Terrorist supporters take a hit

CINCINNATI — A federal appeals court on Friday ordered the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging President Bush's domestic spying program, saying the plaintiffs had no standing to sue.

In a 2-1 decision, two Republican appointees on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against allowing the lawsuit. A Democratic appointee judge disagreed, saying it was clear to him that the post-911 warrantless surveillance program aimed at uncovering terrorist activity violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

Although the Bush administration said in January the program is now overseen by a special federal intelligence court, opponents said that without a court order, the president could resume the spying outside judicial authority at any time.

The ruling Friday vacates an order by a U.S. District Court in Detroit last August that found the surveillance unconstitutional, violating rights to privacy and free speech and the separation of powers.

The American Civil Liberties Union led the suit on behalf of other groups including lawyers, journalists and scholars it says have been handicapped in doing their jobs by the government monitoring.

Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, one of the Republican appointees, said the plaintiffs failed to show they were subject to the surveillance and therefore do not have standing for their claims.

Other groups have filed challenges to the program in other courts; this case has proceeded the furthest.

The case will be sent back to the judge in Michigan for dismissal.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288381,00.html

 

Good choice for a forum.

Why should there be any question that surveillance on possible terrorists is a problem? Don't forget the wiretaps are reviewed by a judge within 48 hours of placing the tap. If the tap was not fully in line with law, it must be removed.

I'm am all for reasonable restraints on law enforcement. But I am not in favor of tieing the hands of law enforcement so as to endanger national security.

These terrorists who are the target are not US citizens and do not have the same rights as US citizens.

As a taxpayer and US citizen I have a right to reasonable protection from those who wish to do me harm. This surveillance does NOTHING more than protect innocent citizens.

This lawsuit is the result of the official policy of the DNC: there is no such thing as the war on terror. In spite of the Dems attitude of sticking their heads in the sand on this issue, their false assertion is not shared by the majority of US citizens and there will be a price to be paid in 2008.

Surveillance of terrorosts is a good thing. Hey, all you Libs, get over it!!

 

You know what? Even though a court rules the constitution outdated, IT STILL APPLIES. If you want to change the constitution, go ahead and try to do so (good luck) but don't just ignore it or get judges to shill for you and think you can make changes to the constitution from the bench. This piece of paper is the only thing keeping America from falling to tyranny.


http://watchthis.zakyoung.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1911&Itemid=6

 

Perhaps this round of surveillances does nothing to harm innocent American civilians, but it sets a dangerous precedent. Where is the line drawn? For now, on people known to have ties to terrorist organizations (unless that's changed). How soon before it becomes people suspected of having ties to terrorist organizations? And how long before that line just becomes a cover for spying on whoever the hell the government wants?

It isn't the action now that's the problem. There are always seemingly good reasons for increasing security at the expense of the rights of a few people - especially when we can look at those people as bad and evil and not feel bad about what we're doing. However, handing this kind of power to the executive branch seriously unbalances the government, and opens the door for even more "security increases" down the road.

Maybe I sound paranoid, but our government was founded with the checks and balances system to prevent corruption and power-mongering from completely subverting our government. Allowing the executive branch to circumvent the courts gives them a dangerous amount of power - an amount of power that I wouldn't want to see in the executive branch under any administration.