Government Says Secrecy May Protect Wiretapping Program From Constitutional Scrutiny

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON – The Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program has a built-in feature the Justice Department believes may shield it from ever being challenged as unconstitutional: secrecy.

The administration has acknowledged it intercepted some U.S. telephone conversations without warrants as it hunted for terrorists. Whose calls? The government isn't saying. And since only those who were spied on have grounds to sue, it's almost impossible to mount a successful legal challenge.

A federal appeals court in Ohio dismissed one such challenge last month because the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups could not prove the government had listened to their conversations. The court did not rule on whether the program was constitutional.

Unless the government decides to release information about its wiretaps – as part of a criminal case, for example – the Justice Department said Monday the constitutional question may never be answered.



Read more: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20070813-1445-domesticspying.html

[ThomCat]

1. We desperately need to entirely rewrite the laws

that cover classifying information. NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING should be beyond the view of the people at the top of each branch of government. No one branch should be allowed to hide anything from the other branches, and the Pentagon should sure as hell be prohibited from being a black hole of information.
x(

If our reps could check out these spy programs I bet a few would be screaming to high heaven.

[lvx35]

3. I basically agree with you.

NOTHING should be hidden from the people at the top level. Obviously, some things are going to be secret, but its like with good computer security, people can know how it works, what it does and know that its there and no how much it costs without compromising the security of the system.

[IndianaGreen]

12. The Democratic Congress just did rewrite the law--no more judicial review!

Bush now has to check with Gonzales to see if it is okay to spy on all of us. That's the travesty that the Democratic Congress has left as its legacy!

[Demeter]

2. If I Were a Bushbot, I Wouldn't Bet Money on This

There isn't anything that can't leak, if it's greasy and drippy enough.

[Kagemusha]

4. Yeah, I mentioned this at the time the latest lawsuit was announced.

The "standing" scam may put a hard stop to all challenges. And that's sad.

But to be perfectly honest, expecting the courts to override a President about a matter of the highest national security in a time of war is a bit much. That's why I'm HIGHLY annoyed with Congress for not doing its job. If the courts see Congress as agreeing to all that the President is doing, the courts have little incentive to humor a case by people "with no standing" so that they can find the effort unconstitutional.

[PerceptionManagement]

5. This is classic case of "Calvin Ball" if there ever was.

[Javaman]

15. Exactly. nt

[rodeodance]

6. This makes no sence at all. Courts are susposed to decide constitutionality---but

seems the even the courts are not able to see the effects of the Bush law!

[rodeodance]

7. Asked whether the Justice Department saw any way someone could challenge the surveillance program, t

A senior Justice Department official made the comments during a briefing before a hearing Wednesday in San Francisco, where lawyers are trying to challenge the program's legality. The official, who insisted on anonymity because of the pending litigation, said such challenges must first clear a difficult hurdle.

“They would have to somehow get, through discovery or admission from government, that they had in fact been surveilled,” the official said.

Attorneys for an Islamic charity say they can prove just that. Because of a government mix-up, the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation received what charity attorneys said was a National Security Administration log of calls intercepted between the charity and its lawyers. Armed with that information, the charity is challenging the program in a San Francisco court.

The Justice Department refuses to say whether the charity's calls were intercepted, but it wants the case thrown out because defending it would require the government to disclose state secrets.

Asked whether the Justice Department saw any way someone could challenge the surveillance program, the official replied, “In the current context, 'No.'”

[aggiesal]

8. This is such BS, ...

They can pretty much do anything now.
All they have to do is slap secrecy on it, and we have no recourse.

[MasonJar]

9. Then get rid of the law immediately. These people do not deserve

trust.

[IndianaGreen]

13. Don't expect the Democratic Congress to defend our freedoms!

Their record so far has been one of endless surrender to Bush's abuses of power.

Impeachment is off the table

-- Nancy Pelosi

[IndianaGreen]

10. The first 3 words on the Preamble to the Constitution are "We The People..."

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Government exists to serve the people, not the other way around. For months, conservative and liberal constitutional scholars have been warning that failure to impeach Bush and Cheney have seriously undermined the Republic for generations to come. On a recent Bill Moyers program, John Nichols and Bruce Fein said that members of Congress have forgotten their oaths of office and are putting politics ahead of statemanship.

We have allowed a government to operate in secret, with secret detentions, secret prisons, and secret human rights abuses.

We have a government that sees the American people as its own enemy!

Impeachment is the only tool left for the American people, through its elected representative, to restore the rule of law.

Congress has failed the American people!

[sutz12]

11. Let me see if I have this straight now.....

Roe v Wade is based on individual privacy between a doctor and patient, right? I think that is "secrecy" but the RW noise machine says that that should not be protected by the constitution, right?

But warrantless wiretapping is based on government secrecy (privacy), and that shields it from constitutional scutiny.

I'm just trying to sort out the particulars of who gets to use "secrecy" and who doesn't.

:shrug:

[0rganism]

14. a classic catch-22 situation

In order to challenge the secrecy of the program, one must sue. In order to have grounds to sue, one must show personal damage from the secret program. In order to show personal damage from the program, one must have access to the program's records to present as evidence in court. In order to obtain said records for use as evidence, one must first challenge the secrecy of the program.

From which I extrapolate that we may as well just burn the constitution because it don't mean jack shit anymore and it's only taking up valuable space in the national archives which could be used for important things like portraits of Emperor Bush.

[Javaman]

16. So what part about police state are we missing now? nt