SCOTUS declines certiorari in ACLU et al v. NSA

[Cylinder]

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Bush Spying Program (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ak9VtEdft2yc&refer=us)

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to revive a challenge to a Bush administration terrorist surveillance program, turning away an appeal by the American Civil Liberties Union and other opponents of the spying program.

The justices, making no comment, today left intact a federal appeals court's conclusion that the ACLU and its allies lacked the legal right to sue over the program because they couldn't show they suffered any harm.

The rejection is a victory for the Bush administration, insulating from legal attack a spying program that critics say violates speech and privacy rights. The ACLU and its allies also criticized President George W. Bush's assertion of broad presidential authority to eavesdrop on potential terrorists during wartime.

[Beerina]

So they have to prove it isn't being secretly used for the wrong reason? Nice.

[KoihimeNakamura]

You mean, to challenge the constutionality of somethin... I dont' get this.

[TellyKNeasuss]

So they have to prove it isn't being secretly used for the wrong reason? Nice.

It sounds to me more like you have to personally be a victim and you have to prove that you have been harmed. Of course, since it's a secret program, you might have difficulty in finding out what they learned and how they used what they learned, which would make it a bit hard to show how you were harmed.

[Almo]

Civil rights are in such a sad state in the US. Granted, it could be worse. But that's not an excuse for it not to be better. :(

[Daylight]

Where is Brown when you need him? I think he predicted this last year with his excellent threads.

[SezMe]

There are a couple (I thnk) of cases now in the judicial pipeline where the plaintiffs KNOW that they have been spied upon. The Supremes might have felt that such cases provided a better basis for establishing precedent in this area.

Or they could be Administration toadies.

[Brown]

Where is Brown when you need him? I think he predicted this last year with his excellent threads.Yeah, that putz. Where the hell is he?

[Brown]

Seriously now, I don't want to take credit for anyone else's work. I honestly don't recall writing any essays for this forum on this issue, and a couple of quick searches did not locate any. But maybe I wrote something and it has slipped my mind. So although I appreciate the complement, I think in this case it might not be one I've earned.

[godless dave]

Ideally the Justice Department would be investigating the government officials who conducted the illegal wiretaps. If the Justice Department failed to do so, Congress is supposed to start investigations. Neither of these have happened. Instead, members of Congress, including a majority in the Senate, are trying to legalize the wiretaps retroactively - and give immunity to the telecom companies.

If the current crop of Congresspeople had been in office in 1974, Nixon would have finished out his second term.

[Daylight]

My understanding is this case involves the standing of the tax payer to sue their government. (I’m sure others could explain it better)

The taxpayer doesn’t have standing because they don’t have evidence of government wrongdoing.
The evidence of government wrongdoing is classified as secret by the government.
The Judge will not allow the taxpayer access to the evidence because they don’t have standing in the case.In other words, the government can do any wrongdoing it wants and can prevent a citizen from stopping it by just declaring the evidence "secret".

I think (Brown?) the Judge could grant the taxpayer the ability to access something classified secret by the government during discovery? But there is some reason Judges currently are reluctant to do this?