Supreme Court Rules Against Constitution

Twin blows were struck against civil liberties today in Washington, where the Supreme Court struck down objections that the executive branch had acted unconstitutionally and the Senate passed a bill that builds upon the powers extended by a controversial executive order. The executive branch expressed satisfaction with both the ruling and the legislation. Attorney General Michael Mukasey smugly told UACL representatives that he was "very satisfied with the way the Supreme Court ruled in this case." The UACL plans to publicly state its disappointment and to wage a campaign to defeat the bill on the floor of the House. "There is nothing to be done except to say that we, as concerned citizens and as campaigners for civil rights, are saddened by the decisions made today by the United States Government,"said the UACL's own Kelly McCarthy. Press Secretary Dana Perrino, when asked about the administration's response to probable public discontent about the Senate's actions, said that the administration hopes "that the bill the Senate has passed will please the public." The UACL very much doubts it will.

Which Way Will It Go?

The Supreme Court will announce their decision on their recent hearing on the constitutionality of the Executive Order tomorrow afternoon. The UACL has made our stance clear that in order to wiretap an American citizen, the proper measures to obtain a warrant must be taken, something that this administration has clearly failed to do. Even AG Mukasey and Diana Perino have said that the administration did not go through all the steps to receive the warrants. The country will be greatly affected by this crucial decision, and this case will also set precedents for the future. The UACL can only hope, for the country's state, that the Supreme Court justices make the right decision.

--Jordan Lonner

Q & A with Attorney General Michael Mukasey

Thursday, UACL reporters Jordan Lonner and Casey Hursh sat down with Attorney General Michael Mukasey to discuss the new bill that some Senators are drafting up.......

Q: Has the white house contributed to writing this bill?
A: As far as I know, they have not.

Q: Will the Supreme Courts decision be made by the time this bill is released?
A: The decision will be issued first.

Q: Where is the bill now?
A: The bill is currently in the committee.

Q: Specifically, what does this bill do?
A: My sources tell me that the bill will allow the Department of Justice and other intel gatherings to give FISA faster warrants and allow the attorney general to skip to the front of the line when it comes to recieving a warrant.

Q: Is the white house satisfied with this bill?
A: I'm not completely sure but my sources hint that it sounds like it's good.

--Casey Hursh and Jordan Lonner

Amending the 1st Amendment

During oral arguments today in front of the Supreme Court, UACL lawyer Kelly McCarthy raised an interesting issue, which might have "flown under the radar screens" of many spectators in the court. She said that the President's Executive Order presents an undue burden to exercising first amendment rights. There are a couple of reasons that this is true.
First, the Administration has said that the warrantless searches authorized by the EO will largely be triggered by information retrieved through "chatter scanners." Basically, the idea is that these chatter scanners pick up specific words that the intelligence community has "red-flagged" as indicators of terrorist activity. When one of these scanners locates a call that has a medium to high density, frequency, or quantity of these "red-flag" words, the DoJ considers a wiretap. Due to this method of operation, many individuals, especially those here at the UACL, are afraid to use language that might initiate a tap. UACL lawyers have to be especially careful, because, due to the nature of our lawsuit regarding the EO, we use a lot of the "red flag" words in legal discussions. Ms. Perino said, when announcing the attack on Sumatra, that the initial threat had been intercepted by a chatter scanning program that caught several references to "ANSWER", "Malamar", and "Sumatra" in the same conversations. One can imagine that, as representatives of ANSWER, UACL lawyers probably mention those words more than anyone else, anywhere. Further, there is an even greater "chilling effect" on our use of certain words because a wiretap by the DoJ would be especially dangerous for the UACL, as we are suing the DoJ. Details of our case could easily be garnered using an unwarranted wiretap, simply by claiming that the DoJ picked up "chatter" originating from the UACL. This represents an abridgment of the right to free speech, as protected in the first amendment to the Constitution.

Second, the EO "abridg[es]... the right of the people to freely assemble," as protected in the first amendment. The EO authorizes surveillance of entire groups, not specific individuals. That creates a disincentive to join a certain group, out of the fear of being searched. Dana Perino acknowledged that all ANSWER communications are subject to surveillance because of the actions of one of its members. There are certainly member of ANSWER, a nationwide group, that have no animosity towards the United States, and certainly didn't have any knowledge of, or actively participate in, the attack on the US consulate in Sumatra. In this county, we don't believe in guilt by association. Just because a coworker of mine doesn't like the way America handles itself overseas, doesn't mean the government should be able to spy on me because of it. That's why the founding fathers put the protection of speech first, it's that important.

