From the ACLU Press release:
Saying that the Bush administration’s illegal spying on Americans must end, the American Civil Liberties Union today filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against the National Security Agency seeking to stop a secret electronic surveillance program that has been in place since shortly after September 11, 2001.
[Translation: Asserting that law has been broken without having evidence that a law has been broken, the ACLU today filed the first in a series of lawsuits under which an organization formed ostensibly to protect the civil liberties of Americans seeks to undermine those civil liberties by making them coequal to the liberties of agents of foreign powers who attempt to appeal for our liberties by mimicking our legal status under classifications based on geographical situatedness.]
“President Bush may believe he can authorize spying on Americans without judicial or Congressional approval, but this program is illegal and we intend to put a stop to it,” said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. “The current surveillance of Americans is a chilling assertion of presidential power that has not been seen since the days of Richard Nixon.”
[Translation: the reason it “has not been seen since the days of Richard Nixon” is that it has not happened since the days of Richard Nixon—at least not under the Bush administration (though the ACLU has made no mention of filing retrospectively against the Clinton administration or Chuck Schumer). The fact is, we’re now dealing with a Republican President, and that changes everything. So the simple suggestion that his administration has broken the law—a suggestion that is based on his administration’s (and the counsels of other agencies, such as the DoD and NS) legal assertions that it is within their power under AUMF and, by extension, a FISA Court exemption to engage in foreign surveillance without a warrant under limited scenarios wherein at least one end of the conversation takes place overseas—is enough to “demand hearings.” Guilty until proven innocent, screams the new righteous party of McCarthyism.
Of course, in McCarthy’s case, he was trying—albeit hamfistedly—to root out communists who had infiltrated our government and represented a cold war security risk; whereas the new ACLU/DNC-led McCarthyism is looking to root out those who may have tried to protect the homeland under Presidential authority without first (potentially) showing unconstitutional deference to our “parliament.”]
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a group of prominent journalists, scholars, attorneys, and national nonprofit organizations (including the ACLU) who frequently communicate by phone and e-mail with people in the Middle East. Because of the nature of their calls and e-mails, they believe their communications are being intercepted by the NSA under the spying program. The program is disrupting their ability to talk with sources, locate witnesses, conduct scholarship, and engage in advocacy. The program, which was first disclosed by The New York Times on December 16, has sparked national and international furor and has been condemned by lawmakers across the political spectrum.
[Translation: the case will be thrown out for no standing; simply being listened to—or rather, simply asserting that your paranoid fear of having your overseas calls to specified locales monitored by the NSA, who role it is to gather signal intel, is not grounds for a suit, and SCOTUS is notoriously reluctant to enter into battles that boil down to a tug of war over the separation of powers. In what ruling we do have, we already know that the NSA most certainly can acquire that information, specifically if the American isn’t the target; and so the lawsuit is a publicity stunt—a way for the ACLU to assert its staunch progressive bona fides in this particular case. Unfortunately they are agitating on behalf of our enemy to avoid legal, military, statutory, and constitutional means to gather intel as a way to weaken our ability to wage an effective war.]
In addition to the ACLU, the plaintiffs in today’s case are:
Authors and journalists James Bamford, Christopher Hitchens and Tara
McKelvey
Afghanistan scholar Barnett Rubin of New York University’s Center on
International Cooperation and democracy scholar Larry Diamond, a fellow
at the Hoover Institution
Nonprofit advocacy groups NACDL, Greenpeace, and Council on American
Islamic Relations, who joined the lawsuit on behalf of their staff and
membership[Translation: so what? Appearing for the defense, the Constitution, the War Powers Act, the congressionally signed AUMF, and absolutely no proof that in a scenario requiring a FISA warrant (say, domestic to domestic calls in a phone chain), that warrant, with its 72-hour grace period exemption wasn’t, in fact obtained; as to the 72-hour grace period itself, FISA Courts can act quickly, but the sheer number of automated intercepts (based likely off a key-word database that now needs to be rebuilt) makes FISA warrants on individual numbers, given today’s disposable technology, logistically laughable; and even though conditions for obtaining the warrants have been relaxed via the PATRIOT Act, this does not prove, as civil libertarians assert, that the President, had he wished to, could have authorized the program with the blessing of both FISA and the Congress had he simply asked for it. Instead, what it does suggest is that foreign intel gathering (as defined under FISA’s foreign surveillanc definition) did not require the administration to make changes in the vast majority of scenarios—and that the only relaxing of FISA necessary would have been for obtaining warrrant with a different standard of cause brought about by exigent circumstances.]
“The prohibition against government eavesdropping on American citizens is well-established and crystal clear,” said ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson, who is lead counsel in ACLU v. NSA. “President Bush’s claim that he is not bound by the law is simply astounding. Our democratic system depends on the rule of law, and not even the president can issue illegal orders that violate Constitutional principles.”
[Translation: The law prohibiting the breaking of the law that we cannot anywhere show has been broken (unless by “eavesdropping on American citizens” we are talking about in their role as incidental participants in legal foreign intel surveillance, in which case, courts have already ruled in the President’s favor) is crysal clear. Unfortunately, so is the law against sodomizing minors. But that didn’t happen here, either. And our OUTRAGED assertions that such buggering of kiddies might have happened—which is based entirely upon our mistrust of Uncle George and those creepy Rove-head puppets he brings over to the house when he babysits the kids—should be enough to force the institution of hearings. True, there is no evidence that a crime has been committed beyond the legal contention, made by opposing legal scholars, over what are the President’s inherent authorities under AUMF and Article II—but screw that noise. President Bush’s claim that he is not bound by the law (which, sure, he hasn’t really made that, but has instead said that he is guided by separation of powers and his position as CiC) is simply ASTOUNDING. Our democratic system depends on the rule of law, and not even the president can issue illegal orders that violate Constitutional principles. That, apparently, is left up to an activist judiciary and the legislative body who wrote FISA, which is now being used to try to subsume presidential war time powers to congressional control under a clear violation of the framer’s intent. But so what? Let’s DO THIS THANG!]
