Spy, Spy Away
David Weigel | July 6, 2007, 4:52pm
So much for the lawsuit against the NSA wiretapping program:
In a 2-1 decision, two Republican appointees on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against allowing the lawsuit. A Democratic appointee judge disagreed, saying it was clear to him that the post-911 warrantless surveillance program aimed at uncovering terrorist activity violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
Although the Bush administration said in January the program is now overseen by a special federal intelligence court, opponents said that without a court order, the president could resume the spying outside judicial authority at any time.
The ruling Friday vacates an order by a U.S. District Court in Detroit last August that found the surveillance unconstitutional, violating rights to privacy and free speech and the separation of powers.
Reason coverage of the NSA scandal starts here.
SJE | July 8, 2007, 6:38pm | #
Re: the legal mumbo jumbo of "Standing"
As I am studying for the Bar, I should know all this stuff. Standing is legal mumbo jumbo, but it is surprisingly important these days.
Like other things in this great nation, "standing" has a great foundation, but has been used to deny us our rights.
The whole idea of "standing" is that the court should not waste its time with people who have not been injured.
The problem is that "standing" is often used to defeat a lot of claims that people would think are legitimate.
This is a BIG problem in environmental cases. If a company dumps, say, heavy metals in a river, can you sue? If you are a fish in that river, you would have standing, except for the fact that you are a fish (only humans allowed). If you live near the river, but never drink the water or swim in the river, does the pollution affect you. It can get pretty hard to show you have been harmed. THus, even when there is a very clear case of wrong (the company clearly is at fault), how do you enforce the law? DO you have to actually get poisoned? If no one has standing, then there the law is effectively toothless.
I will bet that standing will be raised in the case of the farmers who want to grow hemp. Have they actually been harmed by the government's refusal to allow them to grow hemp? (I think so, but don't count on the court to throw it out).
How about overactive SWAT teams. Generally, the only people who have standing are those actually harmed: they might be dead, or drugs might have been planted on them, etc. Thus, while the community has an interest in stopping SWAT abuses, only those actually targeted in a raid have standing. Those people are more often poor and marginalized, and are not in much of a position to bring suit.
The source of this problem is partly the courts, partly the executive (many of these cases are brought when an agency refuses to enforce a law), but mostly the congress. Congress passes all these laws, but fails to create a strong basis for suit.