-Michael Soneff

Convoluted Proceedings Obscure Administration's Constitutional Rewrite

""We're not breaking the law; we're rewriting it."

The above words are those of Attorney General Michael Mukasey, spoken at a press conference only days before he was illegally held in contempt of congress. While this statement is not astoundingly unexpected on its own, it is overshadowed and confused by the words of the other members of the administration. Shortly after Mukasey's press conference, President Bush corrected his Attorney General's statement by insisting that the administration is not "rewriting the law so much as we're amending it." While the members of the press worked day and night to untangle the web of fuzzy logic that hangs over these statements, Press Secretary Dana Perino made another convoluted statement in a secret interview. "We're not changing the law," she said, "we're expanding on it." The UACL is concerned about the general ramifications of these goings-on, as well as the individual problems with each official's statement. The primary concern is the President's implication that he has the legal authority to amend the law; the ability of the Executive to amend existing laws is limited; in addition, the constitutional amendment that the President has singlehandedly carried out legally requires a 2/3 majority of Congress to pass. Both Mukasey and Perino implied that the Executive Branch has the ability to make law, and the UACL would like to remind them that while Executive Power exists and extends limited lawmaking powers to the President, it in no way serves as a substitute for democracy. The UACL's own Kelly McCarthy contends that the controversial executive order does in fact rewrite law by extending the emergency authorization provision of FISA by four days, as well as by allowing the administration to bypass the FISC.

--Matt Lerner

McCarthy Presents Case To Supreme Court

Today in Washington, in the highest court in all the land, UACL council Kelly McCarthy presented the facts about the Executive order. Before Ms. McCarthy defended the UACL's claim, AG Mukasey and Solicitor General Andrew Clement tried to convince the court that the order was constitutional. THe court repaeatedly ask "Was the warrantless wiretapping constitutional?" No one on AG Mukasey's side could come up with an answer that would sit well with the court. At one point, the AG's team presented the justices with the warrants to wiretap members of the anti-war group ANSWER, and somehow the president connected that group to Malamar, who was then connected to Al Queda. While the warrants were kept private, the people in the room were able to understand the gist of what was contained in the documents. The Supreme Court then began to ask why the warrants were shown to the justices. Clement responded by stating that they just wanted to show the court that they were working inside the law to wiretap the so called "enemy combatants". Chief Justice Roberts thoughtfully asked, "If you are trying to prove to us that you don't need warrants to conduct domestic surveillance, why are you presenting us with warrants?" Next, Ms. McCarthy contended that the Executive Order is unconstitutional because it intended to rewrite FISA and and because it authorized surveillance that violates bothe the first and fourth amendments. The Supreme Court will hand in their decision on Friday. Stay tuned to the media center for more news on the issue...

-Jordan Lonner

Supreme Court Will Listen to Cases Tomorrow

The Supreme Court will open up its hearings on the President's Executive order tomorrow morning. UACL representative, Kelly McCarthy and SPAC representative Andrew Lieberman are expected to be called to defend their stances on the order. Ms. McCarthy is fresh off her appearance in front of Congress, where she admirably defended the rights of the American citizen, something that Mr. Lieberman failed to do while in front of the same committee. While pictures and video of the hearing will be forbidden, the UACL Media Team will be inside the Court and will report on the day's events at the end of the hearings. Stay tuned...

--Jordan Lonner

McCarthy Testifies at Senate Hearing

Yesterday, Kelly McCarthy sat in front of the senate and answered questions regarding her opinion on the constitutionality of the executive order. McCarthy argued passionately that the order was not constitutional. Much to the dismay of the President, she did not support his lack of checks and balances when issuing this order. In particular, McCarthy criticized the violation of the 4th Amendment and questioned how reasonable searches are decided on. She also questioned the necessity of writing up the warrant after the search has been completed. Overall, it was a good day for McCarthy, who performed well.

- Casey Hursh