conservative Supreme Court justices, government surveillance, Supreme Court, telephone companies surveillance, Warrantless surveillance, Warrantless Wiretapping, wiretapping
conservative Supreme Court justices, government surveillance, Supreme Court, telephone companies surveillance, Warrantless surveillance, Warrantless Wiretapping, wiretapping

Court Rejects ACLU Challenge to Wiretaps

February 19, 2008 06:53 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust mixx.com

WASHINGTON — An attempt to blast a crippled U.S. spy satellite out of the sky using a Navy heat-seeking missile _ possibly on Wednesday night _ would be the first real-world use of this piece of the Pentagon's missile defense network. But that is not the mission for which it was intended.

The attempted shootdown, already approved by President Bush, is seen by some as blurring the lines between defending against a weapon like a long-range missile and targeting satellites in orbit.

The three-stage Navy missile, designated the SM-3, has chalked up a high rate of success in a series of tests since 2002 _ in each case targeting a short- or medium-range ballistic missile, never a satellite. A hurry-up program to adapt the missile for this anti-satellite mission was completed in a matter of weeks; Navy officials say the changes will be reversed once this satellite is down.

The government issued notices to aviators and mariners to remain clear of a section of the Pacific beginning at 10:30 p.m. EST Wednesday, indicating the first window of opportunity to launch an SM-3 missile from a Navy cruiser, the USS Lake Erie, in an effort to hit the wayward satellite.

Having lost power shortly after it reached orbit in late 2006, the satellite is well below the altitude of a normal satellite. The Pentagon wants to hit it with an SM-3 missile just before it re-enters Earth's atmosphere, in that way minimizing the amount of debris that would remain in space.

Adding to the difficulty of the mission, the missile will have to do better than just hit the bus-sized satellite, a Navy official said Tuesday. It needs to strike the relatively small fuel tank aboard the spacecraft in order to accomplish the main goal, which is to eliminate the toxic fuel that could injure or even kill people if it reached Earth. The Navy official described technical aspects of the missile's capabilities on condition that he not be identified.

Also complicating the effort will be the fact that the satellite has no heat-generating propulsion system on board. That makes it more difficult for the Navy missile's heat-seeking system to work, although the official said software changes had been made to compensate for the lack of heat.

The Pentagon press secretary, Geoff Morrell, said Defense Secretary Robert Gates was briefed on the shootdown plan Tuesday by the two officers who will advise him on exactly when to launch the missile _ Gen. Kevin Chilton, the head of Strategic Command, and Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who held Chilton's post until last summer.

"We all have an agreed-upon series of steps that need to be taken for this launch to be given the go-ahead," Morrell said, adding that no final decision has been made on when to make the attempt.

"The secretary is the one who will decide if and when to pull the trigger," the spokesman said, adding that Gates was departing Wednesday morning on an around-the-world trip that will include a stop in Honolulu, Hawaii, where a military command center will be monitoring the satellite operation.

Left alone, the satellite would be expected to hit Earth during the first week of March. About half of the 5,000-pound spacecraft would be expected to survive its blazing descent through the atmosphere and would scatter debris over several hundred miles.

Known by its military designation US 193, the satellite was launched in December 2006. It lost power and its central computer failed almost immediately afterward, leaving it uncontrollable. It carried a sophisticated and secret imaging sensor.

Morrell said the cost of adapting the Navy anti-missile system for the shootdown mission was $30 million to $40 million.

China and Russia have expressed concern at the planned shootdown, saying it could harm security in outer space. At the State Department on Tuesday, spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters that the U.S. action is meant to protect people from the hazardous fuel and is not a weapons test.

China was criticized last year when it used a missile to destroy a defunct weather satellite.

The Navy ship-based system, which includes a command-and-control and radar system known as Aegis, as well as the SM-3 missiles, is just one segment of a larger, far-flung missile defense system that has been in development by the American military for more than three decades.

