This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
On October 29, High Court oral arguments were heard. Justices will decide if lawyers, journalists, labor, media, human rights organizations, and others may challenge the constitutionality of warrantless spying.
In March 2011, the Second US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled they and others the law affects have legal standing to challenge. ACLU spokeswoman Rachel Myers called it "a really big victory."
It means potentially affected parties "don't have to prove (they've) been spied on to challenge an unlawful spy act."
The Court overruled a district judge claiming otherwise. It said "plaintiffs have good reason to believe that their communications in particular, will fall within the scope of the broad surveillance that they can assume the government will conduct."
Their jobs entail overseas phone, email and other communications. Warrantless spying targets these activities. Government officials claim they may "be associated with terrorist activities." Corroborating evidence isn't needed.
"Political and human rights activists" opposed to governments Washington supports are vulnerable. So are individuals and groups targeted by US "counterterrorism or diplomatic efforts."
Plaintiff concerns are "reasonable." Government arguments don't wash.
At issue is fake national security concerns v. inviolable constitutional rights. The Supreme Court gets final say.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
