Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Judge: President Can't Just Make Up His Own Wiretapping Rules

Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein, AlterNet at 7:47 AM on July 3, 2008.


Only FISA law can authorize wiretaps.
unclesamspying

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Rights and Liberties in your
mailbox!

 

A federal judge in California ruled yesterday that the President can't just make up his own rules for wiretapping. Only the FISA law passed by Congress can authorize domestic spying, according to the ruling:

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in California said Wednesday that the wiretapping law established by Congress was the “exclusive” means for the president to eavesdrop on Americans, and he rejected the government’s claim that the president’s constitutional authority as commander in chief trumped that law.

The judge, Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge for the Northern District of California, made his findings in a ruling on a lawsuit brought by an Oregon charity. The group says it has evidence of an illegal wiretap used against it by the National Security Agency under the secret surveillance program established by President Bush after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The Justice Department has tried for more than two years to kill the lawsuit, saying any surveillance of the charity or other entities was a “state secret” and citing the president’s constitutional power as commander in chief to order wiretaps without a warrant from a court under the agency’s program. [NYT]

According to the story, Judge Walker's opinion carries extra weight because he has already been chosen to hear the consolidated lawsuit against all the telecoms who cooperated with Bush's illegal domestic spying program.

Digg!

Tagged as: lichtblau, fisa

Lindsay Beyerstein a New York writer blogging at Majikthise.


FEC Decides that the First Amendment Actually Applies to Bloggers
You are now free to blog about your country ...
Post by Steven Reynolds. August 20, 2008.
DOJ Preparing to Charge Six Blackwater Guards in Nisour Square Massacre
Indictments for the killing of 17 Iraqis would likely be sought under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, which would be unprecedented.
Post by Nick Fiske. August 19, 2008.
Act Now: Tell Texas Not to Execute an Innocent Man
The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles will make a decision tomorrow in the case of Jeff Wood, who faces execution for killing no one.
Post by Liliana Segura. August 18, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Nevertheless...
Posted by: Xynyx on Jul 3, 2008 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nevertheless... our SPINELESS Democratic Senators and Representatives nearly COMPLETELY FUCKING CAVED on this, George W. Bush's number one request for the last few years: immunity for the telecom companies that helped him commit his crime.

I hope this judge has really big arms and a really big hammer... time is just about out for anything to be accomplished on this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nevertheless... Posted by: Lauren
A few honest independent Federal Judges still around, but too few...
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Jul 3, 2008 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This goes to show that not every Federal Judge has been replaced with a Federalist Society "Bork" Clone...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Law of the land
Posted by: carbon-based on Jul 3, 2008 9:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fed wiretapping has been a "big yawn" - most Americans, while surprised, don't care - it doesn't affect them. That said there is no reason for the President NOT to get court approval first.. We are a country of laws and EVERYONE should follow them.

I find it hard to believe that getting court approval first would have diminished our capability to follow terrorists.. After all, leaks by the NYT have done a lot more damage.

As for the telecoms, why should they be punished for following the Presidents request at a time of a national emergence. It make no sense at all and just seems like continued left wing revenge.

Does anyone wonder who that "charity" was that brought the suit??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Law of the land Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: Law of the land Posted by: deanosor
Tom
Posted by: Tom Berry on Jul 4, 2008 10:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Constitution protects against illegal search and seizure. The original FISA law provided for a secret court to approve actions requiring a warrant to invade the privacy of others.

This law, designed to protect the public from illegal search and seizure, was admittedly violated by the executive branch who circumvented court approval and had telecoms companies engage in massive illegal wiretapping of the body politic (shades of George Orwell).

Now Congress is acting to apply a blanket retroactive immunity to all corporations who acted at the behest of the executive branch of government, whether or not it was illegal, and without examination as to whether or not the Constitution was violated by the corporations or by the executive department asking the corporations to engage in such activity.

This provides immunity from prosecution for any acts against society committed by the corporations engaged and immunity to the executive branch for the orders issued. ("I was only doing as I was told").

This sets a precedence to further increase the power of the executive branch to allow it to take actions against members of our society and have immunity from prosecution, notwithstanding that everything is so secret that no one in Congress now knows or will be able to know the true extent of what is going on.

It culminates as yet another step on a path to a police state, with too much power in the hands of the executive branch of government.

Every president wants more power, and we the sheep are letting it happen.


Tom Berry

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]