SCOTUS's Warrantless Wiretapping Punt is a Win for America's Ruling Parties
October 11, 2012 6:00 PM
comment(s) - last by
SCOTUS, presidential nominees appear united: sometimes due process is just not convenient
In a ruling that has a deep impact on domestic surveillance in the short term, the
Supreme Court of the United States
to review a controversial
U.S. federal circuit appeals court decision
which upheld legal immunity provisions for telecoms who wiretap at the behest of the federal government.
I. President, Romney Unanimous in Support for Warrantless Wiretaps
Removing immunity would essentially leave telecoms unlikely to comply with warrantless requests, as they could be penalized in court by citizen lawsuits for following warrantelss data demands. The basis of U.S. criminal law for centuries has been cornered on obtaining warrants to investigate persons of interest. But over the past several decades, both parties have increasingly argued that
due process is inconvenient
and at times a threat to national security.
The two parties worked hand in hand to grant cooperating telecoms immunity from lawsuits via
"Protect America Act"
of 2007 (
Both Democratic President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney support throwing out due process (warrants) in cases where national security is viewed to be at risk -- a policy first put in place by Republican President George W. Bush (with bipartisan support from America's two ruling parties) in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
President Obama and his predecessor President Bush agree on many things, including that the federal government should be granted unregulated spying on its citizens.
[Image Source: WhiteHouse.gov]
Mr. Romney expressed a viewpoint narrowly in line with President Obama's plugging warrantless wiretaps in a recent interview (see below), stating, "If it means we have to go into a mosque to wiretap or a church, then that's exactly where we are gonna go, because we are going to do whatever it takes to protect the American people. And I hear from time to time people say, 'Hey, wait a sec, we have civil liberties to worry about', but don't forget... the most important civil liberty I expect from my government is my right to be kept alive."
In a statement on the SCOTUS ruling, President Obama marched in lock-step with his political rival, with his press office
Electronic surveillance for law enforcement and intelligence purposes depends in great part on the cooperation of the private companies that operate the nation's telecommunication system.
If litigation were allowed to proceed against those who allegedly assisted in such activities, the private sector might be unwilling to cooperate with lawful government requests in the future, and the possible reduction in intelligence that might result is simply unacceptable for the safety of our nation.
The SCOTUS did not explain why it made its decision to punt in this case. The only evidence that it made the decision at all is
a note in the case docket
stating the case will not be heard.
That silent nod to the prevailing sentiment on The Hill is
a win for America's two ruling parties
, who are unanimous in their belief that the right to "be kept alive" (by the government) mandates spying on citizens without due process now and then.
II. Opponents Continue to Fight on
Of course civil liberties advocacies like the
Electronic Frontier Foundation
(EFF), and a handful of politicians like
Rep. Ron Paul
He argues that the American political system has been hijacked by zealots,
, "The PATRIOT Act was written many, many years before 9/11, [the attacks simply provided] an opportunity for some people to do what they wanted to do..."
"Democracy isn't all that healthy in this country because if you're in a third party... you don't get in the debates... And if you ever come to the conclusion -- heaven forbid -- that the two parties aren't all that different, then what is left really?"
Ron Paul is one of the few politicians to support keeping due process, even in the face of the nebulous "terrorist" threat. [Image Source: NBC]
EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl concurs, adding:
By passing the retroactive immunity for the telecoms' complicity in the warrantless wiretapping program, Congress abdicated its duty to the American people. It is disappointing that... [the courts] endorsed the rights of telecommunications companies over those over their customers.
But in the current political climate voices like the EFF and Rep. Paul's are mere whispers in a sea of shouts of support. Without saying a word, the punt by America's most powerful federal court in effect adds one of the loudest voices yet in support of warrantless wiretaps, although it leaves the door open for later revision, should America's political climate drastically change.
This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
RE: Situational Awareness
10/12/2012 10:16:01 AM
Because the Patriot Act has enough support, so going against it is bad politics.
See the root problem here? If the voters support something idiotic, so will the politicians.
RE: Situational Awareness
10/12/2012 11:16:38 AM
Yes, idiotic voters allow such things. But the people who are supposed to know all of the details of legislation IN DEPTH because that's THEIR JOB have for quite some time now passed laws that are OBVIOUSLY unconstitutional with the attitude that they'll just let the judicial branch (the Supreme Court) challenge it. However, someone must bring a case against the legislation to challenge it, which takes lots of money and time, and the Supreme Court doesn't have the time to hear every case. Thus, all sorts of things that should have been nixed by them aren't; egregious legislation piles up over time and sets precedents that are then used to pass even more egregious legislation.
It used to be that the legislative and executive branch were very careful about what they passed, carefully deciding whether what they were thinking of doing was constitutional, filtering out the bad stuff. NOT any more.
RE: Situational Awareness
10/12/2012 1:21:13 PM
"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer
Big Brother Get an Extension: House Passes Warrantless Wiretap Bill
September 13, 2012, 7:47 PM
U.S. Appeals Court Denies Citizens' Right to Sue Wiretapping Telecoms
January 2, 2012, 2:24 PM
Obama Admin. Fights to Renew Warrantless Wiretaps, Block Transparency
July 31, 2011, 1:50 PM
House Passes Telecom Immunity Bill, Expands Domestic Spying Powers
June 21, 2008, 9:58 AM
India Could Rock Google With Its Biggest Antitrust Fine Yet -- $5B USD
March 10, 2014, 8:12 PM
Apple Releases iOS 7.1, The First Major Update to Its "Rethought" Mobile OS
March 10, 2014, 1:52 PM
BlackBerry CEO Jokes that iPhone Users are "Wall Huggers"
March 10, 2014, 12:20 PM
Average Mobile Phone Bill in U.S. is Growing Despite Competition
March 10, 2014, 10:25 AM
Aussie Tried to Drop Drugs into a Prison Using an Aerial Drone
March 10, 2014, 9:32 AM
Quick Note: New Generation HTC One (M8) Photos Turn Up on Weibo
March 10, 2014, 9:04 AM
Most Popular Articles
Bitcoin King Pt. II: Mt. Gox's Dictator Karpelès Proves Tragically Flawed
March 7, 2014, 1:12 PM
Bitcoin King: Mt. Gox CEO Mark Karpelès' History of Arrests, Firings
March 5, 2014, 9:05 AM
USAF Moves Forward With Long Range Bomber Program Despite Budget Crunch
March 4, 2014, 9:44 AM
Windows 8.1 Update 1 Leaked Early
March 7, 2014, 9:30 AM
Apple Won't Let UK Sons Unlock Their Deceased Mother's iPad
March 6, 2014, 12:44 PM
Latest Blog Posts
Tesla vs. BMW: Who Has the Safer EV?
Feb 1, 2014, 2:56 PM
Justice Leaks Details of Next HTC One Two Flagship Phone
Dec 5, 2013, 4:04 PM
Global Cyber Espionage Concerns Reveal Growing Cyber Armies
Nov 29, 2013, 11:04 AM
Is The Period Becoming an Expression of Anger?
Nov 26, 2013, 2:02 PM
NSA and Congress -- You Will Never Kill the Constitution, It's an Idea
Nov 10, 2013, 2:00 PM
More Blog Posts
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. -
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information