NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional
Nice to see at least one branch of government still functions as it should (sometimes), since the other two clearly suck.
The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.
Wow, that's a convenient defense. Worse, though that the judge didn't just laugh at this argument but instead reasond that "the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for [her] to rule." So, if they had just kept their secret better, they'd be allowed to continue doing whatever the fuck they want? No wonder they hate the New York Times.
I was getting a little worried that I hadn't heard the term "activist judge" enough lately. This should get that back out there.
Of course no one will care very much about this ruling since some guy was arrested in a 10 year old murder case.
Well, whatever, I'm sure this will mean we'll stop catching all those terrorists we've been catching lately. whether it's those guys with no plane tickets who were going to blow up planes, or those guys who bought too many cell phones at once with only the lousy excuse that they could sell them for a profit of $18 each, or that woman who had notes from Al Qaeda* and some vaseline or something (or not). But that's ok with me, since I feel a lot safer now that people can't bring hair gel on planes.
* Do you want to be a terrorist? If so, check this box □. Sincerely, Osama.
7 comments:
Uh, Storm, obviously Taylor agreed with the ACLU that she could rule, since shem you know, ruled.
We are not going to catch less terrorists because the government can't spy on people without warrants. This is the point that you right wingers just don't get. The only reason not to get a warrant is because you are doing something that a warrant would be denied for, which is the scary part of this program. No one is going to deny a warrant to listen to suspected terrorists.
I'm not going to concede that it's ok to spy on people without any oversight, because that is just stupid and unAmerican. I really don't get how you can argue that this is about listening to terrorists. If that's the case, why not get a warrant and do it legally? There is obviously something else going on. Use some common sense. It's not about giving rights to terrorists, it's about not taking them away from the rest of us. A program without oversight, even if I trusted that the intentions were 100% noble (which I don't), is way too ripe for abuse.
I don't care who leaked the story. If this administration is so concerned about leaks, there are more important ones they could be worried about. They only care about leaks when it hurts them politically. And, how could any agents be put in danger by leaking that the government is listening to phone calls? Ridiculous.
Storm, you can pretend to be some kind of expert on warrants if you want, but your comment shows an appalling ignorance of the law. If it is time sensitive, they can get the warrant retroactively. Surely you know that. And since you must, then you're just being intentionally difficult. And again, you say it's terrorists calls, but how do you know that? You assume the government is telling you the truth, I don't. I thought you Republicans didn't trust the federal government.
There is no oversight, briefing some members of Congress does not constitute oversight. I doubt they are listening to all Americans, as you're right they don't have the resources to do that. But how do we know they aren't listening to political opponents? Maybe they aren't, but how do we know? I'm sure you realize that this administration isn't above using their power for political purposes. And even if you trust this one, what about the next one? Unchecked power is bad. It's that simple.
Storm, it was ok to leak this story because the government was breaking the law.
And your comment on the Plame leak shows that you get all your info from right wing radio shows. Her name and existence weren't secret, her status as an undercover agent was.
The Judge is not wrong, regardless of the ultimate outcome.
Storm, these aren't warrantless searches, they're warantless wiretaps, and if a judge decides they are not merited three days later, then they can order them to stop the wiretap. I would assume also that anything they gained from the wiretap at that point would be inadmissable.
You seem to be arguing that the government should be able to do whatever they want, and only not be able to use the evidence if they are challenged in court and found to have violated the law. That's ridiculous. Especially in this case where the potential abuses could easily be things that would never be involved in any trial anyway. I'm sure you're right that warantless searches are done all the time, but it's still against the law and unconstitutional, and it should remain that way. Are you saying that it shouldn't? That's how it seems.
Whether or not the parties in this suit can show harm may get it thrown out ultimately, but that doesn't mean that the program is not illegal and unconstitutional, which it clearly is, even upon the most cursory examination of it.
The program is clearly illegal. The fact that it's secret hampers any efforts to prove its illegality as well as making it difficult to challenge. When I accuse you of letting the government do whatever it wants, I mean with respect to listening to people's phone calls, since that's the subject we're discussing. Clearly you think there should be no oversight or limit to the government's power in this regard. At least that's what your arguments tell me.
How are victims supposed to come forward if no one knows that they are a victim? By that logic, if I go out and peep into my neighbor's windows every night, I'm not comitting a crime until I get caught. I may not be able to be prosecuted without proof, but I can definitely be told that what I'm doing is illegal without any proof that I'm actually doing it. Your argument implies that a law is not a law until someone proves it was broken. That's what we're arguing about, whether or not the program is against the law, not whether the ACLU was wronged or not.
Post a Comment