[fishinfoolz]

Excerpt;

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a challenge to President Bush's order authorizing the interception of some phone calls and e-mails within the United States, dealing another defeat to civil libertarians who say the president violated the law.

The court's refusal to hear the case is a victory for the White House and the president's bold use of his powers as commander in chief. Though not a ruling on the legality of Bush's wiretapping policy, it all but forecloses a successful legal attack on it before the president leaves office early next year. In the meantime, Congress and the White House are negotiating new rules for electronic eavesdropping.

From the beginning, this dispute has turned not on whether phone calls or e-mails can be intercepted but on whether a judge must approve it. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 said the president may order secret wiretapping within the United States to catch foreign agents or terrorists, but only with the approval of a special court.

Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush secretly bypassed this law and ordered the National Security Agency to intercept messages coming into or going out of this country if it "reasonably believed" they were linked to terrorism. The president said he did so to protect the nation from another attack, and he did not inform the FISA judges of the new policy. Bush also argued that his authority as commander in chief gave him the power to act on his own in the nation's defense.

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union went to court, hoping to win a ruling declaring that Bush had overstepped his powers. "The president is bound by the laws that Congress enacts. He may with disagree with those laws, but he may not disobey them," they said in the appeal to the Supreme Court.

But Bush's lawyers successfully invoked two legal doctrines making it difficult to challenge the government's anti-terrorism policies.

First, they said, challengers must show that they had their phone calls or e-mails intercepted. Otherwise, they have no "standing" to sue because they have no injury to complain of. Second, the government said, the entire program was secret, and under the "state secrets privilege," plaintiffs cannot obtain information on whether they were targeted for surveillance. When combined, the two doctrines make it almost impossible for most challengers to win a hearing in court....

I know you Liberals out there can justify anything but fact is....Like I've said over and over, there is nobody out there that has had their rights violated and the ACLU could not find anyone to create "STANDING"...

 

[Birch Barlow]

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union went to court, hoping to win a ruling declaring...

Ah yes, the liberals favorite...the A.C.L.U.: Tup: :mrgreen:

 

[MAD.CAM.AL]

Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush secretly bypassed this law and ordered the National Security Agency to intercept messages coming into or going out of this country if it "reasonably believed" they were linked to terrorism. The president said he did so to protect the nation from another attack, and he did not inform the FISA judges of the new policy. Bush also argued that his authority as commander in chief gave him the power to act on his own in the nation's defense.

This paragraph speaks v o l u m e s :shock: I'm so proud and feel so secure :roll:

 

[fishinfoolz]

That's a whole lot better than never being proud of your country in your entire adult life... :mrgreen:

No attacks anywhere in the world against American interests except in Iraq & Afghanistan for the past six years.....Coinsidence...

 

[Webo]

Howard - What the Kool-Aid swillers continually FAIL to understand is that Bush was circumventing FISA and spying on American citizens BEFORE 9/11!

They also HATE the ACLU because the two middle letters stand for CIVIL LIBERTIES... a concept that is the antithesis of their core values of FEAR, HATRED and INTOLERANCE! :shock:

 

[fishinfoolz]

What you fail to understand is that the ACLU doesn't have "standing". Meaning they have no victims. Meaning your assertion that they have been spying is based on a false premise. Meaning YOU HAVE NO STANDING EITHER... Learn to deal with it... :mrgreen:

 

[Theking]

How have they been spying Webo? prove it.

 

[Webo]

Not 'til you prove that the Clinton campaign is the one responsible for circulating the Obama chain e-mail.

 

[Theking]

Karl Rove told me personally. Now prove the spying.

 

[Webo]

George Tenet sent me an e-mail... so we're even. clown:

What the heck... here's an article. Now tell me how it's from a biased source and all the rest of the excuses you're famous for:

NSA Domestic Surveillance Began 7 Months Before 9/11, Convicted Qwest CEO Claims
By Ryan Singel October 11, 2007 | 6:20:59 PMCategories: NSA
Did the NSA's massive call records database program pre-date the terrorist attacks of 9/11?