According to news reports, President Bush signed an order in 2002 allowing the NSA to monitor the telephone and e-mail communications of “hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States” with persons abroad, without a court order as the law requires. Under the program, the NSA is also engaging in wholesale datamining by sifting through millions of calls and e- mails of ordinary Americans.
[Translation: Shortly after the 911 attacks, the President authorized Foreing Intel gathering under FISA, which followed the dictates set out in the electronic surveillance definitions included in FISA. Which would have been cool and all, provided it wasn’t, like, “hundreds, perhaps thousands” of people inside the US—which is where planning for the 911 attacks took place, and which is where embedded terror cells tend to, well, embed. Similarly, their cell strucures, which work under an “activation” scheme from foreign contact, had its rights violated when the President, as CiC, decided it would be a good idea to check for those activations in order to thwart potential attacks inside the homeland preemptively.
And as for that datamining bullshit, well, let’s just leave that to Radio Shack, City Bank, Best Buy, and internet porn cookies where it belongs!]
Journalist James Bamford, a plaintiff and one of the world’s leading experts on U.S. intelligence and the National Security Agency, said that “the spying program removes a necessary firewall that would prevent the kind of government abuse seen during the Watergate scandal.” Bamford was threatened with prosecution in the 1970s as he prepared to disclose unclassified details about illegal NSA spying on Americans in his book, The Puzzle Palace.
[Translation: James Bamford, an icon of the antiestablishent movement that followed the domestic abuses of Nixon and Hoover—and was responsible for the changes to the NSA that prevents the very abuses the President and the NSA are now being accused of—is admitting that he really did shit all to stop abuses. But we should listen to him now, because he’s still concerned that, hypothetically, with an agency with such powers as the NSA, there can be abuses.
Of course, you can find security abuses with something so large as the NSA, despite its constant oversight, both by its own attorneys, the DoJ, the DoD, the FISA review court, and Congressional briefings—but then, you can also find them in Sandy Berger’s socks and boxer shorts, as well as atop Chuck Schumers’ desk or Bill Clinton’s inbox.
And of course, the 70s were 30+ years ago; just because some of the ties and pork pie hats have come back in style doesn’t mean Harry Caul’s house is being bugged yet again.
But be that as it may…]
In the legal complaint filed, the ACLU said the spying program violates Americans’ rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution.
The ACLU also charged that the program violates the Constitution because President Bush exceeded his authority under separation of powers principles. Congress has enacted two statutes, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Title III of the federal criminal code, which are “the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance. . . and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.”
[Translation: the ACLU has begged the question—primarly by asserting “spying” rather than intel gathering, and so setting up a law enforcement, domestic-arena strawman—in odrer to make the attendant claim that the program, about which they are unfamiliar with the particulars (and let’s face it, that’s the aim here, to get the classified elements revealed, which ain’t gonna happen), is violating free speech rights (it isn’t, speech is not prevented or controlled, in anything other than the soft sense that those engaging in speech that will provoke an attack are forced to be too circumspect; and fourth amendment rights, which again, there is not an iota of proof that any such violation has taken place—where due process has been denied American citizens specifically targeted by the program, or where an “unreasonable” warrantless search has taken place.
In fact, Bush and General Hayden and AG Gonzales have consistently argued the opposite—that in situations calling for such protections, this is precisely the time wherein the US has been most careful to follow FISA statutes and obtain warrants.]
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan, seeks a court order declaring that the NSA spying is illegal and ordering its immediate and permanent halt. Attorneys in the case are Beeson, Jameel Jaffer, and Melissa Goodman of the national ACLU Foundation, and Michael Steinberg of the ACLU of Michigan. The lawsuit names as defendants the NSA and Lieutenant General Keith B. Alexander, the current the Director of the NSA.
[Translation: An immediate and permanent halt to a program not provably illegal and that is intended solely to protect national security under the powers granted the President (by congress, mind) to do just that is an attempt (and a baldly partisan and tactically tin-eared one at that) to undermine our national security apparatus while seeking a shift in the balance of powers. The heavyhanded way the ACLU and its fellow-travelers are insisting upon doing this—shutting down preemptively in advance of a trial that is founded on mere accusation what the administration and its legal apparatus has noted is legal (and has cited precedent and case law for) on the grounds that unproven hypotheticals can be conjured under which the program might not be legal goes against everything the ACLU supposedly stands for—most notably a willingness to predetermine guilt and work backward from there, national security consequences be damned.
But hey, this is President Chimpy, the Emperor Cowboy Supervillian we’re dealing with. And extreme circumstances call for extreme measures. Which is why there were no consequences for Superman when he broke his mandate and spun the world wildly backward to go back in time and save Lois Lane. Sometimes the ends just have to justify the means!]
****
More from AJ Strata, Stop the ACLU, All Things Beautiful, The Jawa Report, Daily Pundit, Dread PUndit Bluto, Mensa Barbie, The Uncooperative Blogger, A Blog for All, The American Mind, California Conservative, Debbie Schlussel, and Michelle Malkin
See also, Pete Dupont, “‘Better Than Well Said’” (h/t Terry Hastings)
****
(My previous posts on the subject are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here
Et tu Chris Hitchens?
Anyone who did not see this coming, Moe and the rest of the Stooges would like to talk to you about the pies in their posession.
Though Hitchens part in this is annoying.
Greenpeace, sheesh…round up the usual suspects.
Next up, (insert random Kostards here) will add themselves to those wronged.
Nancy Pelosi talking in her sleep: “We need to investigate this, or else…slurp, drool, snort…
…or else we’ll never regain control of the Congress.”
Wake-up Nancy. You’re dreaming.
-Steve
We all knew it was a matter of time. But as this lawsuit is dismissed we can only imagine the next platform these people will erect…..As for pies, I am still waiting for mine….
Pretty hard to label Hitchens as a terrorist-loving lefty, isn’t it? I guess that’s why you kind of gloss over that aspect of the suit.
You’re right, Jeff, to suggest that the primary obstacle to getting this case heard on the merits will be the standing argument. But if you read the complaint, their argument for standing is pretty clever. Here’s the part for Hitchens:
Here’s my take on the case in case anyone’s interested.