Managed by the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, the program includes interceptor missiles sitting in underground silos at Fort Greely, Alaska, and at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., as well as radars around the world that are used to track an enemy missile and help the interceptor hit it.

As currently configured the missile defense system is designed mainly to counter a threat from North Korea. The Bush administration, fearing an emerging missile threat from Iran, is in talks with Poland and the Czech Republic to place interceptor missiles in Poland and a tracking radar in the Czech Republic. Russia has objected strenuously, saying such bases would be a threat to Russia.

___

Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil


 
 

Comments
37
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)
- bob5701 See Profile I'm a Fan of bob5701 permalink

One solution to this Repub court would be for the new congress in 2009 to increase the number on the court to say eleven.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:48 AM on 02/20/2008
- LORISNJ See Profile I'm a Fan of LORISNJ permalink

While I don't agree with the Supremes on this issue = I don't think it is as bad as it may seem.

This is only a civil case brought by the ACLU. The Court said that they wouldn't be able to prove that they were wiretapped (as individuals). That is a bogus argument because EVERYONE was wiretapped - but damages would be impossible to detail as it was for "THE GOVERNMENT" and not competitors or an entity to gain an advantage. I don't agree but they may have a point - in civil court you must be able to show a specific harm.

Once the Justice Department is headed by a Democratic appointee, the criminal case should be able to move forward.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:58 AM on 02/20/2008
- realpolitic See Profile I'm a Fan of realpolitic permalink

The Supreme Court has become just another partisan body of apparatchiks. Those conservative judges who are supposed to be strict constructionists who follow the letter of the constitution are more accurately strict authoritarians who follow whatever Bush says he may do at the moment and his definition of what he may do is usually expanding. The Supreme Court is rapidly losing all repect as an indepemdent body among the American people. The founders never intended the court to be a rubber stamp body. Where do we look to now for the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of men?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:15 PM on 02/19/2008
- Liam See Profile I'm a Fan of Liam permalink

Oh, absolutely. As with everything else in this Orwellian presidency, words don't mean what they used to mean.

"Strict Constructionist" doesn't in any way mean they'll adhere to laws as strictly constructed in the Constitution... it means they'll adhere to laws as they would have been constructed if the neoconservatives had written the Constitution.

And the thing that really gets me is the dismissive way Bush supporters just blow off obvious disparities between these "strict constructionist" views and the actual text of the Constitution, there in black and white.

Liam.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:56 AM on 02/20/2008
- realpolitic See Profile I'm a Fan of realpolitic permalink

They have ignored the principle of stare decisis several times already and this principle of observing precedent is supposed a conservative bedrock.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:36 AM on 02/20/2008
- abbiehoffmansghost See Profile I'm a Fan of abbiehoffmansghost permalink

Proud member of the ACLU for many years. Don't like it? Blow me.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:18 PM on 02/19/2008
- oafishcad See Profile I'm a Fan of oafishcad permalink

The Obama supporters who say they won't vote; or will vote for McCain, and the Hilary voters who say the same thing, are guaranteeing that the Supreme Court will go even further to the right. What complete and utter morons. Spoiled brats one and all.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:00 PM on 02/19/2008
- milo9 See Profile I'm a Fan of milo9 permalink

One...Two...Three branches of government broken.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:45 PM on 02/19/2008
- johnnyjust See Profile I'm a Fan of johnnyjust permalink

The Anti-American Union loses again. Their attempt to help terrorists kill innocent people fails. Time to celebrate!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:15 PM on 02/19/2008
- Liam See Profile I'm a Fan of Liam permalink

OK, can you explain this to me? I honestly don't get what anyone has against the ACLU. Sure, they take some unpopular cases to defend, but that's the point: They step in and offer aid to those who have rights but not popularity.


They (the ACLU) are quite right to point out that the KKK, while unpopular and perhaps even counter to the spirit on which America is based, nevertheless have the same rights as any other group to gather peacefully in public places... as long as no laws are broken.


