BLOG VIEW | HEADLINE VIEW

ALL

GEEK

A Small Victory Against Illegal Wiretapping

THURSDAY FEBRUARY 16 2006 6:07 PM

Submitted by ninjatoes. Edited By MissTyrios.

After weeks of media coverage on Bush's warrantless spying, something is finally being done.

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.

It's nice to know that the federal court system does occasionally fight in favor of Americans as opposed to protecting a corrupt government.

16 Comments

PAGE:

1 | 2

nadir

Brooklyn, NY

OLD SKOOL

FEB 16, 2006 06:37 PM

so our AG, who swore under oath that what the nsa did under direct orders from the white house, is going to be in charge of looking at this.

somehow, i have a feeling that everything will be all hunky dory for them come the 20 day time frame.

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

ninjatoes

Newport, KY

August 2005

FEB 16, 2006 07:11 PM

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

I agree, this would be a much better scenario. However, I think if more people are aware of what is going on and are willing to stand up and say "hey wait a minute...!" more things will get taken care of...

SirPsychoSexy

Ridgewood, NJ

January 2004

FEB 16, 2006 07:54 PM

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

Australia

March 2004

FEB 16, 2006 08:28 PM

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

Bellevue, WA

January 2006

FEB 16, 2006 10:36 PM

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.

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.

TheGabriel

Somerville, MA

February 2004

FEB 16, 2006 10:43 PM

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.

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!!!

malkav11

Saint Paul, MN

July 2003

FEB 17, 2006 12:47 AM

Satanspetcat said:

I don't really know how it makes any difference at all to the terrorists whether the wiretaps on their communication are warrantless or not. And as has been repeatedly pointed out, if the terrorists aren't assuming their communications are being tapped, they suck at what they're doing.

FrankMask

Saint Paul, MN

June 2003

FEB 17, 2006 01:50 AM

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!!!

Vote Suicide 2008. We're Taking The World Down With Us.

quietlythere

King Of Prussia, PA

June 2004

FEB 17, 2006 03:32 AM

vermicious_knid said:

Satanspetcat said:
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."

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]

i must agree with the above. i do understand the importance of FISA, and agree with it, but like vermicious_knid the Administration is still bypassing getting the warrants

SatansPetCat

Bellevue, WA

January 2006

FEB 17, 2006 10:31 AM

Thank you much for setting me straight. I obviously did not understand the whole argument and feel a lot better for knowing more about the situation and its importance. (Yes, I am serious.)

phrogg

Greenville, SC

August 2005

FEB 17, 2006 06:52 PM

I sure hope this "Civil Liberties group" has a testicle or two among them, or the whole thing is dead in the water. The Senate Intelligence Committee seems ready to abdicate their duty of Congressional oversight under duress from the White House and may not investigate at all.

Did I say duty? Umm... that is so pre-9/11!

MisterLinguist

Birmingham, AL

October 2005

FEB 17, 2006 07:07 PM

Argh! Activist Judges!

SirPsychoSexy

Ridgewood, NJ

January 2004

FEB 18, 2006 08:38 PM

Satanspetcat 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.

akl

Sacramento, CA

February 2004

FEB 18, 2006 09:01 PM

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.

Our current government would argue that the people have granted the government the power to protect them, and that is their guiding motive.

Personally, though, I don't believe that. There was a recent protest (forgot where it was, sorry) where the protestors wore a sign that said: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither". Ben Franklin summed up my feelings pretty well.