“domestic spying” ruling overturned
This just in from newsbusters (you dont see this kind of news reported by the MSM): The original ruling that “domestic spying” is unconstitutional was overturned. I call it “domestic spying” because that is the label that was given it, though many disagree with that title. Here is a quote:
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.
The 2-1 ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel vacated a 2006 order by a lower court in Detroit, which had found the post-Sept. 11 warrantless surveillance aimed at uncovering terrorist activity to be unconstitutional, violating rights to privacy and free speech and the separation of powers….
White House spokesman Tony Fratto said, “We have always believed that the District Court’s decision declaring the terrorist surveillance program unconstitutional was wrongly decided.”
The ACLU is reviewing its options, including taking its challenge to the Supreme Court, Shapiro said.
I hope that it is taken to the supreme court, so that it can be shot down again by the steller group of people who now run the show.
warren Said,
July 9, 2007 @ 14:30
so, you’re for the decision, or against it?
kev Said,
July 10, 2007 @ 08:58
Well I’ll throw it out there that I am pretty uneasy about this whole deal.
bradlands Said,
July 10, 2007 @ 09:56
I dont really know enough about it to have a very strong opinion one way or the other, but I am glad to hear that judges reviewing the case believe that the program was legitimate.
warren Said,
July 10, 2007 @ 15:54
If you don’t have enough information to have an opinion, I’d think you might tone down your exuberance
/me is not at all thrilled about the reversal
The ACLU can be very anti-Christian, even anti-American, but here I’m positive they’re dead-on.
kev Said,
July 10, 2007 @ 16:13
Yeah, I think I’m with Warren (and the ACLU) on this one…”warrantless surveillance” on American citizens is pretty creepy.
bradlands Said,
July 11, 2007 @ 09:00
My understanding of this is that only conversations with suspicious people out of the country are listened to. If you are making calls to Al-Quaida then yeah, you should be nervous, but calls made within the country can’t be listened to, and most calls made to those out of the country are not either.
kev Said,
July 11, 2007 @ 09:47
Just thinking here. If it’s so obvious they’re talking to known terrorists, why not just get a warrant then? Due process and all that jazz…
bradlands Said,
July 11, 2007 @ 15:25
My understanding is that they know who the bad guys are out of the country, but they do not know who they will be calling within the country, so they don’t have time to get a warrant for whoever it is the bad guy calls without missing the call.
I am not sure about the details of this though, because I have heard that they could have obtained a retro-active warrant after the fact. I think originally there was concern about the secrecy of the program, since public knowledge would make it less effective. I think since the program was disclosed to the public that warrants are obtained either retro-actively or from a board that is set up to act on short notice.