nsa wiretapping: unconstitutional

What in the world is going on?
Post Reply
User avatar
firsty
Posts: 1050
Joined: September 9th, 2004, 12:25 pm
Location: here
Contact:

nsa wiretapping: unconstitutional

Post by firsty » August 17th, 2006, 1:10 pm

looks like little bits of the actual US consitution arent really hidden in the underground caverns of a nonexistent house of congress, guarded by a hunchback, drooling templar knight.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14393611/

Federal judge orders end to wiretap program
Says warrantless domestic surveillance program is unconstitutional
The Associated Press


Updated: 1:07 p.m. ET Aug 17, 2006

DETROIT - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government’s warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.

“Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution,” Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs.

The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.

The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule.

“By holding that even the president is not above the law, the court has done its duty,” said Ann Beeson, the ACLU’s associate legal director and the lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

The NSA had no immediate comment on the ruling.

Taylor dismissed a separate claim by the ACLU over data-mining of phone records by the NSA. She said not enough had been publicly revealed about that program to support the claim and further litigation could jeopardize state secrets.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed except by Firsty.
and knowing i'm so eager to fight cant make letting me in any easier.

[url=http://stealthiswiki.nine9pages.com]Steal This Book Vol 2[/url]

[url=http://www.dreamhost.com/r.cgi?26032]Get some hosting![/url]

User avatar
e_dog
Posts: 2764
Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 2:02 pm
Location: Knowhere, Pun-jab

Post by e_dog » August 17th, 2006, 3:45 pm

the govt will no doubt appeal and the decision reversed within six months or so or less.

read the article's last line too; seems even this judge is willing to bow down to worship Uncle Sam's big fat "state secrets."
I don't think 'Therefore, I am.' Therefore, I am.

User avatar
stilltrucking
Posts: 20646
Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas

Post by stilltrucking » August 18th, 2006, 10:32 am

those got dam activist judges
it is a good thing the executive branch is above them.
As Andrew Jackson said
"The Supreme court made its decision-now let them enforce it."

somethin like that.

I been thinking about moving to New Hampshire but I am too old for those yankee winters.

Live free or die. Now there is a a cool motto for a liscence plate. Texas was going to be The Wildflower State untill the jerks in Austin decided it weren't manly sounding enough.

ah shit firsty gone again
sorry for the ramble thinking about two of your posts at the same time.

Post Reply

Return to “Culture, Politics, Philosophy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests