Joined
·
1,218 Posts
Fed judge rules NSA program unconstitutional
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Yup, got the email this morning:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/index.html
Memorandum:
http://www.aclu.org/images/nsaspying...e863_26477.pdf
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/index.html
Memorandum:
http://www.aclu.org/images/nsaspying...e863_26477.pdf
Joined
·
774 Posts
Joined
·
1,569 Posts
Bush Vows to Overturn Wiretapping Ruling
Quote:
Also Feds appeal ruling on surveillance
Quote:
Not a big suprise or anything, but still
![]()
Quote:
| "I would say that those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live," Mr. Bush said in a question-answer session at Camp David, Md. "I strongly disagree with that decision, strongly disagree. That's why I instructed the Justice Department to appeal immediately. And I believe our appeals will be upheld." "We believe, strongly believe, it's constitutional," the president added. "And if Al Qaeda is calling into the United States, we want to know why they're calling." |
Quote:
| The Justice Department launched an appeal within hours of a federal judge's ruling that, for the first time, struck down President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program as an unconstitutional infringement on the right to privacy and free speech. ... "We have confidence in the lawfulness of this program," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in Washington. "We're going to do everything we can do in the courts to allow this program to continue." |
Not a big suprise or anything, but still
This was a very HUGE victory for our country. I work with some of the ACLU lawyers who worked on this case (but I didn't) so we are all over the moon!!
I'm also a native Detroiter so I'm very happy that it was a Detroit judge who had enough courage to make this ruling.
Now, for the appellate courts...
![]()
I'm also a native Detroiter so I'm very happy that it was a Detroit judge who had enough courage to make this ruling.
Now, for the appellate courts...
Another link with more details at Democracy Now:
http://www.democracynow.org/article..../08/18/1352240
http://www.democracynow.org/article..../08/18/1352240
Joined
·
258 Posts
Quote:
![]()
:
Originally Posted by MaryLang I'm sorry but as far as wire tapping, I think we need it. It wouldn't be the first time they've bent the constitution. I want to feel safe and if that means tapping wires then help yourself I have nothing to hide. |
"I'm sorry but as far as wire tapping, I think we need it. It wouldn't be the first time they've bent the constitution.
I want to feel safe and if that means tapping wires then help yourself I have nothing to hide."
It's not about you. It's about the actual law. The constitution isn't bent. It's interpreted. In this case there is no interpretation. It's breaking the law. This does not make it safer. Listening to international calls going into and out of the US has been standard practice. Especially calls coming in. The program in question expands the wiretapping to domestic phones. That is completely unconstitutional and is rife for abuse. Do you trust the government? Do you trust polititions? Do you trust corporations? I sure don't. i do not believe they have our saftey in mind when they push this agenda. It's about control and power. Not saftey.
I want to feel safe and if that means tapping wires then help yourself I have nothing to hide."
It's not about you. It's about the actual law. The constitution isn't bent. It's interpreted. In this case there is no interpretation. It's breaking the law. This does not make it safer. Listening to international calls going into and out of the US has been standard practice. Especially calls coming in. The program in question expands the wiretapping to domestic phones. That is completely unconstitutional and is rife for abuse. Do you trust the government? Do you trust polititions? Do you trust corporations? I sure don't. i do not believe they have our saftey in mind when they push this agenda. It's about control and power. Not saftey.
I would rather have my freedoms, than have "safety."
There are other countries where people can live if they'd prefer for the gov't to be reading their mail and listening to their phone calls (under the guise of "keeping everyone safe", of course.) The U.S. is not supposed to be one of them! This country is supposed to be about freedom from an oppressive government.
Has ANYONE in the White House read the Constitution? Do they even mention it in schools anymore?
There are other countries where people can live if they'd prefer for the gov't to be reading their mail and listening to their phone calls (under the guise of "keeping everyone safe", of course.) The U.S. is not supposed to be one of them! This country is supposed to be about freedom from an oppressive government.
Has ANYONE in the White House read the Constitution? Do they even mention it in schools anymore?
Joined
·
1,569 Posts
Conflict of Interest Is Raised in N.S.A. Ruling
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/23/wa...rtner=homepage
Quote:
[Paraphrased by me to keep w/in copyright limits]
The article continues w/ various legal expert types debating if she should have recused her self on this basis, or if she should have disclosed it. Others feel it is a non-issue.
I just hope this doesn't get blown out of proportion and cause this excellent ruling to be thrown out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/23/wa...rtner=homepage
Quote:
| Questions about a possible conflict of interest [for the federal judge who ruled last week that President Bush's eavesdropping program was unconstitutional] appear likely to raise new concerns. The Web site for the group that supported the A.C.L.U., the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan in Detroit, lists Judge Taylor as its secretary and a trustee. -snip- The executive director of the Michigan A.C.L.U., Kary Moss, said her group had received four grants totaling $125,000 from the foundation since 1999. [These were for an educational program on the Bill of Rights & racial profiling, work on racial profiling and a lawyer to work on gay rights] |
The article continues w/ various legal expert types debating if she should have recused her self on this basis, or if she should have disclosed it. Others feel it is a non-issue.
I just hope this doesn't get blown out of proportion and cause this excellent ruling to be thrown out.
Quote:
Read my siggie. This in no way makes you safer and erodes your civil liberties. What terrorist have you heard of uses domestic phone lines?
There are rules that they were supposed to follow, they didn't. If they wanted to wire tap the world, they should have gone through the proper channels.
Originally Posted by MaryLang I'm sorry but as far as wire tapping, I think we need it. It wouldn't be the first time they've bent the constitution. I want to feel safe and if that means tapping wires then help yourself I have nothing to hide. |
There are rules that they were supposed to follow, they didn't. If they wanted to wire tap the world, they should have gone through the proper channels.
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
