White House seeks to block NSA lawsuits

rick_reno

Moderator
Saturday news - it's something we're not supposed to see.

NEW YORK - The Bush administration has asked federal judges in New York and Michigan to dismiss a pair of lawsuits filed over the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping program, saying litigating them would jeopardize state secrets.

In papers filed late Friday, Justice Department lawyers said it would be impossible to defend the legality of the spying program without disclosing classified information that could be of value to suspected terrorists.

National Intelligence Director John Negroponte invoked the state secrets privilege on behalf of the administration, writing that disclosure of such information would cause “exceptionally grave damage” to national security.

The administration laid out some of its supporting arguments in classified memos that were filed under seal.

The government’s motion, widely anticipated, involves two cases challenging an NSA program that allows investigators to eavesdrop on Americans who communicate with people outside the country suspected of terrorist ties.

Groups allege Bush abusing power
In New York, the Center for Constitutional Rights has asked a judge to stop the program, saying it was an abuse of presidential power. The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups filed a similar lawsuit in Detroit.

For decades, U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies have been required to seek court approval before using electronic surveillance on Americans. That was not done by the NSA in the program at issue, but President Bush has said the eavesdropping was made legal by a congressional resolution passed after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Shayana Kadidal, an attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights, called the administration’s motion “undemocratic.”

Ample safeguards could be put in place to allow the case to continue without disclosing classified information, he said. The center has also argued that the court already has enough information to decide whether the program was legal.

“The Bush administration is trying to crush a very strong case against domestic spying without any evidence or argument,” Kadidal said in a written statement. “Can the president tell the courts which cases they can rule on? If so, the courts will never be able to hold the president accountable for breaking the law.”

Justice Department attorneys said in their legal brief that the legality of the president’s actions could only be properly judged by understanding “the specific threat facing the nation and the particular actions taken by the president to meet that threat.”

“That understanding is not possible without revealing to the very adversaries we are trying to defeat what we know about them and how we are proceeding to stop them,” they wrote.
 
Good for the Goose, Good for the Gander:

If these programs are so uber-top-secret that a Federal Judge can't be trusted with review of the information, fine. But it follows then, that engagement in such activities without FISA Warrant should be prima facia evidence of criminal wrongdoing and the Law should be amended to reflect that position...retroactively, like they do with laws against us mere citizens.

In other words, if you've taken the action and don't want the judicial branch to review it for Constitutionality, simply plead Guilty to rights violations. That way, the treasure trove of "national secrets" is protected and future Executive Branches are disabused of the notion that they can engage in the same acts with impunity. Enough of this "it's legal but we can't tell you why" stuff.
Rich
 
When the dread 'gun confiscation by the UN or JBT occurs' - the same methodologies could easily be used to find gun owners and the guns.

Then the folks who babble about moving to another country, burying their guns in PVC, learning how to build wire snares to catch the three squirrels in the neighborhood or forming a militia (should I buy BDUs and MREs?) but now mindlessly support our government's policy will learn that most of the crap that they spout on the Internet are 12 year old violence fantasies.

They rave about 'liberals' and in the same breath justify incredible violation of rights as they worship the 'leader' as long as the 'leader' will pass a flag burning ban or not let gays smooch a bit. That's the GOP strategy to try to recoup from the incompetency of the current administration.

The real battle is the ballot box and in the courts to stop violation of rights. Just because you like violating the rights of those who don't fit your social conservative values doesn't mean that you are rough, tough patriot.

The reason gun rights may go away is because that instead of a strategy used so succesfully by other groups, gun owners don't try to appeal to the average middle voter. They are called sheep, liberals, cowards, etc.

The lists are full of disguised racism and authoritarianism. If I were reading some of the lists, I would say I don't want these totalitarian jerks to have guns.

If someone doesn't spout this crap - they are insulted and folks try to drive them off the lists. "Why are there liberals" on this list? Don't you have to be a right winger of the authoritarian, social conservative view to own a gun? That's not an uncommon type of post. The jews control hollywood and the media against our guns. Folks who cross the border take our jobs - how about big conservative business men hiring them and Enron like corruption? But let's get our guns and go to the border? Would a 38 SPL be a good gun?

Unless the gun world can make the case to ordinary folks that gun rights are has American as free speech in a way disconnected to right wing haters and that we aren't crackpots ready to draw a line, live in the woods (ha ha) and hate everyone who isn't a straight, christian male - then eventually the voter base will disappear.

Many of the gun rights supporters really can't make a coherent case for gun rights, they just come across as haters or nutso boys. I'm rather disgusted with the whole issue and we are lucky that we have some rational folks like Rich, Don Kates, Dave Kopel, etc. who can make the case.

But's lets read Unintended Consequences and dream of the revolution that will make the country the way I want! Fat chance. The first gun nut that seriously started a violent movement would be seen as a terrorist and the country would turn against them. If you read about some Arab Americans feeling persecuted - that would happen to you.

Learn how to talk to 'normal' people in sane terms and learn that gun rights can be presented to all and not just right wing fringes.

I kind of wish I would like to see our standard let's have a revolution guy end up on patrol in an urban inner city as part of his revolution. Got your BDUs and AR?

Can a civilian militia take an infantry squad of equal size? That's a thread elsewhere.
 
"But's lets read Unintended Consequences and dream of the revolution that will make the country the way I want! Fat chance. The first gun nut that seriously started a violent movement would be seen as a terrorist and the country would turn against them. If you read about some Arab Americans feeling persecuted - that would happen to you."

Guess what? The british still think that about our founding fathers. And do we rip on them for being "terroists"? You could never get a large scale violent rebellion started in this country. Too many keyboard commandos and armchair minutemen among us.

