The Nation -- Our Warrantless Wiretapping Lawsuit

[slipslidingaway]

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/11/10281/

"This afternoon, President Bush signed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, a piece of legislation that will needlessly expand the government’s ability to spy on Americans and ensure that the country never learns the full extent of Bush’s unlawful wiretapping. There were many good Senators who showed courage in standing up to the White House and for the Constitution, but not enough.

A few hours after Bush’s signing, The Nation joined with the ACLU in a lawsuit filed in the US District Court (Southern District) of New York challenging the constitutionality of the Act. The Nation is suing on behalf of itself, our staff and two of our contributing writers–Chris Hedges and Naomi Klein. The defendants are the Attorney General of the United States, Michael Mukasey; John M. “Mike” McConnell, Director of National Intelligence; and Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander, Director of the National Security Agency and Chief of the Security Service. We filed suit along with a coalition of other plaintiffs including Amnesty International USA, Human Rights Watch, Global Fund for Women, PEN American Center, Washington Office on Latin America, Service Employees International Union and several private attorneys...


For 143 years, The Nation has believed that an essential element of patriotism is the unyielding defense of civil liberties...

Today, we are proud to join with the ACLU and other plaintiffs in this lawsuit in the belief that the government ’s surveillance activities should respect, not trample, the Constitution. Our history as America’s oldest weekly journal of opinion has taught us that surveillance powers can easily become a threat to a free and open society..."

[slipslidingaway]

1. More on the lawsuits filed...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/10/aclu/index.html

Interview with ACLU re: constitutional challenge to new FISA law

"This afternoon, I spoke with Jameel Jaffer, the Director of the ACLU's National Security Project, regarding the two legal proceedings commenced today by the ACLU challenging the constitutionality of the new FISA law. The roughly 20-minute discussion can be heard here.

The ACLU filed one action in the FISA court, requesting that -- contrary to how the FISA court normally works -- all proceedings regarding the constitutionality of the FISA law be open to the public and transparent, and that the proceedings be adversarial (i.e., that the ACLU -- rather than just the Government -- can participate). The other action was filed in a federal court in the Southern District of New York, alleging that the provisions which vest vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers in the President are, for multiple reasons, violative of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The ACLU's lawsuits do not challenge the constitutionality of the telecom immunity provisions of the new FISA law because those sections will be challenged by EFF and local/affiliate ACLU groups in separate actions. The legal documents filed today by the ACLU are here.

In the podcast, Jaffer details exactly what warrantless surveillance powers the new FISA bill vests in the President, along with the reasons they are so pernicious. He underscores 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...."

[slipslidingaway]

2. kick n/t

[seemslikeadream]

3. The Nation has believed essential element of patriotism is unyielding defense of civil liberties

For 143 years

[slipslidingaway]

4. Says something to me...thanks :) n/t

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

5. Can us private citizens join as Plaintiffs?

After all, every citizen in this country is being damaged by having his/her constitutional security threated by our own government.

It's truly awesome, though,...all the Plaintiffs already listed.

I thank ALL of them for fighting on my behalf, on OUR behalf!!! :hug:

[slipslidingaway]

6. Yes, I thank them as well :) As to your other question it might

be better to direct it to one of the legal scholars in GDP.


:shrug:

[robertpaulsen]

7. K & R!

:kick:

[slipslidingaway]

8. Thank you :) n/t