March 25, 2003
THE GENERAL ON THE MARCH:
High Court Won't Rule on Terror Surveillance (Dan Eggen, March 25, 2003, Washington Post)The U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene yesterday in an ongoing argument over the proper boundaries for federal surveillance of suspected terrorists, rebuffing an attempt by civil liberties advocates to challenge the Bush administration on the issue.The American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Arab American groups had asked the high court to consider whether the government had gone too far in permitting information gathered with secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants to be used in criminal prosecutions.
The justices declined to allow the groups to intervene in the case, but they did not issue a decision on the merits of either side.
The ACLU had taken the novel step of filing an appeal on behalf of people who did not know they were being monitored in an attempt to bring the case before the high court. The organization said it was disappointed but not surprised by the justices' decision to reject that effort.
"It was an unusual case because there was no one able to appeal the government's power to spy on ordinary Americans," said Ann Beeson, the ACLU's associate legal director. "We are not going to give up on our many different attempts to challenge these new spying powers."
Attorney General John D. Ashcroft praised the decision and defended "the government's lawful actions to detect and prevent international terrorism and espionage within our borders.
"Civil libertarians" have challenged nearly every action that Mr. Ashcroft's Justice Department has undertaken and have routinely portrayed him as an extremist. Yet, he's racked up an almost uninterrupted series of wins in court. If the justice system sides with him almost every time, then who really are the extremists here? Posted by Orrin Judd at March 25, 2003 5:01 PM
An interestng example of how principle sometimes takes a backseat to practice. As Lincoln recognized.
The first duty of the state is to survive. Anything else is second. "If the end does not justify the means, what does?"
All that said, the hysterical screeching about our rapidly eroding civil liberties is bunk.
At the lunch line in Wendy's today, a talkative woman was chatting up a Coast Guardman and his girlfriend.
In the course of a rather disjointed exchange, she blurted out, "That's why we (Hawaiians) feel sympathy for Saddam. Our sovereignty was taken, too."
Actually, very few Hawaiians feel that way; they have about the highest enlistment rate of any US group. But she was not cowed about saying so to a member of the dreaded US military in a public place.
I cannot begin to describe the depth of my contempt for the ACLU and the rest of the antidemocracy movement.
I don't know if this is too inside baseball, but a lawsuit filed with no known plaintiff, indeed, no knowledge of whether there actually is anyone in the position of the putative plaintiffs, is a lawsuit filed for no purpose but to be dismissed and allow the lawyers to send out a self-righteous press release.
Posted by: David Cohen at March 25, 2003 7:08 PMDavid:
We need judges to use Rule 11 the way the American armed forces are using cruise missiles.
OJ: I'm with you -- and we need DOJ lawyers to seek sanctions when judges won't do it sua sponte. FRCP 11(c)(1), (2). As near as I can figure, the ACLU sued the federal government on behalf of people it is sure exist, but whose existence it cannot prove, and whose identities it cannot provide, because... they may not exist! If that's not Rule 11 sanctionable, nothing is.
Maybe these folks skipped the day in Con Law where they talked about how Federal Judges don't give advisory opinions.
Geez, Chris, down below somewhere I raised a question about why Rule 11 wasn't being enforced and you jumped on me for my naivete.
Posted by: David Cohen at March 25, 2003 11:17 PM