Your rights mean nothing
CHICAGO - Citing national security, a federal judge Tuesday threw out a lawsuit aimed at blocking AT&T Inc. from giving telephone records to the government for use in the war on terror.
"The court is persuaded that requiring AT&T to confirm or deny whether it has disclosed large quantities of telephone records to the federal government could give adversaries of this country valuable insight into the government's intelligence activities," U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly said.
A number of such lawsuits have been filed around the country in the wake of news media reports that AT&T and other phone companies had turned records over to the National Security Administration, which specializes in communications intercepts.
Kennelly's ruling was in sharp contrast to last week's decision from U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco, who said media reports of the program were so widespread there was no danger of spilling secrets.
Kennelly ruled in a lawsuit filed by the
American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois on behalf of author Studs Terkel and other activists who said their constitutional rights were violated because of an NSA program of gathering phone company records.
Justice Department attorneys had argued that it would violate the law against divulging state secrets for AT&T to say whether it had provided telephone records to the supersecret spy agency.
The ACLU argued that the practice was no longer secret, because numerous news reports had made it clear that phone records had been given to the agency.
But the judge said the news reports amounted to speculation and in no way constituted official confirmation that phone records had been turned over.
He also said Terkel and the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which sought class-action status, had not shown that their own records had been provided to the government. As a result, they lacked standing to sue the government, he said.
ACLU legal director Harvey Grossman said in a statement that his group respectfully disagreed.
"A private company — AT&T — should not be able to escape accountability for violating a federal statute and the privacy of their customers on the basis that a program widely discussed in the public is secret," Grossman said.
The San Antonio-based company, known as SBC Communications Inc. until it acquired AT&T Corp. last year, is poised to become the nation's largest phone company later this year when it completes its proposed purchase of BellSouth Corp., announced in March.
In his ruling, Kennelly noted that he had received written statements from National Intelligence Director John Negroponte and NSA Director Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander in his chambers, with ACLU lawyers not allowed to be present.
The statements were designed to reinforce with confidential material the government's argument for the need for secrecy.
Kennelly said that his public decision was not premised on the classified materials. But he added that he was issuing a separate memorandum discussing the points raised in the classified material.
It too, he said, would have to be classified and "unavailable for inspection by the public or any of the parties or counsel in this case other than counsel for the government."
Again I am reminded of the quote "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"The court is persuaded that requiring AT&T to confirm or deny whether it has disclosed large quantities of telephone records to the federal government could give adversaries of this country valuable insight into the government's intelligence activities," U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly said.
A number of such lawsuits have been filed around the country in the wake of news media reports that AT&T and other phone companies had turned records over to the National Security Administration, which specializes in communications intercepts.
Kennelly's ruling was in sharp contrast to last week's decision from U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco, who said media reports of the program were so widespread there was no danger of spilling secrets.
Kennelly ruled in a lawsuit filed by the
American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois on behalf of author Studs Terkel and other activists who said their constitutional rights were violated because of an NSA program of gathering phone company records.
Justice Department attorneys had argued that it would violate the law against divulging state secrets for AT&T to say whether it had provided telephone records to the supersecret spy agency.
The ACLU argued that the practice was no longer secret, because numerous news reports had made it clear that phone records had been given to the agency.
But the judge said the news reports amounted to speculation and in no way constituted official confirmation that phone records had been turned over.
He also said Terkel and the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which sought class-action status, had not shown that their own records had been provided to the government. As a result, they lacked standing to sue the government, he said.
ACLU legal director Harvey Grossman said in a statement that his group respectfully disagreed.
"A private company — AT&T — should not be able to escape accountability for violating a federal statute and the privacy of their customers on the basis that a program widely discussed in the public is secret," Grossman said.
The San Antonio-based company, known as SBC Communications Inc. until it acquired AT&T Corp. last year, is poised to become the nation's largest phone company later this year when it completes its proposed purchase of BellSouth Corp., announced in March.
In his ruling, Kennelly noted that he had received written statements from National Intelligence Director John Negroponte and NSA Director Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander in his chambers, with ACLU lawyers not allowed to be present.
The statements were designed to reinforce with confidential material the government's argument for the need for secrecy.
Kennelly said that his public decision was not premised on the classified materials. But he added that he was issuing a separate memorandum discussing the points raised in the classified material.
It too, he said, would have to be classified and "unavailable for inspection by the public or any of the parties or counsel in this case other than counsel for the government."
Again I am reminded of the quote "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
posted by Bludlust at 10:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home