I think they may well be found to have standing. The complaint alleges a legally cognizable injury that would be remedied by the type of injunction requested in the complaint. Moreover, the nature of the injury hinges on the disregard for the warrant requirement, not the act of spying itself. The argument is that if the warrant requirement is followed, those engaged in innocent conversations need not be overly worried about having their communications intercepted. And conversely, when the NSA doesn’t comply with the warrant requirement, even the innocent may reasonably fear that they will be ensnared in the NSA’s net.
I’m surprised that the ACLU has the resources to pursue this NSA thing considering the man-power that’s being devoted to supporting NAMBLA. A man’s right to sodomize a young boy is paramount to maintaining America’s civil liberties.
I think you’re confusing the merits with standing.
Actus, it sounds like someone’s being obtuse.
The “standing” is that the threat that someone might possibly be listening in on a journalist and sources impairs the ability of that journalist to do his/her job. With some minor changes, this could be read as follows:
Cry me a river. I don’t see how compromising national security is worth maintaining the convenience of (among other examples) a journalist. Christopher can always pop over to Wal-Mart, buy a few Trac phones for his international calls, and chalk it up as a business expense.
This will be dismissed for lack of standing in a matter of days.
Those changes aren’t minor.
Isn’t Hitchens basically arguing that it is more important for a journalist to gather intel than the government?
Is he fucking serious?
In addition, the likelihood that Mr. Mohammed Atta’s international communications are being intercepted by the NSA under the spying program impinges his own ability to communicate freely and candidly with his contacts and others, to the detriment of his effectiveness as an international terrorist.
BINGO!!!!!!!!
Gotta get this in:
Republican X: [makes reference ACLU’s annoyingly transparent partisanship, which its tax-exempt status nominally forbids]
Democrat X: [marches out some ACLU-defended Nazis]
Republican X: [concedes to Democrat X with 2nd Amendment caveats]
Readers: [fail to note ACLU-reinforced Nazisâ€â€>non-Democrats metonymy, because repetition has rendered it invisible]
ACLU: [giggles and counts money]
No shit Actus. Sarcasm is wasted on you.
No, Moe, he can’t be serious. More importantly, the court can’t give him any relief because the “harm” he is claiming would be the same were the interceptions done with a warrant.
Hey, I could be a plaintiff in this action too! I write emails to friends overseas, which conceivably might have been run through some government computer and perused by some bureaucrat for my use of the flagged words “anhydrous,” “cocktail,” and “chimpy.”
I DEMAND MY HYPOTHETICAL DIGNITY BACK!! (OR A SUBSTANTIAL SETTLEMENT).
How’s the lollipop and pepperstick garden doing this year? Pretty good crop or did the unicorns get it all again?
pepperMINTstick >.<
Most interesting. I thought the big problem with the program was supposed to be that the surveillance was (supposedly) being done without warrants; Hitch’s complaint is apparantly that it’s being done at all. Just how was he able, back in the Good Old Days, to assure his sources that his conversations with them weren’t being monitored under a secret FISA warrant?
TW: while I continue to have my doubts about the legality of the program, I can’t say I care much for the company that puts me in.
Comparing Hitchens situation to Atta’s misses the whole point of the warrant requirement. If FISA is being followed, Hitchens and his sources have little reason to believe that their conversations will be intercepted (because it is very unlikely that a warrant could be procured to listen to such calls). Therefore, Bush’s decision not to follow FISA affects Hitchens in a way that it doesn’t affect someone like Atta, who would have good reason to suspect that his conversations were being intercepted whether or not the warrant requirement is being followed.
That’s the whole point. Conducting surveillance without warrants chills everyone’s speech. Conducting surveillance with warrants only chills the speech of terrorists.
It’s a clever argument, and it may be good enough to avoid dismissal on standing grounds.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347
The Court specifically noted, however, that its decision did not apply to situations involving national security:
Whether safeguards other than prior authorization by a magistrate would satisfy the Fourth Amendment in a situation involving the national security is a question not presented by this case
United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297
[This case] involves the delicate question of the President’s power, acting through the Attorney General, to authorize electronic surveillance in internal security matters without prior judicial approval
. . .
T]he instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the President’s surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country.
. . .
We emphasize, before concluding this opinion, the scope of our decision. As stated at the outset, this case involves only the domestic aspects of national security. We have not addressed, and express no opinion as to, the issues which may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004)
The Government maintains that no explicit congressional authorization is required, because the Executive possesses plenary authority to detain pursuant to Article II of the Constitution. We do not reach the question whether Article II provides such authority, however, because we agree with the Government’s alternative position, that Congress has in fact authorized Hamdi’s detention through the AUMF [the post-September 11 Authorization for the Use of Military Force]
. . .
We conclude that detention of individuals falling into the limited category we are considering, for the duration of the particular conflict in which they were captured, is so fundamental and accepted an incident to war as to be an exercise of the “necessary and appropriate force” Congress has authorized the President to use
United States v. [Cassius] Clay, 430 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1970)
The fifth wiretap was not disclosed to defendant because the District Court found that the surveillance was lawful, having been authorized by the Attorney General, for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information
United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593
In sum, we hold that, in the circumstances of this case, prior judicial authorization was not required since the district court found that the surveillances of Ivanov were “conducted and maintained solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information.â€Â
United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871
Foreign security wiretaps are a recognized exception to the general warrant requirement….
United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59
Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment
United States v. Truong
For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], “unduly frustrate†the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations.
The court held that <object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agent or collaborators,â€Â</b></u> and the search is conducted “primarily†for foreign intelligence reasons.
2002, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review decided Sealed Case No. 02-001
The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power. The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President’s power by providing a mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the government’s contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable
I hope the MSM, Democrats and liberals yammer about this all the way thru the 08 election.
Pretty hard to label Hitchens as a terrorist-loving lefty, isn’t it? I guess that’s why you kind of gloss over that aspect of the suit.
Hey, Hitchens supported the N. Vietnamese and Algerians. He might not love terrorists, but on occassion he does hang out with them. Let’s not forget he is an admitted Trotskyite: I don’t know what part of the center, Trotskyites belong, but I believe it is somewhat left of John Kerry, Hillary Clinton.