That startling allegation is in court documents released this week which show that former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio -- the head of the only company known to have turned down the NSA's requests for Americans' phone records -- tried, unsuccessfully, to argue just that in his defense against insider trading charges.

Nacchio was sentenced to 6 years in prison in 2007 after being found guilty of illegally selling shares based on insider information that the company's fortunes were declining. Nacchio unsuccessfully attempted to defend himself by arguing that he actually expected Qwest's 2001 earnings to be higher because of secret NSA contracts, which, he contends, were denied by the NSA after he declined in a February 27, 2001 meeting to give the NSA customer calling records, court documents released this week show.

AT&T, Verizon and Bellsouth all agreed to turn over call records to an NSA database, according to reporting in the USA Today in 2006. At that time, Nacchio's lawyer publicly stated that Nacchio declined to participate until served with a proper legal order.

The government has never confirmed or denied the existence of the program, but is trying to win legal immunity for telecoms being sued for their alleged participation in the call records program and the government's warrantless wiretapping of Americans. Turning over customer records to anyone, including the government, without proper legal orders violates federal privacy laws.

Nacchio's attempt to depose witnesses and present the classified defense was declined by Colorado federal district court judge Edward Nottingham, a decision that is playing a role in Nacchio's pending appeal to the 10th Circuit Appeals court.

The allegation is peppered throughout the highly redacted documents released by the lower court today, but are most clear in the introduction to this filing (.pdf) from April 2007.

Defendant Joseph P. Nacchio ... respectfully renews his objection to the Court's rulings excluding testimony surrounding his February 27, 2001 meeting at Ft. Meade with representatives from the National Security Agency (NSA) as violative of his constitutional right to mount a defense. Although Mr. Nacchio is allowed to tell the jury that he and James Payne went into that meeting expecting to talk about the "Groundbreaker" project and came out of the meeting with optimism about the prospect for 2001 revenue from NSA, the Court has prohibited Mr. Nacchio from eliciting testimony regarding what also occurred at that meeting. [REDACTED] The Court has also refused to allow Mr. Nacchio to demonstrate that the agency retaliated for this refusal by denying the Groundbreaker and perhaps other work to Qwest.

By being prevented from telling his full story to the jury or from fully and properly cross-examining any rebuttal witnesses, Mr. Nacchio has been deprived of the ability to explaoin why - after he came out of the February meeting with a reasonable, good faith, expectation that Qwest would be receiving significant contracts from NSA in 2001 ... Qwest was denied significant work.

[ed note. James Payne, Qwest's government liason who was also at February 27, 2001 meeting, later spoke with government agents in 2006].

In the interview, Mr. Payne confirmed that, at the February 27, 2001 meeting, "[t]here was some discussion about [redacted]. Mr. Payne also stated: Subsequent to the meeting the customer came back and expressed disappointment at Qwest's decision. Payne realized at this time that "no" was not going to be enough fro them. Payne said they never actually said no and it went on for years. In meetings after meetings, they would bring it up. At one point, he suggested they just them, "no." Nacchio said it was a legal issue and that they could not do something their general counsel told them not to do. ... Nacchio projected that he might do it if they could find a way to do it legally.

There was a feeling also, that the NSA acted as agents for other government agencies and if Qwest frustrated the NSA, they would also frustrate other agencies.

The Groundbreaker contract, reportedly worth $2 - $5 billion dollars, outsources the NSA's IT management, but at least one lawsuit charges the project was cover for a domestic spying program.

Notably, after the USA Today story ran , Nacchio's lawyer Herbert Stern, who argued his case before trial, released this statement:

In light of pending litigation, I have been reluctant to issue any public statements. However, because of apparent confusion concerning Joe Nacchio and his role in refusing to make private telephone records of Qwest customers available to the NSA immediately following the Patriot Act, and in order to negate misguided attempts to relate Mr. Nacchio's conduct to present litigation, the following are the facts.

In the Fall of 2001, at a time when there was no investigation of Qwest or Mr. Nacchio by the Department of Justice or the Securities and Exchange Commission, and while Mr. Nacchio was Chairman and CEO of Qwest and was serving pursuant to the President's appointment as the Chairman of the National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee, Qwest was approached to permit the Government access to the private telephone records of Qwest customers.

