NEWS: A Small Victory Against Illegal Wiretapping

A federal judge Thursday ordered the Justice Department to respond within 20 days to requests by a civil liberties group for documents about President Bush's domestic eavesdropping program.



"Given the great public and media attention that the government's warrantless surveillance program has garnered and the recent hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the public interest is particularly well served by the timely release of the requested documents," Judge Kennedy said.



Kennedy also ordered the department to give the group a document index and declaration stating its justification for withholding any documents within 30 days.

nadir said:
now if an independent counsul were to be appointed... well then i think we might see a far differnt picture.

SirPsychoSexy said:
There is no such thing as a secret law. There are no such things as secret powers. Even war powers.
Period.

The argument that "but if we let anyone know the extent of what the government can and cannot do then the terrorists will know too!!" simply does not fly.
It is a running theme of this administration to make sure the electorate is as uninformed as possible, but this isn't even subtle.

whitepuma said:
I still think that with the number of SG members across the US it should start its own Federal and State Political Parties to run against the Dems and Reps, I am sure all SG members will come out to vote for this party plus with a bit of running and all US members flogging the party it will win in a landslide following this a party with a grass roots clue will have power and I would be suprised if not the top job as well as a majoirty in both congress and senate. Then shit can get fixed.

Satanspetcat said:

I'm inclined to agree and disagree with your statement. I think that the government does need some space to operate without making blatantly public its actions. If what the media feeds us is right, and we are under terrorist threat so constantly, then it is certainly counterproductive to say, "We are searching for terrorists by using warrantless wiretaps."

On the other hand, this does open the door to flagrant abuses of power, and furthermore, under the guise of "anti-terrorism" allows the government to push against its boundaries a little too easily. I don't think there is a simple solution to this, but I'm glad to see that action has finally taken against the government, if only to prove that citizens can still make a difference.

GabrielMireles said:

We'll need a mascot, and since the donkey and elephant are out, I'LL BE THE CHINCHILLA IN A FEATHER BOA AND SPARKLE THONG!!!

vermicious_knid said:

Do not let the debate be framed in this way....about "whether or not secretly placed wiretaps are necessary to catch terrorists." The issue is not the wiretaps. The issue is the issuance of RETROACTIVE warrants, judicial oversight in execution of laws, and seperation of delegated powers.

FISA already allows intelligence agencies who suspect terrorist communications TO CONDUCT THE INITIAL SURVEILLANCE WITHOUT WARRANT.

The problem is that what the Bush administration is doing is not getting warrants AFTER THE SURVEILLANCE HAS BEEN CONDUCTED.

There is no "bureacracy" preventing information gathering - there is no "waiting on justice's slow wheels to turn, while the terrorists get away" .... what there is, with this Bush policy, is NO JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT, NO CHECK ON EXECUTIVE POWER.

Without a court validating that there is probable cause in the issue of post-search warrants - there is no guarantee that this is not being abused.

Who knows who is being surveilled ? Who knows why ? Who knows if it the search has basis ? This is what courts determine .... even retroactively. Why would anyone want to eliminate them from the loop ?

This is basically saying that they (Bush admin.) have no desire to answer to anyone at all, and instead offer up a line of "trust us, we would never do anything wrong."

It is an imperial act. It is unconstitutional. It is dictatorial. It is illegal. It does not even work. There is nothing positive to be gained in fighting "terrorists" by denying judicial oversight. It is out and out tyranny.

[Edited on Feb 17, 2006 by vermicious_knid]

Satanspetcat said:

I'm inclined to agree and disagree with your statement. I think that the government does need some space to operate without making blatantly public its actions. If what the media feeds us is right, and we are under terrorist threat so constantly, then it is certainly counterproductive to say, "We are searching for terrorists by using warrantless wiretaps."

On the other hand, this does open the door to flagrant abuses of power, and furthermore, under the guise of "anti-terrorism" allows the government to push against its boundaries a little too easily. I don't think there is a simple solution to this, but I'm glad to see that action has finally taken against the government, if only to prove that citizens can still make a difference.

SirPsychoSexy said:
I would just like to say out government is based on powers granted to the government by the people.
The people cannot grant new powers to the government if they are not allowed to know what powers the government wishes.
Therefore a government that acts with secret powers is acting outside its granted powers, and outside of the law.

whydontyoudance said:
This story was from msnbc....That's not a terribly legitimate news source...