Power of Story Send a Tweet        

Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter 4 Share on Facebook 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 2 (7 Shares)  

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   No comments
OpEdNews Op Eds

ACLU Challenges Warrantless Wiretapping

By       Message Stephen Lendman       (Page 4 of 6 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page.     Permalink

Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags  Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 11/27/12

Author 194
Become a Fan
  (191 fans)
- Advertisement -

On October 29, ACLU National Security Project Legal Fellow Mitra Ebadolahi headlined "Today at the Supreme Court: The Right to Challenge Warrantless Wiretapping," saying:

At issue are fundamental constitutional rights. Justices heard Jaffer's powerful argument. "For example, David Nevin has served as defense lawyer for accused terrorists."

- Advertisement -

He needs secure telephone and online communications with "experts, witnesses, family members, and his clients abroad."

It's essential to building an effective defense. Lawyers are also obligated to assure confidentiality for cooperating witnesses and other sources. Their profession ethically binds them. The same holds for journalists.

- Advertisement -

Government lawyers argued that ACLU clients don't know for sure they're being surveilled. Moreover, identities of people spied on is secret. National security requires they not be identified or disclosed. As a result, plaintiff's suit has no merit.

Several justice "appeared rightfully troubled by this Kafkaesque position, expressing concern that, under the government's interpretation, no one would be able to challenge the law--ever."
 

Justice Breyer said risk and certainty are just matters of degree. "It might not be a storm tomorrow. I mean, you know, nothing is certain," he explained

- Advertisement -

Justice Antonin Scalia disagreed. He claimed the case lacks "standing." In other words, plaintiffs can't prove they're monitored or harmed. According to the ACLU:

"The government theory of standing would render real injuries nonjusticiable and insulate the government's surveillance activities from meaningful judicial review."

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6

 

- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

I was born in 1934, am a retired, progressive small businessman concerned about all the major national and world issues, committed to speak out and write about them.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The McCain-Lieberman Police State Act

Daniel Estulin's "True Story of the Bilderberg Group" and What They May Be Planning Now

Continuity of Government: Coup d'Etat Authority in America

America Facing Depression and Bankruptcy

Lies, Damn Lies and the Murdoch Empire

Mandatory Swine Flu Vaccine Alert