I like the idea that there's a group around giving some aid to those whose rights might otherwise not be respected. It makes me feel like there might be someone on my side if ever my opinions are unpopular and someone tries to squash me.


Liam.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:50 PM on 02/19/2008
- Liam See Profile I'm a Fan of Liam permalink

I'm terribly sorry, I don't know why this posted twice, I certainly didn't intend that.

Liam.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:51 PM on 02/19/2008
- Liam See Profile I'm a Fan of Liam permalink

OK, can you explain this to me? I honestly don't get what anyone has against the ACLU. Sure, they take some unpopular cases to defend, but that's the point: They step in and offer aid to those who have rights but not popularity.


They (the ACLU) are quite right to point out that the KKK, while unpopular and perhaps even counter to the spirit on which America is based, nevertheless have the same rights as any other group to gather peacefully in public places... as long as no laws are broken.


I like the idea that there's a group around giving some aid to those whose rights might otherwise not be respected. It makes me feel like there might be someone on my side if ever my opinions are unpopular and someone tries to squash me.


Liam.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:50 PM on 02/19/2008
- einherjar See Profile I'm a Fan of einherjar permalink

Turned down an appeal, without comment, on an illegal program that has been in place since BEFORE 9/11.

America is on the ropes, the Constitution is being declared null and void at every turn.

I fear for our future, if there is much of one left for the U.S.A.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:00 PM on 02/19/2008
- bigdaddyvike See Profile I'm a Fan of bigdaddyvike permalink

Not commenting.... three words, once again: five to four. What dirtballs

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:56 PM on 02/19/2008
- biglover See Profile I'm a Fan of biglover permalink

This is a good reason why we need a dem in the white house for the next 8 years. There may be as many as 3 supreme seats up for grabs. I hope Obama appoints the most liberal judges he can find to counteract this repuglican pigs (Scalia, Roberts and Alito)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:03 PM on 02/19/2008
- GeoLee See Profile I'm a Fan of GeoLee permalink

Well, the good thing about this is that there is now no reason whatsoever for congress to sign the new FISA bill, is there?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:02 PM on 02/19/2008
- vet64 See Profile I'm a Fan of vet64 permalink

Time for a revolution to rid ourselves of everyone of the Neo Con Parasites infesting the Executive Branch. Everyone of them including the Republican and Democratic Legislators are Morally, Legally and Ethically bankrupt as well as Conflict of Interest and Collusion challenged United States Supreme Court Justices!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:56 PM on 02/19/2008
- moda31 See Profile I'm a Fan of moda31 permalink

isn't it wonderful to see the highest court in the land upholding justice in such a fine manner

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:06 PM on 02/19/2008
- lungfish See Profile I'm a Fan of lungfish permalink


How Dick Cheney Used the NSA for Domestic Spying Pre-9/11


http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9561


    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:57 PM on 02/19/2008
- bigdaddyvike See Profile I'm a Fan of bigdaddyvike permalink

Thanks for the link, Lung.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:54 PM on 02/19/2008
- Liam See Profile I'm a Fan of Liam permalink

This is one of the things that so ticks me off about this administration. They keep everything secret, and then point to the fact that you have to be able to prove you've been wronged in order to sue.

So how, exactly, do we challenge unfair or illegal laws in court if we are prohibited by law from knowing whether they affected us or not?

It's the "security letter" thing all over again. You can't require people to know they've been wronged by an unfair law in order to protest it if, as part of the law, you make it illegal for someone to know if they've been subjected to it.

Heck, it's essentially the same thing as he's done with Enemy Combatants: Create a brand new definition and then claim that there are no rules as to how this new definition of people can be treated, so he can do whatever he wants.

It amazes me that more people aren't up in arms over the flagrant abuses of the Constitution perpetrated by this administration. And remember, even if you think Bush, personally, is the most moral, ethical and careful guy you've ever met, ask it in the abstract: Once Bush sets the precedent, a President Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will also have the power. If you like the power for "your guy", ask yourself if you'll still like it in the hands of the other guy, because Karl Rove rhetoric aside, there will never be a "permanent" majority on either side of the aisle.

