BUSH ADMIN: Warrantless Wiretap Lawsuits Should Be THROWN-OUT Because NOW They're Following Law?!@?!

[kpete]

Dismissal of Lawsuit Against Warrantless Wiretaps Sought

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 26, 2007; Page A05

A lawsuit challenging the legality of the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program should be thrown out because the government is now conducting the wiretaps under the authority of a secret intelligence court, according to court papers filed by the Justice Department yesterday.

In a filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, in Cincinnati, Justice Department lawyers said the lawsuit of the American Civil Liberties Union and other plaintiffs -- which received a favorable ruling from a federal judge in Detroit -- should be considered moot because the case "no longer has any live significance."

The ACLU called the government's arguments implausible and said it plans to file its response today.

The brief is the latest volley in the legal battle over the controversial spying effort, dubbed by the administration as the "Terrorist Surveillance Program," or TSP. Under the program, the NSA monitored, without obtaining warrants, telephone calls and e-mails between the United States and overseas if the government determined that one of the parties was linked to al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups.

more at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012501434.html

[Robbien]

1. About time the papers highlighted this

Bush said this early last week when they changed to the blanket FISA approval.

[The Backlash Cometh]

12. What a son-of-a-bitch kind of example is he setting for this country?

[ET Awful]

2. Well by golly, if that's the new precedent they want, let's all the convicted

murderers in the country go free, hell, they aren't killin' anyone NOW. Right?

[EOTE]

3. Why did Ted Bundy go to jail?

I mean, he wasn't killing and raping women AFTER they apprehended him. Couldn't they just cut the guy a break?

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. Which is an admission that previous wiretaps were ILLEGAL

Crimeny, even OJ wasn't this stupid. :eyes:

[woodsprite]

8. Isn't the jury still out on that OJ/stupidity issue?

[rodeodance]

14. Bush is still claiming his 'inherent" power

[Norquist Nemesis]

5. Par for the course!

And the thing that absolutely enrages me the most about these people! By their logic, a thief should not arrested, tried, and sentenced to prison unless that thief is caught in the act at the time of the arrest. A murderer should be allowed to run free unless police witness the crime. A child abuser can't be held and convicted regardless of the evidence because they stopped when the clock struck midnight.

They need to be tested and tried!!! :grr:

[Toots]

6. I may have robbed a bank last year but haven't lately so you must forget all about it..

Yep the logic that is expected from a Criminal Cabal..

[Botany]

7. Who does not think that bush/Rove used the NSA to spy on Kerry & etc?

And that is why they are so desperate to stop any investigations
into their spying. In Ohio in '04 Kerry's Phones were hacked into
big time ..... also the computer system which had the GOTV files
and voter d-bases ..... 5 & 6 firewalls were blown through like
nothing.

Also as others have noted this all but admits that their spying
was illegal because they are now saying, "we are following the
law now, so who cares what we did in the past?"

[Norquist Nemesis]

29. I do!!! Absolutely!

Always have thought that.

[rodeodance]

9. well by this logic----I am following the speed limit today but Was NOT

last year when a police office cited me. ummm... silly WH

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. And you wonder why they're millionaires, and we're not.

These asshats have been skirting the laws for years. They believe they're entitled to it.

[happydreams]

30. Now if I could get a speeding violation overturned cause I'm

presently at the speed limit.

[rodeodance]

11. "no longer has any live significance."--I imagine the key word here for

the WH is 'live"

[dogday]

13. Let's forget about the laws that were broken....

We are a nation of laws for a reason... Anyone out here on the street breaks the law, we pay the price, and so it must be for those at the top as well.... Our justice system is supposed to convict those who break the law no matter their title or wealth....

[Hamlette]

19. the people at the top do not pay a price under our system

under soverign immunity and the most the ACLU can hope for is an injunction against the government. If the government agrees to do it voluntarily, there is no need for an injunction. (Although they should enter into a consent decree with Bush admin agreeing not to do it again.) Then the lawsuit should be dismissed.

[dogday]

21. Then our system sux and it needs reforming

in the worst way....

[Hamlette]

27. what do you want the remedy to be? Money? It would come from you

we have soverign immunity because YOU are the soverign and if the court issued a fine you would pay it with your taxes.

I know it is tempting to say "change the law so Bush pays personally" but that would be a nightmare to administer and wouldn't hurt mega millionaire Bush anyway. Who it would have hurt was Clinton, someone who didn't have millions when he was in office and who the right loved to sue. There would have been even MORE lawsuits against Clinton if the winning party could get money damages.

When I first heard about soverign immunity I too thought it was dead ass wrong. I've been an attorney for 30 years working mostly in the government and I've changed my mind. The way you "punish" Bush is kick him out of office. No fine is enough.

[redqueen]

15. aaahaahaahahahahaha - I hope all criminals try this one!

Hey, sure I robbed that bank. But I ain't doin it no more! So lay off!

:rofl:

[rodeodance]

16. more:

.....The government contends that the new arrangement essentially invalidates an August ruling in the ACLU case by U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who declared the surveillance program unconstitutional and ordered it halted. The government appealed to the 6th Circuit court. It wants Taylor's ruling vacated and the lawsuit dismissed.

"Plaintiffs' challenge to the TSP is now moot," the government said in its filing yesterday. "The surveillance activity they challenge . . . does not exist. And the specific relief they sought and were awarded -- injunction of the TSP -- cannot redress any claimed injury because no electronic surveillance is being conducted under the TSP."