Mr. Nacchio made inquiry as to whether a warrant or other legal process had been secured in support of that request. When he learned that no such authority had been granted and that there was a disinclination on the part of the authorities to use any legal process, including the Special Court which had been established to handle such matters, Mr. Nacchio concluded that these requests violated the privacy requirements of the Telecommunications Act.

Accordingly, Mr. Nacchio issued instructions to refuse to comply with these requests. These requests continued throughout Mr. Nacchio's tenure and until his departure in June of 2002.

Note that Stern says a request was made in the Fall of 2001. Stern does not say "first approached" in the statement, though that clearly seems to be the implication. But it's not what the four corners of Stern's statement says. And finally, the redactions in the documents make it impossible to say what the February 21, 2001 requests from the NSA were. It could have been a request from NSA to do some other eavesdropping thing that Nacchio felt uncomfortable with, but I'm very doubtful.

 

[Dizane]

How have they been spying Webo? prove it.

You can't. The info needed appears to be protected by the "state secret" privilege.

Even if standing could be gained, the state secret privilege might still act as a roadblock to litigating the claim.

I'm sure everyone will be OK with this should Obama take the reins... clown:

Or Hillary

sick:

 

[Theking]

They are querying a database of code. Once a hit pops up then it goes through several more queries. Then based on several levels of review they can either supeona the data source(electronic record) or go the FISA route. Then and only then is the source identified and the "spying" start. So to say they are spying on Americans wholesale is extremely misleading. That is why the libs dropped almost every challenge to the action. The only reason they are being obstructionist now is so they can crow the next election cycle that they tried to stop it. if you are worried about it at all you probably have other issues as well.

 

[MAD.CAM.AL]

a concept that is the antithesis of their core values of FEAR, HATRED and INTOLERANCE! :shock:

Speaking of FEAR, aren't we due for a "possible terrorist plot on the West Coast" causing a jump in nation security threat level? clown:
Nah, never mind. I relax knowing the Bush administration has secured our phones, email...oh yeah, our borders, ports, shorelines and airspace too! Tup: nuke:

 

[Theking]

"Nah, never mind. I relax knowing the Bush administration has secured our phones, email...oh yeah, our borders, ports, shorelines and airspace too! "

Thats funny H I was rasied to beleive that I was responsible for my own security and that people who passed off that responsibility to the govt were fools.

 

[MAD.CAM.AL]

Thats funny H I was rasied to beleive that I was responsible for my own security and that people who passed off that responsibility to the govt were fools.

You were raised well, as was I. I learned not only to provide my own security, but that of my family. This government could learn a thing or two, eh? wink:

 

[Theking]

"This government could learn a thing or two, eh? "

This government is made up of millions of everyday people it is a dynamic entity. Most people live in fear of their own shadows. It think the govt. represents the people very well. In debt looking for someone to balme and take responsibility or point the finger.

 

[Webo]

I was rasied to beleive that I was responsible for my own security and that people who passed off that responsibility to the govt were fools.

Yep Howard! You should have been there in 1941 when king's grandpa jumped in his canoe and started paddlin' towards Japan in order to single-handedly conquer them and thereby 'secure' the family mushroom farm in the Snoqualmie valley... instead o' lettin' the Army and Navy take care of it! :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Hell... queen can barely secure his drool bib... much less anything else! clown:

 

[Theking]

Yep Webo but the canoe was a big iron navy vessel and he stayed for 4 years. In my 50 years I have never heard him complain about it once. What was you grandpa doing?

 

[fishslave]

Yep Webo but the canoe was a big iron navy vessel and he stayed for 4 years. In my 50 years I have never heard him complain about it once. What was you grandpa doing?
Yep Webo but the canoe was a big iron navy vessel and he stayed for 4 years. In my 50 years I have never heard him complain about it once. What was you grandpa doing?

He was probably excercising Rosie and I don't mean the riveter. It's a family tradition don't ya know!

 

[Webo]

Ohhh... ya really got me with that one fs!

Sheer brilliance! clown: clown: