SCOTUS Refuses Wiretapping Case

February 19th, 2008 By: marc moore | Tags:

I don’t often agree with the aims of the ACLU, but I think that filing a suit against the Bush administration’s use of “unapproved”, to put it gently, wiretapping was a good thing.  Today the U.S. Supreme Court declined the opportunity to hear the case.

Steven R. Shapiro, Legal Director of the ACLU:

“Although we are deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court’s refusal to review this case, it is worth noting that today’s action says nothing about the case’s merits and does not suggest in any way an endorsement of the lower court’s decision. The court’s unwillingness to act makes it even more important that Congress insist on legislative safeguards that will protect civil liberties without jeopardizing national security.”

Short-term it’s irritating that the SCOTUS dodged this case.  It’s my opinion that warrantless (illegal, in most people’s definition of the word) wiretapping has gone too far and that the government needs to redraw its boundaries as relates to unsupervised access to citizens’ private conversations in all forms.  The SCOTUS could have clarified matters significantly by hearing the case.

But there is benefit to pushing the matter back to Congress, the body that has failed to act to rein in the Bush administration’s excesses in this area.  Democratic leaders should abandon the farce over whether telecom companies will get amnesty for their post 9/11 acts - they should and will, in the end - and concentrate on making sure that some semblance of due process and judicial review is put in place to control the government’s access to private information.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
No comments yet.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.


Warning: is_writable() [function.is-writable]: open_basedir restriction in effect. File(error_log) is not within the allowed path(s): (/home/p6525pol:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php:/tmp) in /home/p6525pol/public_html/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 500