We are non-commercial, all volunteer and supported by our readers. Please help sustain the Dew by making a donation.
Clapper v. Amnesty International:
Associate Justice Alito Changes His Mind About Giving the Targets of Secret Surveillance a Day in Court
Surveillance was victorious over Liberty once again in the U.S. Supreme Court on February 26th. In a 5 to 4 vote in Clapper v. Amnesty International, the court overturned a decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that U.S. citizen attorneys, activists and journalists working on human rights issues have standing to seek a permanent injunction against the monitoring of their electronic communications with foreigners outside the country by U.S. intelligence agencies. The important work they perform requires privacy of communication so that their sources will give them information. Standing is the requirement parties must have a substantive dispute meriting a judicial decision.
The practical effect of the Supreme Court’s reversal of the Second Circuit is that secret policemen may read the e-mail messages exchanged between U.S. citizens and foreign nationals if they can persuade the U.S. Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence to request a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). How difficult is that? Given that the FISC conducts its business in secret, we don’t know much about its decision-making. However, we do know that in 2011 it granted 1,674 of the 1,676 requests for authority to conduct secret electronic surveillance. The other two requests were withdrawn rather than denied. In effect, all that protects U.S. citizens from having intelligence agents read any e-mails they might exchange with foreigners is a court that holds its proceedings in secret and never says ‘no.’
That a court dominated by conservatives would sacrifice freedom to security is unsurprising, but who wrote the majority decision in Clapper and how he delivered the bad news merits scrutiny. The author is one of former President George W. Bush’s appointees: Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. Here is what Alito said during his January 10, 2006 U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Confirmation Hearing when asked whether the victims of government spying should have their day in court:
“Certainly. If someone has been the subject of illegal law enforcement activities, they should have a day in court. And that’s what the courts are for, to protect the rights of individuals against the government or anyone else who violates their rights. And they have to be absolutely independent and treat everybody equally.”
Yet a day in court is exactly what Alito is denying with the Clapper decision. Without standing, bringing an action for a permanent injunction against being spied upon is blocked.
What is Alito’s reasoning? Because U.S. citizens who believe their electronic communications are being monitored have no knowledge of the Government’s targeting practices, what they fear is “necessarily conjectural.” That is not enough to give them standing in court. In footnote 4 he instructs that it is, “not the Government’s burden to disprove standing by revealing details of its surveillance priorities,” and then follows with a bit of terrorist baiting:
“Moreover, this type of hypothetical disclosure proceeding would allow a terrorist (or his attorney) to determine whether he is currently under U.S. surveillance simply by filing a lawsuit challenging the Government’s surveillance program.”
Not only does Alito tell the subjects of secret government surveillance that they cannot have their day in court because the surveillance they complain about is being conducted secretly – that the burden is on them to produce evidence that is in the possession of the secret police – but then tags them as possible terrorists.
To identify other examples of absurdity as nauseating one has to turn to fiction: the exchange between Captain Yossarian and Doc Daneeka about the rule that is also the title of Joseph Heller’s novel Catch 22. Under that regulation, U.S. Army Air Corps bomber crewmen exposed to escalating risks of death because of the professional rivalries among their senior officers could not be medically grounded for insanity unless they so requested. However, all such requests would be automatically denied because they constituted evidence of sanity.
Under the Clapper decision, targets of secret surveillance are denied legal standing to challenge their secret surveillance because they cannot show that they are being surveilled. They cannot show that because their surveillance is being conducted secretly. That is absurdity so patent, so obvious, that the failure to recognize it could be taken as evidence of insanity.
Worthy of Comment
Also on the Dew
What kind of idiots shell out, or commit themselves to borrow, two hundred thousand dollars for a row house and then sign on to a "warranty" that warrants nothing other than their responsibilities as buyers and owners? Rubes from the hinterlands of Georgia, mostly, but also a bloke in New South Wales. Imagine! I have written earlier about the mortgage notes that condition a loan on the buyers of property ceding their civil rights to the financier--e.g. on a standard Georgia form the borrower: (2)Waives all rights which Borrower may have under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United Read on →
Those are some of the emotions I feel after hearing of the way the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States has treated people in detention in the War on Terror. For this to be happening in a nation that says that all individuals have certain human rights, no matter what their station, the CIA actions are the highest of hypocrisy, which also goes against the basic principles that the American people hold high. On top of that, the prolonged detention of these detainees, some later found not to be terrorists at all, shows what can go wrong when a unit Read on →
Sure, it can be fun. Dede, for instance, is a terrific hater. Her favorite verb is “hate.” I hate winter. I hate the Falcons (not just this year). I hate this sink. I hate all the fiction in The New Yorker. But none of this hating amounts to anything. It’s just her vivacious way of expressing herself. My guess is that most of us take our hating a little more seriously, a little more warily. We’ve seen the power and the glory, you might say. I hated a guy I was in graduate school with. No reason. I just did. And I mean Read on →
It’s that time of year again. Ya’ll know what I’m talking about … the holidays. Some see it as the song claims “It’s the most wonderful time of the year” … But others among us are just left wondering. First it’s the sugary shock of Halloween. Then it’s surviving the Thanksgiving glutton-fest. Followed by a tsunami of high-octane shopping you can’t afford, partying, last minute gift buying, a morning of exchanging gifts you don’t need, a mad rush to return the gifts you don’t want, more shopping and finally a drunken evening, ending with new year’s resolutions and false resolve to quit your shameful and glut Read on →