ACLU sues the NSA
- Thread starter eyrei
- Start date
Little Raven
On Walkabout
Yay ACLU.
They haven't a prayer, of course. But at least they're fighting the good fight.
They haven't a prayer, of course. But at least they're fighting the good fight.
Kayak
Partisan
Someone has to tilt at windmills around here.Little Raven said:
amadeus
Serenity now
I couldn't help but notice the irony in that statement.Little Raven said:
It was meant as encouragement 
But, if the case gets anywhere, that should wake people up to what's being done.
But, if the case gets anywhere, that should wake people up to what's being done.
It is about time someone stopped moaning about the wiretapping and started doing something about it, though it is no surprise that the ACLU would be the ones stepping up to the plate.
Elta
我不会把这种
I don't Really care but as liong as the ACLU gets on everyone about everything we'll have more rights in the long run ..good for them
The ACLU often charges at windmills for no reason, but at least here they're doing what they're supposed to be doing. Cheer them on!
Xanikk999
History junkie
Why would you care if your being wiretapped unless you have something to hide (like you have been doing something illegal). What is the government going to do to you if you havent been saying anything suspicious anyway? I really wouldnt care being wire tapped. They can waste there time for it. The only way YOU would specifically get wire tapped if you said something stupid like "Hey you wanna bomb the white house sometime?" and somehow the feds found out. If you have nothing to hide it shouldnt concern you. This wiretapping business isnt aimed at the general public
Yawn...same old argument. Because privacy matters. Because we'd like a record of these things, and the proper channels call for it to be approved by the rubber-stamp FISA court. Because we don't want this used for political purposes inside the States.
That enough for you?
That enough for you?
Kayak
Partisan
It's the "ultimate power corrupts ultimately" argument. Wiretapping has been abused so much in the past.Xanikk999 said:
Xanikk999 said:
Jeez way to pick a ancient discredited argument.
Its called privacy. Obviously you dont want yours, you wont mind me going though your underwear draw and selling everything on ebay then? Or can I watch you take a leak? Whats wrong? Whats the difference between the NSA listening to my phone calls and me watching you and your spouse having sex?
Oh its because the government, and we trust them. Sorry, I forgot.
wit>trope
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2004
- Messages
- 2,871
The President should issue a statement saying that he and the executive branch he controls (unitive executive theory) does not recognize the authority of any court claiming to rule on the military operations of the executive branch. So then any decision by any court about it would be meaningles -- except politically at the ballot box. For it is according to the Founding Fathers the PEOPLE who are the "final arbiter" of the constitution and NOT the courts. It's amazing to me that a Hispanic Florida Woman Congressman was so ignorant of this when she claimed that the Supreme Court was the "final arbiter" (not really surprising given her background, but still disconcerting that a member of Congress would say it)
Actually now that I think about it, the President has ALREADY issued such a statement:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051230-8.html
Actually now that I think about it, the President has ALREADY issued such a statement:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051230-8.html
Isn't one function of the courts to protect you from your government?
The Court interprets the Constitution and the laws of the land. Which is why they can also strike down laws that are unconstitutional, unless they're passed to be an amendment.
You don't remember the check and balance system between the three branches, I see. The executive is not above either the legislative or judiciary.
Apparently, few people care about that White House statement, or else you wouldn't be the first one bringing it up.
You don't remember the check and balance system between the three branches, I see. The executive is not above either the legislative or judiciary.
Apparently, few people care about that White House statement, or else you wouldn't be the first one bringing it up.
wit>trope
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2004
- Messages
- 2,871
The Yankee said:
Actually in a few cases state courts have struck down amendments to their constituions.
And the JUDICIARY is not above either executive or legislative. This means that the judiciary can't order the other branches around in matters of the "purse" or "sword" -- "sword" includes military activity such as NSA spying or detention of enemy combatants.
Courts can offer advisory rulines on those matters, but they cannot infringe upon the unitary executive.
This is very poor reasoning. That White House statement IS cared about by LOTS of people. BLOGS all over the blogosphere have talked about. It is on literally THOUSANDS of webpages and is discussed and quoted even in a wikipedia article (at the moment the article is a mess -- but I'm sure they will tidy it up)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive
State constitutional amendments, maybe, but not those passed to the United States Constitution.
The military and the executive must obey the laws of the land, as well. You're putting them above it by saying the courts have no rights to decide.
And there are thousands of blogs that talk about people going about their lives. But I cannot care for every detail. This is the situation as it is now, and I support the ACLU in this case.
The military and the executive must obey the laws of the land, as well. You're putting them above it by saying the courts have no rights to decide.
And there are thousands of blogs that talk about people going about their lives. But I cannot care for every detail. This is the situation as it is now, and I support the ACLU in this case.
nihilistic
Intergalatic Delivery Boy
wit>trope said:
Is there any reason that you must mention that the congresswoman is hispanic?
And a woman?
Who knows, who cares. This isn't about that, which has been brought up in other threads as well. Has nothing to do with the topic at hand...
Who knows, who cares. This isn't about that, which has been brought up in other threads as well. Has nothing to do with the topic at hand...
nihilistic
Intergalatic Delivery Boy
The Yankee said:
I know that. I was just curious. You can tell a lot about someone by what details he chooses to see.
