Nsa surveillance and civil liberties: a fisa decision by the u.S. Supreme court shows how important the snowden revelations are
Among the not unimportant for the public "accompaniments" of the revelations set in motion by the idealist snowden include glimpses of the outpouring of truth falsifications that have come to light in the wake of his action, and are likely to come to light. The governments do not cut a good figure. A recent case in the guardian reveals the unscrupulousness with which the u.S. Government has swapped systemically important democratic institutions.
The case involves the supreme court of the united states, a crown jewel of constitutional democracy. There, early last year, months before snowden’s revelations, a decision was made on a petition filed by the aclu, a civil rights organization. Aclu sought a ruling from the justices on the viability of the additions to the foreign intelligence wiretapping law, the now-infamous foreign intelligence surveillance act (fisa), which was expanded by the bush administration in 2008 to allow wiretapping on a much broader scale.
The judges rejected the case with a narrow majority of 5 votes against 4. This was based on the fact that the complainants could not provide sufficient evidence or proof of surveillance by the intelligence services to qualify for a lawsuit.
According to the new york times, the court based its rejection mainly on two statements by the department of justice, according to which the nsa only monitors the communications of u.S. Citizens without judicial authorization in cases where they are connected with a person outside the u.S. Who is already under targeted surveillance. Secondly, the ministry of justice was to inform the criminally accused who had been spied upon on the basis of fisa, which would have legal consequences in accordance with constitutional rights.
The documents about the workings of the intelligence agencies that snowden made available to the public show in many places that the statements from the department of justice were lying assertions.
While guardian commentator trevor timm says it is unclear how much u.S. Attorney general donald verrilli knew about the nsa surveillance program at the time he twice gave untruthful testimony to the supreme court, it is now clear that the justice department was well aware of the surveillance and its scope.
In addition, the ministry never corrected the statements, although this is part of the ethical obligations of lawyers who testify before the supreme court. The ministry of justice was refused, according to the information of the guardian.