Thanks, Pat. Added your comment as a link. Saved me the trouble of having to dig this stuff up yet again…
That’s as american as apple pie. Ask Massoud, or bin laden, circa hte mid-80’s.
Oh please, this is stupid. No one has been more forceful and unrelenting in their support of the Iraq war and Bush’s war on terrorism in general than Hitchens. I know it would be more convenient for you if that wasn’t true, but it is.
Actus,
That’s as american as apple pie. Ask Massoud, or bin laden, circa hte mid-80’s.
You going anywhere with that assertion, or what?
BRD
AL,
Hitchens is entitled to his own views, as I am entitled to agree with them when I agree with them and disagree when I, well, disagree with his views.
So?
BRD
AL, you asserted that Hitchens could hardly be a leftist…surprise, he’s what the left should be, if they still had common sense and the old-fashioned anti-fascism in them.
Sadly, all of that went out of style long ago. Iraq’s terrorists are fascists through and through, and the left just *hearts* them. Hitchens is on the other side of the fence, just that that whole goddamn yard went off the cliff. So he can kick it with the right until the left finally takes the jaws of life to pull their heads out of their collectivist asses.
If FISA is being followed, Hitchens and his sources have little reason to believe that their conversations will be intercepted (because it is very unlikely that a warrant could be procured to listen to such calls).
And your support for this assertion is….your intimate knowledge of Hitchens’ contacts and conversations with those contacts? Got a little datamining operation of your own that you’d like to tell us about?
Pat’s quotation of the 4th Amendment with the highlighted “unreasonable search and seizure” is straight to the point: The typical “reasonable man” does NOT regard national security as “unreasonable”.
Further, if Christopher Hitchens is worried that he’s being bugged, he needs to check into it.
Is NSA bugging him? I seriously doubt it. They have a full plate.
What he needs to worry about is whether one of his professional enemies hired a garden-variety hacker to bug his line. That is where the REAL danger of bugging is from. The NSA is too busy for that kind of crap.
Hitchens was anti-Clinton and is pro-Iraq…particularly pro-Kurd. But he can be a prick and his government policy positions probably remain leftist.
AL is a persitent absurdist. If they have standing (dubious) is it really plausible that a court will allow the plaintiffs to dig thru NSA records?
The ACLU suit is a stunt.
So we are going to have judges determining the legitimacy of a target rather than the professional spooks? You know that is not going to happen; if the NSA asks, the judge rubber stamps. That is why this whole mess is such a load of bullshit to begin with.
That assumes, of course, that the law is actually being broken in the first place.
If it is being broken (an assumption that is very hard to prove without disclosure of the [classified] details, assuming that you don’t accept the separation of powers as defined in the Constitution), yup, you have a point.
If the law is not being broken (an assumption that can be readily approved if you accept separation of powers as defined in the Constitution, and multiple court rulings), this comparison demonstrates that this “good standing” of Hitchens in this lawsuit is little more than moral relativism.
Of course, I know which way you lean, AL. I’m just making sure that my position is crystal clear.
As for Hitchens himself……I’ve no problem with his concerns about his overseas calls being wiretapped. But I see that as being the nature of his business. If he wants news, he needs contacts to feed him data. Those contacts are certain to be on the shady side. Like any good reporter, he wants to maintain those contacts.
But now he must worry that he can’t pick up his phone and call his contacts from the comfort of his office (or at least from within the USA), since they don’t believe that the call is secure. Now he either has to leave the country to make his calls, or use other techniques to get around this (e.g., buy throw away phones).
A lawsuit for his inconvenience. Against national security. Again, cry me a river.
To quote the invaluable Gary Burbank:
“We adhere to the journalistic credo that your right to know supercedes your right to exist.”
No one has been more forceful and unrelenting in their support of the Iraq war and Bush’s war on terrorism in general than Hitchens.
Until he surmised that intelligence-gathering operations conducted as part of the war effort could possibly, conceivably, maybe put a dint in his fat wallet. It sounds like someone is quite forceful and unrelenting in defense of his buck-making abilities.
Trotskyite…giggle
Anyone else remember that there was an Executive Order saying the CIA couldn’t associate with unsavory types likely to have committed crimes? And how that was lauded as being moral and right, because it prevented the CIA from inadvertantly supporting or funding criminal, terroristic, or other evil acts?
Why doesn’t that standard—not the EO, but the standard—also apply to journalists?
Note to Anonymous Liberal, et al:
As you are the self-appointed determiners of what is right and legal–check back with me in a few weeks when the real judges toss this thing out in the gutter to occupy space with discarded ACLU fund-raising letters.
Then feel free to tell me how the legal system itself is wrong.
Anybody know how I can get hold of Superman? I want to see if he can fly around the world really, really superfast like he did for Lois Lane…only go the other way. Ten months—give or take a couple of weeks—oughta do the trick.
With regards,
Ken Mehlman
I like this suit. I think it is time to get this question settled and I predict that it will be settled in favor of the NSA.
AJStrata has a good take on the NSA Program and specifically tasks why warrants are not needed.
There is also one question I would like to ask those on the left. What benefit does George Bush realize from his “illegal” activity? Obviously no political benefit. He had not revealed the NSA program’s successes, nor crowed about them. So what was his motivation?
rls,
I’ll save actus and the rest of the Goober Law Review some time:
Here you go.
Up next, CNN sues the Pentagon for attempts to make Osama bin Laden a target of missile strikes, saying that such a missile strike would interfere with their ability to conduct an interview.
As explained by my DI while he was eating my cookies:
“Look, kid – in a fight between the US Marine Corps and the US Post Office, who do you think is gonna win?”
Exactly. Why are people so upset with the ACLU, yet at the same time so convinced the ACLU is wrong?
Up next, CNN sues the Pentagon for attempts to make Osama bin Laden a target of missile strikes, saying that such a missile strike would interfere with their ability to conduct an interview.
Zing!!!
Damn. Hitch so went up in my book after his Galloway smack-down. Now this.
If he is actually concerned about the NSA listening in to his conversations to some jihadi type in the ME then they better damn well be listening in. I don’t care if the NSA mines the dots from the grand pooba jihadi himself or happens to pick them up from a journalist talking to a third-stringer hanger-on.
