"...the President acknowledged in De cember 2005 that he had authorized what he termed a Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) by directing the National Security Agency (NSA) to intercept interna tional communications into and out of the United States of persons linked to al Qaeda. News Conference 1885. The government publicly stated that communications would be intercepted under this program only if there were reasonable grounds to believe that one party to the international communication was a member or agent of al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization." ACLU sued the NSA; the Supreme Court rejected a challenge Tuesday to the Bush administration's domestic spying program. The justices' decision, issued without comment, is the latest setback to legal efforts to force disclosure of details of the warrantless wiretapping that began after the Sept. 11 attacks.
The Associated Press: Court Rejects Domestic Spying Appeal

Glad to see the ACLU is on the ball protecting the privacy rights of terrorists .What is good about this case is that the court agreed with the lower court that the plaintiff had no standing (denied certiorari ). This means that there will be no class action cases against the telecom companies that were patriotically cooperating with the program unless the plaintiff knows for a fact that they were being "tapped" .

The Huffpos are taking it well:

Quote:

---

Roberts and Alito shouldn't be seated-not technically. They were appointments made by an undisputed dictatorship that gained power by coup. Everything that followed were criminal acts against the Republic.

They should resign in disgrace for being complicit in the overthrow of our Republic.

The Fascist Four can't wait to toss our democracy back into the dark ages, strip women of their right of choice, create racial inequality, and feed the militant corporatist beast that wants to kill freedom.

They act like traitors working on our dime. Their tortured rationalizations continue to break new ground of absurdity. The only way plaintiffs would know they weren't wiretapped is to go into discovery-a place no dictatorship wants to visit. They protect the militant corporatist-not the people.

But again, the truth is never to be known in Neofascia.

Let the People see those call logs. They don't belong to the junta. When all remedies are exhausted...

F*** fascism. Posted by lthuedk

---

Being that wacko must be a miserable existence.

So they can tap anyone's phone if they think they might be linked to Al Quaeda?

And also no one can make them say whose phone lines they are taping or why... so basically they can tap anyone's phone and never even have to come up with a reason why?

Sounds very fair to me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowtax4eva

So they can tap anyone's phone if they think they might be linked to Al Quaeda?

And also no one can make them say whose phone lines they are taping or why... so basically they can tap anyone's phone and never even have to come up with a reason why?

Sounds very fair to me...

---

You should endeaver to be a bit more fair because it is fairness that you want: the article said, "...only if there were reasonable grounds to believe that one party to the international communication was a member or agent of al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization." 'Reasonable grounds' does not include "...if they think they might be linked..."; it requires more than that.

Okay but who is deciding this?

If they won't release any details then how do we know how fairly this is being done... is having an "ethnic" name and family in the middle east grounds enough for them to watch you?

My reading today indicates that this is being done within the context of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance courts, or FISA courts. The 'listening' is done by the National Security Agency, as far as I am aware. You ask a good question; if I were wanting an answer, I would call my congressman and ask him. Maybe I will, if I don't forget.

Well in the end any terrorist or anyone working with them currently in the US know of this surveilance program and in general should know they are being watched so they won't register a phone in their own name. They'll use a pre-paid phone (bought in the US or overseas) probably under a fake name and get rid of it after a few uses.

This is pretty much common sense so the people being listened in on are probably mostly folks who are suspected wrongly or have some vague ties to the middle east. I highly doubt this program has caught anyone since it's pretty out in the open.

And of course this did not just start at 911 and did not nearly start with Bush, remember that large builing with all the dishes used to intercept all of this, guess what it has been there for years, all during Bush, during Clinton and the other Bush. This is nothing new at all.
And all that happens if it was restricted from the US, the CIA goes outside the USA and tap in to international cable calls from other nations, listen to cell phones from space. No one is going to stop the government protecting itself from terrorists. God help us all if they do,

It doesn't matter if one registers phone in their name or not. The NSA basically has the ability to intercept any call, anywhere from any type of electronic communication. The dmoestic program was not about eavesdropping but recording call data; phone numbers, date, duration, etc. The international program does apparently listen for key words and phrases, which if found they can then pull that call out for processing. Whether it's been successful or not who knows, but the Jihadists can't simply hide behind fake names and registrations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowtax4eva

Okay but who is deciding this?

If they wont release any details then how do we know how fairly this is being done... is having an "ethnic" name and family in the middle east grounds enough for them to watch you?

---

Because anyone caught violating the rules would be subject to arrest. Everyone has a supervisor.:)

Pelosi knows that if it came to a vote the Blue Dog Dems would vote for security and pass the PAA extension with the immunity provisions for the telecom companies that acted patriotically . But Pelosi answers to her own "supervisors " ;the trial lawyers .