US Supreme Court upholds warrantless wiretapping
Linkedin

US Supreme Court upholds warrantless wiretapping

San Francisco : CA : USA | Feb 26, 2013 at 2:15 PM PST
XX XX
Views: Pending
 

If you’re worried about the United States government tapping your phone or perusing your emails, don’t complain to the US Supreme Court about it. They don’t want to hear it.

Today, the court ruled that citizens cannot challenge a federal law that allows for warrantless surveillance of international phone calls and emails. The ruling was a blow for civil rights activists and lawyers, and a victory for the Obama administration.

The justices voted 5-4, largely along ideological lines, in favor of the law, which was implemented in 2008. They claimed that the citizens represented by the American Civil Liberties Union—including Amnesty International, lawyers, journalists and international human rights activists—could not sufficiently show that they were actually being harmed by the potential surveillance.

The majority included Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito, who wrote for the majority in the case, Clapper v. Amnesty International USA.

“It is speculative whether the government will imminently target communications to which respondents are parties,” Alito wrote.

The plaintiffs "have no actual knowledge of the Government’s ... targeting practices," Alito claimed, writing that they "can only speculate as to how the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence will exercise their discretion in determining which communications to target."

The dissenting justices were Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Breyer wrote for the group, claiming that the plaintiffs would likely be involved in some of the intercepted conversations.

"“It is as likely to take place as are most future events that commonsense inference and ordinary knowledge of human nature tell us will happen,” Breyer wrote.

“Perhaps, despite pouring rain, the streets will remain dry," he continued. "We need only assume that the Government is doing its job (to find out about, and combat, terrorism) in order to conclude that there is a high probability that the Government will intercept at least some electronic communication to which at least some of the plaintiffs are parties."

"This is a very depressing decision, but one that has become routine in a court system that when faced with what the government insists are matters of national security writes lengthy opinions about why the courts cannot defend the rule of law," Chris Hedges, a journalist that was represented by Amnesty International in the case, told the Huffington Post.

Today’s ruling was a loss for those concerned about the government’s increased ability to secretly spy on citizens since 9/11.

Barry Eitel is based in Oakland, California, United States of America, and is an Anchor on Allvoices.
Report Credibility
 
  • Clear
  • Share:
  • Share
  • Clear
  • Clear
  • Clear
  • Clear
 
 
 
Advertisement
 

News Stories

 
  • The New Sustainable Online MBA University Option

    Submitted By: msllearning123 | over 1 year ago
    An Online MBA University program is a long and drawn out process to apply, and for good reason: it will oversee several key projects. Application process, preparation, assessment, writing a solid statement, and the need to obtain letters of ...
  • Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Surveillance Law

      The New York Times
    Alito Jr. said that the journalists, lawyers and human rights advocates who challenged the constitutionality of the law could not show they had been harmed by it and so lacked standing to sue. Their fear that they would be subject to surveillance in...
  • Justices block foreignsurveillance suit

    The 5-4 conservative majority on Tuesday concluded that the plaintiffs lacked "standing" or jurisdiction to proceed, without a specific showing they have been monitored. The National Security Agency has in turn refused to disclose monitoring...
  • Supreme Court dismisses challenge to surveillance law

      Washington Post
    The 5 to 4 ruling did not touch on the constitutionality of the law, and challengers said it will be almost impossible now to get that issue before a court. The amendments, passed to bolster national security in the wake of terrorism threats, carry...
  • US court won't allow challenge to surveillance law

      Fox News
    Associated Press A sharply-divided Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out an attempt by U.S. citizens to challenge the expansion of a surveillance law used to monitor conversations of foreign spies and terrorist suspects...Justices "have been reluctant...
  • Court blocks FISA challenge

      United Press International
    Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Tuesday a civil rights group does not have standing to challenge the government interception of foreign communications. The decision fell along the high court's ideological fault line, with Justice Anthony Kennedy joining the...

Blogs

 >
  • The New Sustainable Online MBA University Option

    Submitted By: msllearning123 | 5 months ago
    An Online MBA University program is a long and drawn out process to apply, and for good reason: it will oversee several key projects. Application process, preparation, assessment, writing a solid statement, and the need to obtain letters of ...

More From Allvoices

Related People

Report Your News Got a similar story?
Add it to the network!

Or add related content to this report

Most Commented Reports



Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use Agreement and Privacy Policy.

© Allvoices, Inc. 2008-2014. All rights reserved. Powered by PulsePoint.