If a journalist in this country has a source close enough to anything that smacks of terrorism to provide information of interest to the journo then that is exactly the kind of tidbit that may be useful when combined with all the other bits.
Sorry Hitch. Your freedom of speech and freedom of the press do not override my freedom to insist that my government attend to its constitutional duty not to get my ass blown up.
Dots.
Find them.
Connect them.
Send a Hellfire missile along the proper bearing.
It would not surprise me one bit if these cases are dismissed on standing grounds. But whatever you think about the ACLU, they have good lawyers working for them. Their argument for standing is a clever one, and it may just be good enough to survive a motion to dismiss. Standing law is notoriously nebulous and unpredictable. But the ACLU would not have filed this suit if they did not think they had a reasonable chance of surviving objections to standing.
Alls I wants ta know is: are dey snoopin’ on my private conversations with my girlfriend, who just happens to be a person of the—um—Thai persuasion, sports hot knockers and some highly interestin’—ahhh—junk is da term of art I think, and can be reached at 1-900-HOTTHAI?
‘Cause you knows I’ll give dem NSA creeps a “cause for action”, if you knows whud I mean…Dem MS-13 bums could seriously impair my bidness if they found out about my—um—relationship and started puttin’ de word out on the street, ya know? Peoples wanna deal wid a man, right, and dis ain’t exactly the kinda activities normally associated with “manliness”, capeche?
Did I just say all dis out loud? Ho boy, is Michael gonna be pissed…
Sorry, OCSteve, but you’re missing the point entirely. If a journalist is talking to a terrorist, the government can get a FISA warrant to listen in on that conversation. What the ACLU suit alleges, however, is that the specter of warrantless wiretapping is chilling communication with non-terrorist sources. In other words, people do not even want to talk about certain subjects over the phone for fear of being caught up in the NSA’s dragnet. Terrorists have to worry about their conversations being intercepted whether or not a warrant procedure is followed. But Bush’s abandonment of the warrant procedures makes it so that even non-terrorists have reason to fear they are being spied upon. Get it?
But the ACLU would not have filed
this suit if they did not think they had a reasonable chance of surviving
objections to standing.
Or generating loads of donations.
<objections to standing. </blockquote></i>
No doubt that the ACLU believes that, AL. But that belief rests squarely on the question of legality. One of the primary points Jeff G has been making all along is that the monitoring is legal. That’s what I believe.
I also have to wonder that maybe the ACLU knows that their chances of success in this lawsuit are slim, and this lawsuit is largely for the purpose of impressing their supporters that They Are Doing Something About Bush.
I’m thinking that the behavior of the Democrats in the US Senate during the Alito confirmation hearings gave the ACLU some ideas on how to impress supporters. Y’know, posturing and puffing for their voter base even when the Senate Democrats knew the confirmation was very hard to derail for any serious reasons.
Now, I don’t expect the ACLU to actually listen to a bunch of yammering rednecks (e.g., me). But you should understand that, thanks to the ACLU’s habit of overdosing on Kool Aid, I really don’t care what the ACLU thinks. What was once a decent organization has devolved into something devoid of ethics and impartiality, and we are treated once again to a sideshow of freaks.
In the meantime, we’ll just have to wait and see just what the judges think of this. Me, I’m betting on the ACLU getting their ears pinned back….and our nation survives this war, in spite of the fools on the left.
But I’m funny that way.
Dots, AL – dots. It’s a data mining operation based on what little we know. The terms ‘domestic spying’ and ‘wiretapping’ are being used intentionally across a broad spectrum to obfuscate the issue. If they have need to listen 24×7 to every call Hitch makes I’m confident they do get a warrant. If he gets caught up in it because he makes or receives a call from a person of interest I have no problem with that. Whatsoever.
Do you say ‘bomb’ in an airport? Even jokingly? I’ll assume not. I would no further do that than say bomb, or ‘blow up’, or any host of other obvious key words on an overseas phone call. I assumed overseas calls were monitored and saying an inopportune phrase could get you some unwanted attention – long before this came to light. Is that chilling my speech? I guess so – for me it is an appropriate tradeoff. Consider bringing suite because you can’t say bomb in an airport or yell fire in a theatre without getting some unwanted attention as a result. I would be 1000 times more pissed if the scoop was that my government was not doing this or something very similar.
And it’s quite the dragnet as not a single person has yet to be produced that can make a case they have been ‘caught up’ in anything.
Dots.
Anonymous Liberal, now that’s just dumb. How paranoid are the people you hang out with? Do you honestly believe that the NSA has any interest in what a non-terrorist converses about? To what end?
What are they afraid of? Assasination? Blackmail? Arrest?
Specially if you’re a reporter talking about bombs blowing up with people you’re interviewing abroad.
You’ve got this exactly backwards. First, you’re confusing the standing argument with the substantive merits of the case. Standing has to do with who’s making the allegations, not the substantive merit of those allegations. If this case is dismissed on standing grounds, it will have ZERO to do with the merits of the claims, and everything to do with who’s bring the suit.
That’s why this is a risky move for the ACLU. If the case is dismissed on standing grounds, sites like this one will undoubtedly contrue such a dismissal as if it were a vindication of the legality of Bush’s program.
The ACLU is confident they are on strong legal footing regarding the illegality of Bush’s program. The problem for them is finding a vehicle through which to get their argument heard. To get to that point they will have to survive objections to standing. They have a clever argument for standing here, but ultimately it will come down to whether the judges really wants to get involved in this dispute. If they don’t they will find procedural grounds (like lack of standing) to dismiss these suits.
When all is said and done, Hitch is still a journalist. So it’s not too surprising if he turns out to subscribe to the Judith Miller Credo: :It is essential that the government uncover the truth provided they can do it without inconveniencing {{{*>>—>ME<—<<*}}}. If they can’t…. not so much.”
– Frivolous folly taken to the point of an art form. The Libs are on an irreversable self ass-burning course. The more this comes to the attention of the public, the worse the slap down is going to be. Sometime the Liberal leadership is going to need to take stock.
– A running track record of 15+ baseless AnythingGates, which all in all got the Dems a record amount of bad PR.
