Crossposted from STOP THE ACLU: Supreme Court Rejects ACLU Domestic Spying Case...
Basically, because: the case had nothing to do with spying on domestic citizens; was supposed to be a secret program; and common sense the ACLU lacks. What it came down to was that none of the plaintiff's had any standing. The ACLU feared that some of their conversations with terrorist representatives might have been listened to, however they couldn't provide any evidence of that.
The ACLU consistently insists that programs such as the NSA wiretapping program goes against civil liberties and opposing opinions just as consistently insist that National Security depends on being able to monitor calls and contacts from the U.S. to terror groups outside the U.S to be able to protect America from further terrorist attacks.
The courts are caught in the middle and have to walk a fine line between civil liberties and protecting America because ruling against one may "step on" the other.
However, in this case it was a position from the ACLU that was full of holes and couldn't pass muster to even be argued. The ACLU are calling it a catch 22 because the program being secret keeps them from being able to prove whether they haved been listened to. Really, I hope the government is listening in on the ACLU phone calls.
"It's very disturbing that the president's actions will go unremarked upon by the court," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's national security project. "In our view, it shouldn't be left to executive branch officials alone to determine the limits."
The Terrorist Surveillance Program no longer exists, although the administration has maintained it was legal.
The ACLU sued on behalf of itself, other lawyers, reporters and scholars, arguing that the program was illegal and that they had been forced to alter how they communicate with foreigners who were likely to have been targets of the wiretapping.
I'm just curious as to why the ACLU had to alter the way they were communicating with foreigners. When did the Constitution provide civil liberties for anyone besides American citizens? (See PS from Chris, below) What did the ACLU need to talk to foreigners about that they were afraid of the government knowing? Nice to see the ACLU slapped down with some common sense.
Michelle Malkin says, "America 1. ACLU 0!
If the ACLU is correct, it means that the lapsing of the FISA law is no big deal. In fact, law enforcement may now have more ability to monitor terrorist activities because of the compromises included in the new law which give FISA courts much more power to oversee law-enforcement monitoring activities.
(PS from Chris: Foreigners within our borders are extended most of the same civil liberties as American citizens, but that is not germane to this case.)