Liam.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:19 PM on 02/19/2008
- sandiegoconservative See Profile I'm a Fan of sandiegoconservative permalink

You have a right to be upset, but the concept of standing to sue over a case or controversy has been in American jurisprudence and interpreted in the Constitution long before the Bush administration.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:24 PM on 02/19/2008
- Liam See Profile I'm a Fan of Liam permalink

I don't dispute that. The problem isn't with standing. The problem is when the administration finds ways to use the system against itself.

It's all loopholes. The intent of standing was to prevent the courts from being filled up with lawsuits filed by people who didn't like a particular law but who had not been subject to it. In other words, for example, to prevent "preemptive" lawsuits. The idea was never to set up a situation where Americans' rights could be violated by simply making it illegal for them to know whether they had standing.

The way it's set up right now, they could violate your rights and you'd never know it. Suppose they decided to get Nixon-esque and start using some of the illegally gotten information on political rivals. There'd still be no way to PROVE how they'd gotten the information, and so they'd be able to get away with it.

Suppose, for example, the administration or someone in it has decided to tap the phone calls of all Clinton and Obama supporters, sifting through it for every bit of dirt they can hand over to the McCain campaign for future use. Whoever the Dem nominee eventually is may end up pulling out their hair wondering where all of this information is coming from, but they'll have a hard time proving it, to say nothing of having to admit the veracity in order to even allege misconduct.

So I understand standing, but I think standing went out the window when Bush started redefining things. Bills, through signing statements. Prisoner treatment through a brand new classification. Torture by calling it "enhanced interrogation". The list goes on.

Our rules only work so long as the spirit of them is adhered to on all sides. Since they no longer are being adhered to from the governmental side... they're over.

My two cents, of course.

Liam.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:30 PM on 02/19/2008
- Ides See Profile I'm a Fan of Ides permalink

Last time I checked, don't you issue subpoenas to GET the information? Man, fascism sucks.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:59 PM on 02/19/2008
- iPolitics See Profile I'm a Fan of iPolitics permalink

gutless. apparently these justices can't read the constitution. let's hope the legislature has the guts to protect the bill of rights

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:10 PM on 02/19/2008
- biglover See Profile I'm a Fan of biglover permalink

They can read just fine. It's their interpretation I have a problem with. They are Bush's appointed lackeys. All the more reason to vote for the dems. 3 more seats will probably become vacant in the next 4 to 8 years.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:05 PM on 02/19/2008
- Conservativeslayer See Profile I'm a Fan of Conservativeslayer permalink

This is why this presidential election is so important, Supreme Court Justices. If McCain is elected prez, the supreme court will be permanently shifted to the right. The next prez will get to pick probably 2 or more justices to the court. The next president has to be a democrat, either Hillary or Obama. We can't afford to let McCain pick the next round of Supreme Court justices.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:43 PM on 02/19/2008
- underdog See Profile I'm a Fan of underdog permalink

These guys have a simple job to do: interpret the Constitution.

"Article [IV.]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

They are obviously incapable of doing their jobs. We have all three branches ignoring their oaths of office. What a travesty. America is dying.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:42 PM on 02/19/2008
- Durango See Profile I'm a Fan of Durango permalink

So whats so hard to understand about the IV Amendment? Seems pretty clear and straight forward to me.
I guess it takes a "Conservative" to create nuance in simple language. (How is this conservative? I thought Fat Tony and his crew were strict constructionists? Strict Constructionists should believe warrants are ALWAYS required.)

And I understand Standing. They don't have standing because the Admin is keeping everything secret. Illegally kept secret of course (See IV Amendment.)

And the courts buy this?

Kafka would be proud.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:07 PM on 02/19/2008
- sandiegoconservative See Profile I'm a Fan of sandiegoconservative permalink

But again, it comes down to the issue of "standing". I think a lot of people on here don't get that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:24 PM on 02/19/2008
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in