– Running a Presidential candidate who proves to be so feckless he can’t even allow his military record to become public.
– A movement calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, assuring both a defeat and putting meaningless to the sacrifices made by everyone who served and/or died in the WOT. The net result of which, the Dems are now labled soft on terrorism, defeatists who want to cut and run, and cheerleaders for America’s enemies.
– Gores obligatory public meltdown, intended to rally the base in the hopes of offsetting the recent Republican victories in SCOTUS nominations, along with Conressional Democrat delaying tactics, but actually opening a real bucket of worms exposing possible excesses against American citizens during the Clinton years. More bad PR with no fruitfull payoff.
– Just to make sure even granny in an attic in Iowa is aware of the Democrats hate-Bush-America derangement bowl, now they’ve decided to take the fatal step of putting this “collective stupidity” before the court. Its soooo assinine I’m beginning to believe there really is a Rovian mole in the midst of the left camp advising them. No other way to explain it.
– Someone should give the Liberalcrats the name of a good PR agent or intro them to some Hollywood producers or something. This crap-a-thon “get Bush” campaign is not only a disaster, but if it continues much longer at the expense of any sort of viable Dem party social plan, its just not going to matter anymore.
TW: Will a hundred Rovian rope-a-dopes be enough of a cluebat for the idiotarians?
Border searches do not require a warrant. International communication crosses the border, therefor governments can listen.
ACLU attempts to leave the USA defenseless.
Get it?
Sure. A gaggle of Bush-haters wish to drag a co-equal branch of government into their publicity-seeking stunt meant to preempt a serious discussion of the balance between civil liberties, specifically the 1st and 4th amendments, and the commander-in-chief’s constitutional duty under Article II to defend the nation.
Which is exactly the next
logicalstep for a torch and pitchfork-wielding mob whose previous disingenuous attempts to frame the narrative as pitting a Nixonian schemer intent on bending an enemy communications data-mining operation to his own eeeevil purposes against ordinary citizens cowering in their homes, afraid to use the phone for fear of being scooped up by Bush’s brownshirts, fell on the citizenbots’ deaf ears.Of course, why this howling, tin-eared pack expects the citizenbots to fear more for the lost—I tell you, lost!—civil liberties of a sorry pack of professional litigators and their journalist lackeys than for their own is akin to asking how many
HitlerBush Youth can dance on the head of a pen registery.Yeah, I get it.
Martin, my point was that reporters’ sources in the Middle East (not me personally) might be fearful of being improperly wiretapped. Whether that fear is objectively justified is beside the point. The argument is that an allegedly illegal practice (warrantless wiretapping) is causing a chilling effect on protected speech; that might be sufficient for standing purposes regardless of whether that fear is justified.
And for that matter, is such a fear really so paranoid? After all, the whole purpose of having oversight is to prevent abuse. So without it, how do we know the program isn’t being abused? Plus, is it really so crazy for administration critics in the Middle-East to fear that their calls with journalists (which undoubtedly discuss terrorism-related issues) are being picked up by these warrantless searches, and that that information might be used against them somehow? Is that possibility really so far-fetched that it’s out of the realm of the conceivable?
Anon Lib: <objectively justified is beside the point. </i>
This position agrees that the NYT did enormous damage to national security just by printing the article, doesn’t it?
Ha! That’s hilarious. Clearly this move is just designed to “preempt a serious discussion.” Just out of curiosity’s sake, when exactly was that serious discussion going to happen? Is that before or after you’re done tripping over yourselves to reflexively defend Bush from any and all criticism and labeling all of his critics as terrorist-loving pussies? Was all that just stage 1 with stage 2 to be devoted to “serious discussion about balancing civil liberties”? Please.
If it wasn’t for groups like the ACLU there would be no discussion of this at all. After all, what’s to debate? Bush is so clearly within in his rights to disregard a federal statute, right? This is a manufactured scandal, right? No one but Bush-hating lunatics could possibly find anything objectionable here, right?
– Not at all AL. provided you want to discuss it over coffee or with your analyst. We don’t adjudicate in America on a basis of “suspicions”. You must have slept throught that civics class.
– Judge Napolitano just put it in perspective for you on FOX. Even if they have standing, which they do not, they cannot bring a case because they simply “suspect” something. You have to display an actual harm that has been caused to yourself to have any sort of claim. If you don’t understand the reasons for this common sense approach, or the tantamount chaos that would ensue if I could sue because I think Abbey Hoffman usurped my civil rights because I suspect hes a Marxist, then I don’t know what to tell you. Its just self-delusional thinking, hoping some way, some how, to nail Bush that drives you leftists. That you would even consider arguing such a rediculous position speaks volumes to the desperation of the Liberals these days.
– I think the frantic, shot-gun approach, and willingness to espouse idiotic, unworkable angles, is born from the fear that if a Republican candidate wins in 2008 its going to be another 8 long years before theres any hope for the Dhymmies.
I’m glad I’m not a lawyer, because this sounds an attempt to create a legal loophole to question the separation of powers in the Constitution in court.
Oh, I get it, AL. That’s why I think the ACLU has ulterior motives for this lawsuit, more to do with impressing their contributors than actually worrying about any violations of the law.
And construing such a dismissal as if it were vindication…..do I hear you rightly? If the ACLU wins the case, the wiretapping program is not vindicated. If the ACLU loses the case, the wiretapping program is not vindicated.
Well, I guess have that backwards again. My bad.
So, that must be this pesky separation of powers thing again, right? Damn that Constitution, so inconvenient!!
Not unless you assume that terrorist had no idea the U.S. was trying to intercept their communications, which seems like a silly assumption.
Hitch is a tactical signatory – nothing more.
He’s kissing some pacifist, progressive butt after being a voice for muscular belicosity.
Maybe he’s vying for a Simon and Schuster book deal and has to say the “right things” for a couple of months.
-Steve
Not unless you assume that terrorist had no idea the U.S. was trying to intercept their communications, which seems like a silly assumption.
Yeah, kind of like how a bunch of camel-bothering salafists might come up with a crime-of-the-century plan to turn a few spare city blocks of NY real estate into ash, and then run back to Afghanistan, yelling “Base! Can’t get me! Nah Nanna Nah Na!”
