dismissed CCR v. Obama, a lawsuit brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) against the Bush administration in 2006 to challenge the legality of the National Security Administration’s (NSA) warrantless wiretapping program. The suit originally sought an injunction ordering the government to end the program, and in response to this and other litigation, the government claimed to have shut down the program by 2007. In the remaining part of the case, CCR asked the court to order the government to destroy any records of surveillance of the plaintiffs—CCR attorneys and legal staff who feared that their phone calls and emails were subject to surveillance under the program.
 
The government argued that CCR did not have standing to sue because the Center lacked evidence that its staff and attorneys had actually been surveilled (and could not obtain or use such evidence in the court proceedings because such evidence would be a “state secret”). The court agreed, holding that, even though “plaintiffs appear to have established that their litigation activities have become more costly due to their concern about ,” plaintiffs could not sue without proof that they had actually been eavesdropped upon.
 
“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. Instead, it fought to keep this case out of court on the Catch-22 argument that no one can ever prove they were targeted by a secret program,” said CCR Senior Attorney Shayana Kadidal. “Despite considerable public evidence that attorneys were targeted by the program, the court refused to even order the minimum relief we sought—an order that the government destroy any records of this illegal surveillance that it still retains. It is astonishing that President Obama’s administration continues to fight to hold on to the fruits of a patently illegal surveillance program, even where that surveillance was directed at attorneys engaged in suing the government.”
 
- snip -

CCR v. Bush was filed against President George W. Bush, the head of the National Security Agency (NSA), and the heads of the other major security agencies, challenging the NSA's warrantless surveillance of people within the United States. As was widely reported, the NSA, for more than four years and with the approval of President Bush, engaged in a widespread program of warrantless electronic surveillance of telephone calls and emails in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA explicitly authorizes electronic surveillance for the purposes of collecting foreign intelligence only upon orders issued by federal judges who sit on a special court. It expressly authorizes warrantless wiretapping only for the first fifteen days of a war and makes it a crime to engage in wiretapping without specific statutory authority. Rather than seeking to amend the statute, President Bush simply violated it.

Read more: http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/ccr-warrantless-wiretapping-case-dismissed-federal-judge
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. Fighting for hope and change, once again!
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. Oh I don' t find it astonishing anymore...not at all. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. Age of No Accountability is decade long, now, so, no, no surprise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atreides1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
3. They should have taken it to Florida to Judge Vinson
After all, didn't the government use that same defense, that the States didn't have standing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
4. Yeah... laws are just for us peons...
for the power-elite, no law is unbreakable. In fact, there is no law, for all practical intents and purposes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toon Me Out Donating Member (245 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. that's so correct
Thaz right, & thaz why I don't think we'll ever see Clarence Thomas sharing a prison cell with Bernie Madoff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dreamnightwind Donating Member (863 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
5. Rec'd
because this is important. Catch-22 indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toon Me Out Donating Member (245 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
6. The next guy/gal we back...
...has got to truly stand for change. Not go with the flow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
molly77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Get the clintonistas out of the obama administration.
If we had wanted a clinton administration, we would have voted for hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jtrockville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
9. What are they hiding?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnyxCollie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
10. If only we had a constitutional scholar as President,
this might be corrected.

Maybe get rid of those politicized US Attorneys, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 07:56 PM
Response to Original message
12. Remind me again: Why does DU support him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
13. All Hail the Intern from Sidley Austin, the Bush criminal defenders!
One word: hoodwinked
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
14. what! .... sigh...
:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 07:59 AM
Response to Original message
15. Kick. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 02:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC