PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court upholds telecom immunity for warrantless wiretaps




tod evans
10-10-2012, 04:53 AM
This should come as no suprise.....


Court upholds U.S. gov't immunity in terror eavesdropping.


http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/09/justice/court-surveillance/index.html?hpt=ju_c2

Washington (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday left in place a law that allows the Justice Department to stop suits against telecommunications companies for participating in wiretaps of potential terrorists.
The ruling was a key setback for civil libertarians challenging the broader powers of government since the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States to use electronic surveillance to track potential threats in the name of national security.
The Justices declined to take up a challenge to the once-secret domestic eavesdropping program under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- this one involving the monitoring of information moving into and out of the United States.
Previous petitions dealing with alleged abuses of the surveillance law also have been rejected by the court. Another case will be heard later this month.
In this case, Verizon Communications, Sprint Nextel, and AT&T were accused of privacy violations by assisting the government with intelligence gathering following the hijack attacks on New York and Washington.
The law had previously required the government to justify a national security interest before any phone calls and emails originating in another country could be monitored. A federal judge had to sign any search warrant. But President George W. Bush secretly suspended that requirement following the attacks.
After "warrantless wiretapping" was exposed, the president and supporters in Congress moved to amend the law, which defenders contend is designed to target only foreigners living outside the United States.
The retroactive immunity was challenged in the class action suit turned aside by the high court on Tuesday.
Privacy groups worry such electronic dragnets could easily and unknowingly intrude on the privacy rights of U.S. citizens. The government calls that "speculation" but cites national security in refusing to provide specifics.
The lawsuits launched by a number of telecommunications customers cited the testimony of Mark Klein, a retired AT&T engineer from San Francisco, who claimed company executives gave government access to internal hardware.
The result, he testified, was "vacuum-cleaner surveillance of all the data crossing the Internet, whether that be people's email, web surfing or any other data."
In an appeal, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union said the retroactive immunity was unconstitutional because it gave unfettered power to the executive branch -- namely the attorney general and the director of national intelligence -- to decide it could not be held accountable in court.
Attorney General Eric Holder has used that power to block about 30 suits.
Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the appeal. Previously released financial records show he has owned telecommunications stock and likely recused himself to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.
The Supreme Court will hear a related challenge to the domestic surveillance program on October 29.
The larger issue involves the constitutionality of the government's electronic monitoring of targeted foreigners.
A federal appeals court in New York last year ruled domestic plaintiffs who deal with global clients and co-workers reasonably feared the government was reading and hearing their sensitive communications. Those groups took costly measures to avoid such intrusions.
The question to be addressed is whether certain Americans have "standing" to challenge the federal law without a specific showing they have been monitored.
Other lawsuits over the surveillance program that raise various legal issues are pending in lower courts.
The case rejected Tuesday is Hepting v. AT&T (11-1200). The case to be heard later this month is Clapper v. Amnesty International USA (11-1025)

DamianTV
10-10-2012, 05:29 AM
The Justices of the Supreme Court are just as corrupt as our near entirely Criminal Congress.

jkr
10-10-2012, 06:50 AM
impeach the "supreme" court

ALL OF THEM

Origanalist
10-10-2012, 06:52 AM
impeach the "supreme" court

ALL OF THEM

What good is that going to do? A lot of the lower courts are worse. And do you really think that those replacing them would be any better?

robert68
10-10-2012, 08:24 AM
The "checks and balances" still working after all these years.

HOLLYWOOD
10-10-2012, 08:26 AM
US GOV, "Everyone in the us is a Terrorist"

Supreme Court, "Spy on anyone you wish without due process or rule of law/Constitution"

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-10-2012, 08:32 AM
In other news, a Government 'agency' upholds the actions of another Government 'agency'. Hear other shocking news at 9.

Travlyr
10-10-2012, 08:39 AM
The Supreme Court and Judicial Review (http://www.constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html)

The Supreme Court does not have the power of judicial review. In order to get that power, it had to be given to them in the Constitution or by Amendment. Neither one has occurred. In the ratification process the Constitution was promoted to the States as if the Supreme Court would never have the power of judicial review. That power was left to the States and the People.


Judicial Review

The Supreme Court of the United States spends much, if not most, of its time on a task which is not delegated to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. That task is: Hearing cases wherein the constitutionality of a law or regulation is challenged. The Supreme Court's nine Justices attempt to sort out what is, and what is not constitutional. This process is known as Judicial Review. But the states, in drafting the Constitution, did not delegate such a power to the Supreme Court, or to any branch of the government.

It still surprises me that we are supposed to accept a report from a CNN writer on the Constitutionality of a rule. The Constitution is our guide... not some reporter and not some judges that assume power they don't have.

Travlyr
10-10-2012, 09:05 AM
The Supreme Court's bastardization of the Constitution by judicial review is the most important reason to obey the Constitution.


Thomas Jefferson wrote, in 1823:

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."

We don't have to take that power away from the Supreme Court. They don't have that power. It is the job of the people to force them to obey the Constitution. Law by precedent is baloney. We can ignore all the Supreme Court decisions. Of course you'll have military or police come and enforce their unconstitutional laws, but that is why sound money is so important to learn and fight for. Sound money removes the unlimited power of the military and police to control society. Obey the Constitution is all that is necessary. Amending it after we obey it would even be better.

Anti Federalist
10-10-2012, 11:54 AM
But you have to vote RMoney.

O-bomb-ya will appoint terrible justices!

:rolleyes:

tod evans
10-10-2012, 06:06 PM
Either POS will appoint terrible justices...

New head/same monster...


But you have to vote RMoney.

O-bomb-ya will appoint terrible justices!

:rolleyes:

FrancisMarion
10-10-2012, 11:04 PM
Washington (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday left in place a law that allows the Justice Department to stop suits against telecommunications companies for participating in wiretaps of potential terrorists.

This is America! I can sue whomever I want.

Seriously.

Pauls' Revere
10-10-2012, 11:07 PM
FYI, The Supreme Court upheld corporate immunity in surveillance of email, and phone interceptions, to name a few.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/09/justice/court-surveillance/index.html

The Justices declined to take up a challenge to the once-secret domestic eavesdropping program under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- this one involving the monitoring of information moving into and out of the United States.

Previous petitions dealing with alleged abuses of the surveillance law also have been rejected by the court. Another case will be heard later this month.

In this case, Verizon Communications, Sprint Nextel, and AT&T were accused of privacy violations by assisting the government with intelligence gathering following the hijack attacks on New York and Washington.

The law had previously required the government to justify a national security interest before any phone calls and emails originating in another country could be monitored. A federal judge had to sign any search warrant. But President George W. Bush secretly suspended that requirement following the attacks.

After "warrantless wiretapping" was exposed, the president and supporters in Congress moved to amend the law, which defenders contend is designed to target only foreigners living outside the United States.

The retroactive immunity was challenged in the class action suit turned aside by the high court on Tuesday.

Privacy groups worry such electronic dragnets could easily and unknowingly intrude on the privacy rights of U.S. citizens. The government calls that "speculation" but cites national security in refusing to provide specifics.

The lawsuits launched by a number of telecommunications customers cited the testimony of Mark Klein, a retired AT&T engineer from San Francisco, who claimed company executives gave government access to internal hardware.

The result, he testified, was "vacuum-cleaner surveillance of all the data crossing the Internet, whether that be people's email, web surfing or any other data."

...:(

HOLLYWOOD
10-11-2012, 11:18 PM
U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday left in place a law that allows the Justice Department to stop suits against telecommunications companies for participating in wiretaps of potential terrorists.All you need to know... NAZISM runs ramped in all branches of the US government.