PDA

View Full Version : OH MY!



LWW
02-20-2008, 05:42 AM
[ QUOTE ]
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to the Bush administration's domestic spying program.
The justices' decision Tuesday includes no comment explaining why they turned down the appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union.

The ACLU wanted the court to allow a lawsuit by the group and individuals over the warrantless wiretapping program. An appeals court dismissed the suit because the plaintiffs cannot prove their communications have been monitored.

The government has refused to turn over information about the closely guarded program that could reveal who has been under surveillance.<hr /></blockquote>

Perhaps we can now put this behind us and go about keeping the peace at home. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UTFCB02&amp;show_article=1&amp;catnum=0)

LWW

Qtec
02-20-2008, 08:10 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The setback comes as Congress spars with President Bush over whether to grant legal immunity to telecommunications companies. The ACLU and other groups say some 40 similar lawsuits pending against the private companies, rather than the government itself, are among the only means of oversight of Bush's warratnless wiretapping program.

<font color="red">“Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act intending to protect the rights of U.S. citizens and residents, and the president systematically broke that law over a period of more than five years," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. "It’s very disturbing that the president’s actions will not be reviewed by the Supreme Court.</font color> It shouldn’t be left to executive branch officials alone to determine what limits apply to their own surveillance activities and whether those limits are being honored. Allowing the executive branch to police itself flies in the face of the constitutional system of checks and balances.”

The court said plaintiffs represented by the ACLU could not sue the government because they could not prove their communications had been warrantlessly monitored by the National Security Agency. Shapiro also called it a "Catch-22" scenario because records of who the government spied on were classified.

The ACLU wanted the court to allow a lawsuit by the group and individuals over the warrantless wiretapping program. An appeals court dismissed the suit because the plaintiffs cannot prove their communications have been monitored.

The government has refused to turn over information about the closely guarded program that could reveal who has been under surveillance.

Developing... <hr /></blockquote>

The Govt is deliberately concealing info that could incriminate themselves in their obviously illegal wiretapping activities etc and you see this refusal by the court to consider the matter - without any explanation for the decision- as some kind of seal of approval for illegal conduct!?
Nobody could ever accuse you of being bias! LOL

Now, after all the talk about Nat Sec, the GOP allows a Nat Sec bill to fail because they insist on immunity for the AT&amp;Ts who helped them break the law.
Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

sack316
02-20-2008, 11:29 AM
real easy end around any privacy laws that gets used anyway and is perfectly legal:

Great Britain has some simlar laws as far as wiretapping and privacy between the government and their own citizens. Just as he have such laws between our government and our own. However, those laws do not protect citizens over there from us listening in, nor do our laws prevent government over there from listening in to us. A little warrantless wiretapping between allies, if you will. THEN if something of use gets heard, they kindly let our authorities know of what they may have heard, and we kindly return the favor. And it's all perfectly legit to do, within the letter of each countries privacy laws.

I normally woulda thought this as the rantings of a pretty paranoid person... if not for the fact that I learned about it through my class last session in college when we were studying about privacy and the internet, and somehow got onto that tangent and the NSA.

Sack

LWW
02-20-2008, 01:37 PM
The govt is doing no such thing.

The point of the suit is to find out how the program works so it can be circumvented, nothing more.

If they can find a single victim who had been damaged in any way then they would have been given the keys to ythe kingdom on this.

LWW

Qtec
02-21-2008, 09:30 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> The govt is doing no such thing.

The point of the suit is to find out how the program works so it can be circumvented, nothing more.

If they can find a single victim who had been damaged in any way then they would have been given the keys to ythe kingdom on this.

LWW <hr /></blockquote>


[ QUOTE ]
“The issue isn’t whether Congress should block cooperation between telecom companies and the government when the National Security Agency wants to engage in eavesdropping on American soil. The debate is about whether that cooperation should be subject to judicial oversight, as the law has required for the last 30 years, or whether instead the telecom companies can simply ignore the law when the president asks them to.” <hr /></blockquote>

web page (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/20/contempt-by-the-supreme-court/)

[ QUOTE ]
OLBERMANN: Why would evidence like this entire AT&amp;T room in San Francisco—we know the number of the room, we know the guy who hooked it all up. Why is that not sufficient to at least move this lawsuit on?

TURLEY: Well, that’s part of the ridiculous element to all this. That we know there’s an NSA program; we know that it’s illegal. There’s been no showing nor is no showing possible that the President had the authority to order what he did. This is a crime, defined under federal law. So there’s no mystery to the program, there’s not a particular debate to its illegality. The only issue is standing: the ability of someone to come in and say, “I can show I was individually harmed.” And they can’t do that because the Courts won’t give them the information they need and Congress will do nothing to force out into the public the information needed to get this type of relief. And as you noted, the Congress is going further in the opposite direction; they’re trying to extinguish suits against telecom companies that have been successful.
<hr /></blockquote>

Q.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

LWW
02-21-2008, 11:54 AM
Q,

The last time I checked the SCOTUS was the highest judicial review short of God and Olberman was a moonbat with a TV show.

Get it straight dude.

LWW

sack316
02-21-2008, 10:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> Q,

The last time I checked the SCOTUS was the highest judicial review short of God and Olberman was a moonbat with a TV show.

Get it straight dude.

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

no way man... Olbermann is a member of the media, thus he is part of all the right wing slant. Just like the New York Times proved they were today with their big "story". Haven't you been listening at all?

Sack