A Bone for Bush Bashers...not
July 6th 2007 16:49
Category: No Category
Court rejects Ohio domestic spying suit.
Hahahaha, I can't wait to hear the outraged hue and cry of conspiracy saber rattlers. This is going to be entertaining.
What can I add to this?
Raven
Hahahaha, I can't wait to hear the outraged hue and cry of conspiracy saber rattlers. This is going to be entertaining.
By LISA CORNWELL, Associated Press Writer
CINCINNATI - A federal appeals court ordered the dismissal Friday 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 federal judge in Detroit, who found that the post-Sept. 11 warrantless surveillance aimed at uncovering terrorist activity violated constitutional rights to privacy and free speech and the separation of powers.
U.S. Circuit Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, one of the two Republican appointees who ruled against the plaintiffs, said they failed to show they were subject to the surveillance.
The dissenting judge, Democratic appointee Ronald Lee Gilman, believed the plaintiffs were within their rights to sue and that it was clear to him the program violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
Although the Bush administration said in January the program is now overseen by a special federal intelligence court, opponents said that without a court order, the president could resume the spying outside judicial authority at any time. The Justice Department has said the case is moot. This is not a complete copy of this story.
CINCINNATI - A federal appeals court ordered the dismissal Friday 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 federal judge in Detroit, who found that the post-Sept. 11 warrantless surveillance aimed at uncovering terrorist activity violated constitutional rights to privacy and free speech and the separation of powers.
U.S. Circuit Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, one of the two Republican appointees who ruled against the plaintiffs, said they failed to show they were subject to the surveillance.
The dissenting judge, Democratic appointee Ronald Lee Gilman, believed the plaintiffs were within their rights to sue and that it was clear to him the program violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
Although the Bush administration said in January the program is now overseen by a special federal intelligence court, opponents said that without a court order, the president could resume the spying outside judicial authority at any time. The Justice Department has said the case is moot. This is not a complete copy of this story.
What can I add to this?
Raven
| 71 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
MS Paint Art
Let's all be pacifists and just sit back and take it, turn the other cheek and get your flight ticket to hell.
It's so easy to run the world and solve its problems, especially from an armchair, but I had to get out of mine and come and find you for this and I had been looking so I'll be so pleased when you get to 10, I found the transference from 8 to 9 the most difficult of the lot.
I guess things have changed since then.
Orble has evolved, I just don't think I belong here, but its the Orblers not Orble and I am sure there are a lot of people 'out there' put off by what they see and witness.
Clicked your Nazareth cross, it was a very powerful and light filled image.
katyzzz
Comment by Damo
Chinese spy in the Chinese population so 1 billion people can't be wrong.
So if yanks spy on yanks why should I be worried.
I live in Australia.
Comment by tlcorbin-raginravensview
Well put lady, and very insightful. You underestimate the value of your contributions.
Damo,
Hahahaha, oh that's rich, what's your phone number? I'll make a call and provide you with a kitchen lab menu for some explosives, discuss Al-Qaeda and blowing up a few things. Perhaps then it will be relevant.
Raven
Raven
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Bush broke the law to make you guys safer, if you're willing to accept that then by all means, though I'm not crazy enough to let my ogvernment spy on me. It should workthe other god damn way shouldn't it?
How about you signa contracta llowing the government to spy on you. I don't approve of it, I don't see how the world is goig to be safer because some government agent is tracking me (being paid for with my tax dollars no less).
Comment by tlcorbin-raginravensview
Sure, but we can't always have what we want; it's the way of the world now.
I do not envy the future our next generations face; it is why I try to encourage critical thinking and the exchange of dialog. To many have their heads stuck in the sand and won't look about them with their reality glasses on.
Great point, but I think language extending authorization for them to spy on me is contained within the funny looking smudge on documents I blindly signed at the phone company when I applied for service.
Raven
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
However they should have a warrant before acting, they have to prove that the warrant is needed, if the process is allegedly too slow then the process recquires fixing (and not in a way it will lose its overall quality of defining whats worth warranting and what isn't). So while phone tapping and spying can be tools for catching criminals it is not an authorization to the law enforcers to abuse it. If we give too much power to them then we'll be living our lives in a police state, not too dissimilar to what Saddam had going on and countless other dictators of past and present.
Comment by tlcorbin-raginravensview
That is probably correct; on all counts. I can appreciate bending a law, but not breaking it.
Raven