Yeah, these are the great minds, the clear thinkers, that whatever we do, we shouldn’t worry about them. Because they are the most brilliant folks on the planet, and I bet they have already thought of it.
“Mr. Hitchens believes that free and open communication with his sources is an essential element of his work as a journalist. Given the sensitive nature of his work, Mr. Hitchens must assure some of his sources that their communications are kept in strict confidentiality. The Program undermines Mr. Hitchen’s ability to make that assurance. As a result, individuals are less forthcoming in their conversations with him, and may cut off communications completely.”
comment by Anonymous Liberal
Unfortunately for you and the suiters, an “esential element” of the President’s responsibilities is to ensure the security of this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic, especially in times of war. He is given great latitude by the Constitution in this endeavor. “Given the sensitive nature” of the Program that the President has authorized, President Bush expects that intercepted communications from suspected enemies “are kept in strict confidentiality”. Please tell this to the NY Times and their so-called “informers”, otherwise known as lawbreakers for leaking classified information. Thanks to them, our enemies abroad will now be “less forthcoming in their conversations” with our enemies here on the home front.
…unless you bring up that statements made by the press or members of Congress are likely to give comfort and solace to our enemies. Because it those cases, it is patently false that they are bothering to read our newspapers
It’s the perfectly constructed enemy—like Bush, alternately dumb and blinded by theocracy and brilliant to the point that they known and have foreseen and anticipated all.
THERE IS NO FIGHTING THEM! SURRENDER IS THE ONLY WAY! ONLY, Y’KNOW, CALL IT VICTORY AND LET’S GET BACK TO UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE AND ORGIES AT TEDDY’S PLACE ON THE CAPE!
You’re either really dumb or you’re being deliberately obtuse here. If the ACLU loses the case on the merits, of course that will be a vindication of the program. But if they lose on standing grounds, all that means is that they weren’t the proper party to bring the suit. Surely you can understand such a simple concept.
Now I’ve got to go back and reread FISA yet again, but I suspect that it doesn’t give anyone a private right to sue. So this case may have not only no standing but no cause of action since there is no constitutional right of privacy for a trans-border phone call.
The bottom line remains that this is a joke lawsuit.
– No AL. Its much more intelligent to give your enemies all the information you can through traitorous acts of “leaking” National secrets to a rabid Bush-hating press. Of course. How silly of us.
– You and your cohorts in this crap-o-thon are just power starved idiotarians that could give a fuck less about citizens rights or protecting America. After all, there is no War on terror. Right. If that Correspondent has her head cut off
I hope the fuck she haunts your scumbag Marxist ass for the rest of your life.
TW: Any century now I’ll get an answer from the lefturds as to why the “leakers” couldn’t take the info to any Dembulb Senator or Congressman on the hill. I’m still waiting.
BBH wrote:
As usual, BBH, you totally missed the point. While we don’t know who has been the subject of warrantless wiretaps, we do know that such wiretaps have taken place. The Bush administration has admitted it. The ACLU and Hitchens are arguing that the very fact that such warrantless wiretapping is taking place chills freedom of expression and association and therefore inhibits their ability to do their jobs. The merits of that argument have nothing to do with who specifically is being wiretapped. And this is merely a preliminary question. If they can establish an “injury in fact,” then standing exists and the case can proceed to the important question: whether or not the program is illegal.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever, AL. What else do you have?
Seriously, worst case scenario, what is the very worst that could happen, even if they bugged all 300 Merry Million ‘Murkins? We can’t have lesbian-gay-Vampire phone sex with our transvestite Colombian drug dealers while online banking?
Well, those absolute Bush B@stards, I demand my my civil right to barnyard porn and to have 300 lb. women cradle their eight kids while talking dirty to me over the phone! We’ve had some pretty big doozies for laws in the past (Alien and Sedition Acts, among many, many, many others) and the slippery slope hasn’t yet grabbed us up, after 2 centuries and counting.
So give it up.
And what’s that congressman supposed to do? Leak it? it would be legal for them to do it on the floor.
– What “job” would that be AL. Aiding and abbeting the enemy. Or maybe you think theres gold to be mined in the idea that a newsmans right to yak with the Jihadist murdering thugs trumps the Presidents Constitutional duty to act to protect America. Good fucking luck with that. Take that idea in front of the Electorate and you’ll be lucky if you don’t get tarred and feathered.
TW: I blame all this chuckle headed socialism bullshit on our leftist poly-sci profs in our colleges.
BBH, are you really that dense? It’s not the conversations with “jihadist murdering thugs” that they’re talking about. Would it kill you to actually read the comments you attempt to mock? The claim is that non-terrorist sources are being discouraged from talking because of warrantless wiretapping. They fear they’ll be lumped in with the terrorists and spied upon.
And keep in mind, none of this is really the issue. It’s just a procedural argument being put forward in order to meet the standing requirement and allow the real issue (the legality of the program) to be litigated. Don’t get so bogged down in the procedural wrangling that you lose sight of the real issue.
– Actus – jesus. At least try to maintain a modicum of intellectual honesty here. I know most of your posts are generally dripping with dis-ingenuous rhetoric. But that one takes the cake.
– There are specific rules and legal processes in place for people who have legitimate issues. Every government worker reads and signs a whole set of policies. The choice is really whether you are seriously “whistle-blowing” or you want max face time and press exposure to serv your partisan agenda.
– When you take the approach they did, needlessly, a door stop would no what your real intentions are. What you are hoping is the general public, which your feckless partywhore Gore called the “ignorant masses”, never catches on to your tricks. I think this is definately one of those times you should be revisiting “be careful what you wish for”. The White house is saying they absolutely welcome this fight.
– That just can’t bode well for the left.
TW: Later the Liberals will be claiming it was Bushes fault for the whole wiretapping mess because if he hadn’t scared some of the left by attacking the terrorists it never wou8ld have come up.
