Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumACLU Blasts Supreme Court Rejection of Challenge to Warrantless Spying Without Proof of Surveillance
From Democracy Now:
In whats being described as a Kafkaesque decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled a group of human rights organizations and journalists cannot challenge the governments warrantless domestic surveillance program because they cant prove they are targets of it. The American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of human rights groups and journalists filed the lawsuit in 2008 hours after President Bush signed amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which gave the National Security Agency almost unchecked power to monitor international phone calls and emails of Americans. Were joined by the ACLUs Jameel Jaffer, who argued the case before the Supreme Court. [includes rush transcript]
Guest:
Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union and a fellow at the Open Society Foundations. He argued the warrantless wiretapping case on behalf of the plaintiffs before the U.S. Supreme Court.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: A legal effort to block the governments warrantless domestic surveillance program has failed after the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday a group of journalists, lawyers and human rights groups cannot challenge the law. In whats been described as a Kafkaesque decision, the five-four conservative majority agreed with the Obama administration by concluding the plaintiffs lacked, quote, "standing" or jurisdiction to proceed, since they could not prove they had been targets of the secretive surveillance program. The American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of human rights groups and journalists filed the lawsuit in 2008 hours after President Bush signed amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which gave the National Security Agency almost unchecked power to monitor international phone calls and emails of Americans.
AMY GOODMAN: Other plaintiffs in the case included the Amnesty international, Global Rights, Global Fund for Women, Human Rights Watch, PEN American Center, Service Employees International Union, the journalists Naomi Klein and Chris Hedges, and several defense attorneys. All the plaintiffs said they could be targets of the surveillance program since their work requires them to communicate with dissidents located outside the United States. In his opinion for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito wrote the challengers argument was based on a, quote, "highly speculative fear" that the government could target their communications.
Well, to talk more about the significance of the ruling, were joined by Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, fellow at the Open Society Foundations. He argued the warrantless wiretapping case on behalf of the plaintiffs before the Supreme Court.
in full, transcript and video: http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/27/aclu_blasts_supreme_court_rejection_of
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)These five Justices are nothing but republican trolls
midnight
(26,624 posts)midnight
(26,624 posts)National Security Agency whistleblower William Binney reveals he believes domestic surveillance has become more expansive under President Obama than President George W. Bush. He estimates the NSA has assembled 20 trillion "transactions" phone calls, emails and other forms of data from Americans. This likely includes copies of almost all of the emails sent and received from most people living in the United States. Binney talks about Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act and challenges NSA Director Keith Alexanders assertion that the NSA is not intercepting information about U.S. citizens. This interview is part of a 5-part special on growing state surveillance." Click here to see segment 1, 2, 3, and 5. [Includes rush transcript]
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/20/whistleblower_the_nsa_is_lying_us