And a word on "terrorists". The menaing of the word terroist is a person or group who uses fear, hate, discrimation, intimidation and viloence to achive thier goals. The word terroist is bandied about so much nowadays people have forgetten what it means. Anyone who disagrees with the way our current govenrment thinks is branded a terrorist, whethre they simply have a differnet viewpoint and arent afriad to publicly speak about it or whether thay have a garage full of stinger missles.

"Many of the gun rights supporters really can't make a coherent case for gun rights, they just come across as haters or nutso boys. I'm rather disgusted with the whole issue and we are lucky that we have some rational folks like Rich, Don Kates, Dave Kopel, etc. who can make the case."

It sounds to me like you dont want to stand up for your rights or simply are too lazy to do it yourself and want someone else to. We DONT NEED to make a case for gun rights. Its in the constitution/bill of rights that we have that right. We dont need to argue about. the framers of this country already did that for us.

"The real battle is the ballot box and in the courts to stop violation of rights. Just because you like violating the rights of those who don't fit your social conservative values doesn't mean that you are rough, tough patriot."

Violating the rights of others? Since when has forcing your viewpoint on me (ala Court madated gay rights, forcing my children to read YOUR version of history, and the government telling me when and where i can do certain things) been ME violating YOUR rights? The court system has failed us completely in the respect of protecting our rights. they do a decent job of prosecuting criminals and keeping them off our streets (most of the itme) and i cant complain. the ballot box IMHO had pretty much become pointless on a national level. Since when is voting between the lesser of two evils, voting? On a locla level it still works the way it was intended to, re. whoever gets the most votes, wins. Not on a national level where the "electorate" decides who wins and not the number of votes.

"Then the folks who babble about moving to another country, burying their guns in PVC, learning how to build wire snares to catch the three squirrels in the neighborhood or forming a militia (should I buy BDUs and MREs?) but now mindlessly support our government's policy will learn that most of the crap that they spout on the Internet are 12 year old violence fantasies."

There are some of us (not all) that actually DO prepare for any kind of emergency but support our governent. Supporting your government is part of being an american, but mindlessly suporting bad policy is not. That is why we have dicussions such as these. Oh and BTW if you had viloent fantsies at age 12, seek counseling.

"Learn how to talk to 'normal' people in sane terms and learn that gun rights can be presented to all and not just right wing fringes."

Just what exactly do you consider "normal"?

"The lists are full of disguised racism and authoritarianism. If I were reading some of the lists, I would say I don't want these totalitarian jerks to have guns."

Yes they are. But thats no reason to think they shouldnt own guns. Would you take a gun away from a black person because he hates whites? Or a mexican because he hates jews? I think it you my freind who has a problem with other races.

"I kind of wish I would like to see our standard let's have a revolution guy end up on patrol in an urban inner city as part of his revolution. Got your BDUs and AR? "

Exactly. because thats what it will be like. Ive been in urban combat training and It aint fun. A revolution isnt something to take lightly. Int he course of a revolution you will be fighting in every possible scenario you can think of. Most armchair guys liek you cant take the stress of UC, so you rip on other people who would willingly take it on if it made our contry a better place.

"They rave about 'liberals' and in the same breath justify incredible violation of rights as they worship the 'leader' as long as the 'leader' will pass a flag burning ban or not let gays smooch a bit. That's the GOP strategy to try to recoup from the incompetency of the current administration."

OK so i can burn your countrys flag and you wont say anything right? BTW i dont care if gays smootch. what you do in your bedroom is your buisness. Its when they try to publicly force it on the rest of us that we have a problem with it. We DONT "worship" our president. Worship is reserved for whover you call god, whether it be yaweh, allah or the devil. If you worship your elected leader, you have a cult not a country.

"Can a civilian militia take an infantry squad of equal size?"

Absoultely. "anything is possible with audacity." -teddy roosevelt

SW
 
If these programs are so uber-top-secret that a Federal Judge can't be trusted with review of the information, fine.
If I understand the process correctly, the issue is not whether a Federal Judge can be trusted. The Federal Judge is already receiving classified information.
The administration laid out some of its supporting arguments in classified memos that were filed under seal.
If the cases go forward, the lawyers for the Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU would necessarily have access to the classified information. While I would trust a Federal Judge to keep national security secrets, I would trust ACLU lawyers to make sure any secrets were promptly "leaked" to the New York Times.
 
Glenn-
For the most part, I agree with you. Where we part company (just in nuance) is the manner in which I would have us each state our case:

You simply cannot be an absolutist about the Second Amendment while holding a relativist position on the 4th or the 10th, for instance. Increasingly, I see this as the Achilles Heel of gun owners. We demand literal interpretation of the Second Amendment while condoning all manner of violation of the 4th, so long as those violations are directed at "enemies of the State". In fact, many in our camp use the exact same logic to support a diminished 4th Amendment right as the Brady Center uses against the 2nd, for example. We see it daily on this very board.

Finally, it's unfortunate that educated and politically involved people really can't seem to find the time to read....though they have apparently unlimited time to type nonsense. They look at SCOTUS decisions, for instance, and want to expound on whether "the cop did the right thing" or "the bad guy got what he deserved" without ever understanding, even on a rudimentary level, that these are not the issues at hand in Supreme Court decisions; they're simply the context of what's being decided.

If we're unwilling to defend ALL of the Bill of Rights along with the Second, we're seen as hypocrites, and "gun nuts". And well we should be. The Second Amendment battle is now being fought over the 4th, the 10th and the Commerce Clause. Until gun owners realize that and get with the program, we'll always be a "fringe element".
Rich
 
Back
Top