Crucial to the Justice Department's argument is the contention that the government did not act voluntarily to stop the NSA program. "This is not an instance of 'voluntary cessation' of allegedly unlawful activity," the government lawyers wrote. "The government has not ceased surveillance -- instead, the facts and legal authorities have changed."

But Ann Beeson, the ACLU's associate legal director, said that argument is "not plausible." She added that previous court rulings made it clear that the government cannot escape a legal judgment merely by voluntarily halting its illegal activity.

[The Count]

23. "not plausible" - polite code for "are you frigging nutz?????"

This ought to be one of the most outrageous legal arguments in history!

[YankeyMCC]

17. Gee there's that good old American value

of accountability demonstrated once again by the republic party :sarcasm:

[originalpckelly]

18. Say it all together now: N-U-L-L-I-F-I-C-A-T-I-O-N

That's the real reason they went to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and I have no doubt that they made them go back to the letter of law with FISA. They went to the court to nullify the issue in all the open cases in which decisions would be read by the news media and average Americans, who would have heard that the President had been violating the law and that there is no authority under the AUMF or Article II to surveil without warrants at least when a formal declaration of war has not been given, if ever.

Of course, this Administration's lawlessness would prompt me to think they'd be willing to simply ignore the FISC.

Now they have the cover story that the program is now under FISA and that it's completely legal, and that all their previous attempts were completely legal as well. These people use the public and the media all the time, we know it, because of the recent revelations about Meet The Press and Hardball.

[The Count]

20. Carla Fay Tucker also wasn't killing anymore when W mocked & executed her

The part of personal responsibility strikes again!
How dare those activist judges play "the blame game" with the bushies! Once caught, they covered their tracks - isn't that good enough for you people?

[rman]

22. The government sure has a lot to hide,

doesn't it.

[Swamp Rat]

24. Jeebus! Gonzales and his gang are STUPID!

:eyes:

[Frustratedlady]

25. They are so stupid, they are transparent.

Maybe the new kids on the block (their new attornies) aren't the yes-men they thought they were and are pointing out the pitfalls they have gotten themselves into?

When I saw this article this morning, I couldn't lift my jaw...still can't.

[sinkingfeeling]

26. So someone who committed murder years ago shouldn't be charged since he's been an

upstanding citizen ever since the crime? That's not the way the law works. Altogether now, "Rule of law! Rule of law!"

[jelly]

28. Outcome may depend on the relief sought in the underlying suit.

It is important to note that we are dealing here with a civil suit. If it were a criminal suit, the outcome would differ. Ted Bundy is apples compared to these oranges.

Whether the administration has a meritorious argument that the case should be dismissed might depend on the relief sought in the lawsuit. If all the plaintiffs are seeking is forward-looking relief -- i.e., an injunction to stop the government from conducting warrantless wiretaps -- then the suit might well be dismissed on the grounds of mootness if the government can demonstrate that, in fact, it is now requiring search warrants. In that event, the legal theory is that there is no further need for the court system to expend scarce resources addressing a claimed wrong which the defendant has already righted of its own volition.

The case would survive if the plaintiffs also sought backwards-looking relief in their complaint -- i.e., monetary damages of some sort for having been wrongfully subjected to wiretaps, or perhaps punitive damages. In that case, the fact that the government has voluntarily changed its policy moving forward would do nothing to resolve that piece of the lawsuit which is addressed to past transgressions. The problem is that I seem to recall something about how you are not allowed sue the government for monetary damages. I think an exception is if you are suing individuals within the government, and holding them liable in their individual (rather than in their official) capacity. That way the taxpayers are assured that any monetary damages paid will be from the defendants' own wallets and not from the public coffers. Bottom line is that it is unlikely that monetary damages were sought, and if they were sought initially, the likelihood is that those prayers for damages have since been struck/dismissed from the complaint.

In closing, let me just say that I despise the administration for conducting warrantless wiretaps, and I despise them all the more for conveniently changing course at this time -- not because it was the right thing to do, but because they found themselves with their backs up against the wall, and needed a facile way to get rid of the lawsuit before it got to the Supreme Court. This is why we need Congress' aid in holding these scum accountable for their usurpations of power. There is only so much a citizen can do by way of the courts, as this developing story so depressingly illustrates.

[originalpckelly]

31. That's true, in fact I personally forgot the civil damages awarded to a victim under FISA:

"An aggrieved person, other than a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a) or (b)(1)(A) of this title, respectively, who has been subjected to an electronic surveillance or about whom information obtained by electronic surveillance of such person has been disclosed or used in violation of section 1809 of this title shall have a cause of action against any person who committed such violation and shall be entitled to recover—
(a) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $1,000 or $100 per day for each day of violation, whichever is greater;
(b) punitive damages; and
(c) reasonable attorney’s fees and other investigation and litigation costs reasonably incurred. "

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001810----000-.html

So this may not in fact be over with.

[jelly]

32. Good find!

I wonder whether the government or government officials in their official capacities may be held liable under that civil remedies provision, or whether it was only intended to apply in suits against persons in their individual capacities. Regardless, it seems to me that the fact that a civil remedies provision appears right in the statute makes it more likely that a court would allow the case to remain pending to resolve the issue over entitlement to damages. It's not like plaintiffs are pulling an entitlement to damages or even claiming standing to bring suit in the first place out of thin air; it's right there in the statute, in black and white. And arguably, when George Bush acted in defiance of the law, he exceeded his scope of authority and therefore, acted in his individual and not in his official capacity. Awesome.