US tries to kill EFF ’spy’ suit
p2p news / p2pnet: The Bush administration is invoking ""military and state secrets" privileges in a filing against an EFF lawsuit which says AT&T cooperated with the Bush administration’s citizen surveillance program.
"Unauthorized disclosure" in "litigation of information" may harm American national security, claims the Department of Justice, says the San Francisco Chronicle.
In January, the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) filed a class action on behalf of AT&T customers accusing the company of allowing the National Security Agency to tap phone calls and emails between US residents and "terror suspects" abroad
Bush admits authorizing the NSA actions but, "A 1978 law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, requires the government to obtain a warrant from a court in a secret session for such surveillance," says the story. Bush, meanwhile, "maintains he has the constitutional authority to override the law".
The DoJ plea for dismissal of the EFF action, "went on to say that the filing should not be construed as either a confirmation or a denial of any of the claims made by the civil liberties group about government surveillance activities," says the New York Times.
"Elsewhere in the document, however, the government said President Bush had explained that after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, he authorized the security agency to intercept communications into and out of the United States by people linked to Al Qaeda and related organizations.
"The agency is ordinarily prohibited from intercepting the telephone and digital communications of American citizens without a warrant from a special intelligence court."
Court documents include, "affidavits, lists of equipment and technical specifications related to tapping fiber-optic network links" and were obtained independently by a number of news organizations, says the story, adding:
"They refer to a similar installation in an AT&T facility in Atlanta, and Mr. Klein has said he believes there are related eavesdropping facilities attached to AT&T centers in San Jose, Los Angeles, San Diego and Seattle."
Also See:
San Francisco Chronicle - U.S. moves to quash privacy suit against AT&T, April 29, 2006
New York Times – U.S. Steps Into Wiretap Suit Against AT&T, April 29, 2006
April 29th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
(what’s wrong, Russell; afraid to post my comments?)
Add, to that Subject-line, an oldie but goodie; “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions”. Perhaps someone might add what (if *anything*) prevents a man who has tasted unfettered power from attempting to not only retain his privileges, but (to) *increase* them.
Mr. President, you are *well* on your way to (becoming known as) “Emperor George”.
April 29th, 2006 at 11:24 pm
He’s already a emperor ,some americans don’t know that yet. Let impeach the president This November! Tell Him A straight message that you want to clean up congress!
April 30th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
It should not go unnoticed that those who lived on this land located between Canada and Mexico 231 years ago were fed up with the tyranny represented (either ironically or prophetically) by another King George. They rose up and eventually drove his army, agents, and influence from the land. This conflict started with the “shot heard round the world” fired on the Lexington Town Green on 19 April 1775. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and it’s former colony, the State of Maine (admitted to the union in 1820), we celebrate this as Patriots Day. The rest of the world knows this as the day the Boston Marathon is run.
Perhaps this won’t be the “suit heard round the world”, but the administration’s interference in a civil, class-action lawsuit (to which it is not a party) of a large telecom defendant sued by it’s customers for breaking it’s own policies and services agreements on confidentiality of customer records (breach of contract) that was filed wholly based on publically available, (then) non-classified information, in order to protect the Royal Tuchis is simply the height of arrogance.
One of the provisions of the lawsuit, and what the Government fears most is that should the plaintiffs prevail, AT&T will be enjoined from providing the Government any information about anything unless they produce the proper legal documentation, such as a subpoena. It’s not about secrets, it’s about easy access to information without having to go through bothersome procedures that protect the constitutional rights of everyone who lives here and engages in electronic communications.
April 30th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
Add, to that Subject-line, an oldie but goodie; “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions”. Perhaps someone might add what (if *anything*) prevents a man who has tasted unfettered power from attempting to not only retain his privileges, but (to) *increase* them.
Mr. President, you are *well* on your way to (becoming known as) “Emperor George”.
May 2nd, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Do you really think “the powers that be” in the US (”Emperor George” is only a figurehead) are driven by “good intentions”? IMHO it’s the acquisition of more POWER and WEALTH. If the US constitution gets in the way of that pursuit, burn it. After all, “it’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” …
May 2nd, 2006 at 7:20 pm
“Bush, meanwhile, “maintains he has the constitutional authority to override the law”
This claim makes no sense. If laws could be overrided by anyone then the legislature is not the third independent power that peple are led to believe exists. The independence of the three allegedly independent branches of government has always been a questionable independence that may relly not exist at all beause of the political mix up among between the legislators and the president and by the naming of judges by the president based on political ideology.
Only the courts can declare a law null and only if the court finds the law is unconstitutional. The president cannot determine that.
Beside it is bad practise to judge and part of an issue, meaning tht the president should not judge laws that he is responsible for following.
If president Bush wants to override a law, his Justice Department must first ask the courts to declare the law unconstitutional.
Not an opinion from a lawyer, but an opinion nevertheless.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
May 3rd, 2006 at 9:17 pm
I doubt Bush will get impeached, but term limits will get rid of him anyway, he is a lame duck and will know it when he loses the majority in congress.