Supreme Court Won't Review Bush Domestic Spying Case

Supreme Court Won't Review Bush Domestic Spying Case

www.nytimes.com

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a legal challenge to the warrantless domestic spying program President George W. Bush created after the September 11 attacks.

The American Civil Liberties Union had asked the justices to hear the case after a lower court ruled the ACLU, other groups and individuals that sued the government had no legal right to do so because they could not prove they had been affected by the program.

The civil liberties group also asked the nation's highest court to make clear that Bush does not have the power under the U.S. Constitution to engage in intelligence surveillance within the United States that Congress has expressly prohibited.

"The president is bound by the laws that Congress enacts. He may disagree with those laws, but he may not disobey them," Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, said in the appeal.

(visit the link for the full news article)





[edit on 19-2-2008 by Areal51]

The high court's action means that Bush will be able to disregard whatever legislative eavesdropping restrictions Congress adopts as there will be no meaningful judicial review, the ACLU attorneys said.

The journalists, scholars, attorneys and national advocacy groups that filed the lawsuit said the illegal surveillance had disrupted their ability to communicate with sources and clients.

That's the argument that the Supreme Court refuses to hear. Apparently it doesn't matter to the Supreme Court that a civil crime has been committed. And the way the case is being interpreted by the courts is that those who file suit have to be able to prove that the NSA had spied on them. How is that possible? Even though it has been admitted that illegal surveillance by the NSA has taken place, it is still impossible to mount a challenge because one has to be directly affected and also be able to provide proof. How's that for operating above the law? Nothing but cahoots. Cahoots.

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)