Actually, neither, AL. I’ve dealt with legal procedures before, and they baffle me. That’s why I’m glad I’m not a lawyer; I’m results oriented, not nuanced. If the case gets thrown out of court, no matter what the reasons, it’s vindication of the program, because the ACLU didn’t have a leg to stand on, in spite of their assumption that the program is illegal. And assumptions are all that I’ve seen to date.
I think that’s what lawyers call “getting off on a technicality”, isn’t it? It doesn’t mean that the accused is innocent or guilty, but that the accuser screwed up. Crime victims hate this approach, but that’s never stopped the ACLU before.
But it is certainly an indictment against the accuser, either for their incompetence, or for being wrong. Specifically, the ACLU.
– AL. You’re down to repeating yourself. You cannot bring an action on a basis of a “suspician”. period. end of the discussion.Wthis is going nowhere, which you will see very quickly.
– Then of course you can claim loudly in yet another screed, that your constitutional rights are being denied. The rest of the Libturds in your echo chamber will bleat along with you, but no one else will take it seriously. But hey. Knock yourself out.
I don’t get it. Hasn’t Hitch ever heard of parking garages and flower pots? I thought they taught that shit in the first year of journalism school…
On standing, it means this plaintiff doesn’t have a leg to stand on. But there could be a meritorious case.
Yeh Actus – and you could have pigs flying out of your ass that took a dump on my roof. But if I can’t produce the shit coated shingles I got no case. What is it about the “burdon of proof is with the plaintiff” do you intellectuals have such a tough time with.
– Nevermind. I’m off this bus. We’ve moved into the usual “I’m Liberal so I’ve got to be right” zone.
But do any of the plaintiffs have standing if no law has been broken?
Since it’s not clear that anyone has broken a law at all, it makes the whole thing seem like a fishing expedition, especially with CAIR involved in the suit.
Earthling – you keep talking like that and the left will brand you as a : “COMMONSENSE-IST!”
So that answers my question. You’re just dumb. Notice how your first paragraph entirely contradicts your second paragraph. You’re exactly right in the second one. Getting off on a technicality says nothing about whether you are innocent or guilty. Similarly, having a case dismissed on standing grounds says nothing about its substantive merits of the case. It’s just a procedural technicality. It means that the court didn’t reach the substantive claims because it determined that the wrong party was bringing the suit.
Standing is an injury that can be fixed. If the law hasn’t been broken then you don’t have merits, its not a question of standing though.
I’d like some of your bourbon of proof.
-And well you should Actus – when this latest folly blows up in your Libturd faces, getting very wasted is about all you’ll have left.
Here is my best analogy:
At the height of the cold war the NYT breaks a story that the NSA is listening to phone calls going in to and out of the Soviet embassy. Even though this is plain common sense to most Americans, Democrats and the ACLU scream foul because:
-The embassy is on US soil and therefore it is domestic spying.
-One person on the call could be a US citizen – freedom of speech, domestic spying, a chilling effect.
-No warrants are obtained or even considered.
Reagan’s response?
“The bombing begins in 5 minutes…†(NYT, ACLU, etc.)
My response? Yeah!
“Is NSA bugging him? I seriously doubt it.”
Unless he’s doing something he shouldn’t be doing. Which isn’t all that far-fetched, IHMO.
Cool! This means we can legally monitor CAIR and the ACLU now, right?
Er, I meant, start monitoring, start, yeh….
This would be solved if we all can just agree that when a republican is in the WH, article II of the constitution is no longer valid.
When a Dem—or neo-Whig, or whatever non-Republican lefty party replaces the suicidal Dems—wins the WH, presto, article II is valid again.
Problem solved.
I certainly hope that we are monitoring the ACLU. They’re practically the legal arm of Al Qaeda at this point. There’s a side of me that wants to think they mean well, but more and more I think they really do want to bring the country down.
So when Clinton took office I’m sure the spying on hostile embassies stopped, huh?
Coming in late here, but Hitchens has no possible ability to make any such assurance anyway. He is dealing with people in foreign countries and Hitchens has no ability to make any promises on the foreign powers’ behalf. The host country could be listening, or Britain, or the Sunnis, or the group about whom the source is talking.
Hitchens may be a US person, but the laws and ideals surrounding US journalism aren’t universally held ideals. Does he really think he can promise some Egyptian giving him info about the Eqyptian government that Hitchens and US laws can protect him?
It isn’t Hitchen’s promise to make. The only promise he can make is that he personally won’t blab.
That’s not US soil.
– Overseas contacts with known Al Qeada agents is not US soil either actus.
– The good news is theres a growing effort to determine just why we are funding politically orientated operations like ARRP and ACLU, ect with tax dollars. Now theres something I’d like to see a debate in Congress on.
Tsk, tsk. Such invective. Perhaps if you stopped being aloof for a moment, you might have read the “legal procedures baffle me” bit. Isn’t enlightment part of the liberal dogma?
Nope. I assumed that the case was thrown out in both paragraphs. Doubtless I could have taken a couple of paragraphs to lay out a timeline, but I thought I said that getting the case thrown out of court even if the judge bought your assumption that laws had been broken, but didn’t accept the vehicle, would be getting off on a technicality. If these are unrelated in a courtroom (as opposed to outside of the courtroom, in that part of the universe where rubber meets road), well, I’m glad to say (again) I am not a lawyer.
Maybe we should debate a bridge design, so that I can call you dumb when you fail to apply the correct design procedures, eh?
Thank you.
Now I will be waiting for the lawsuit to hit the bench. And if it is thrown out of court, regardless of the reason, I will view it as vindication of the program. Because the ACLU gave it their best shot, and failed to make a case for the legal system to accept.
I’m a results oriented guy, after all.
TW: sense. We need more of the common type.
Based on all the legal mumbo jumbo I picked up during the Paula Jones trial …
Can’t sue the president (or presumably the executive branch) for activities engaged in while performing government duties.
Also the judicial branch does not want to get involved and they are not looking for an excuse to do so. Far better the elected branches go through the full monty kabuki and settle into a new balance of powers.
The controlling factor is the word “elected”. Any politician going the ”give me privacy or give me death” route is committing political suicide as long as there is the slightest possibility of another terrorist attack
If you’re standing here it is. The argument is that its a border search, not that its outside of US soil. But an embassy is not considered US soil