The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to the ACLU who oppose the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

The ACLU sued on behalf of itself, other lawyers, reporters and scholars, arguing that the program was illegal and that they had been forced to alter how they communicate with foreigners who were likely to have been targets of the wiretapping.

The justices, without comment, turned down an appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union to let it pursue a lawsuit against the program that began shortly after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

A lawsuit filed by an Islamic charity met a similar fate. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year ruled against the Oregon-based U.S. arm of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, concluding that a key piece of evidence is protected as a state secret.

Last August, Congress made temporary changes to FISA that made the warrantless wiretapping legal in some instances and also extended immunity from lawsuits to telecommunications companies that help with the intercepts.

Those changes expired over the weekend, amid disagreements between congressional Democrats and President Bush over the immunity issue.

Existing wiretaps though can continue.

It's about time someone slaps the chit out of that commie organization.

If only Mr. Bush can get the opportunity to get one more conservitive on the bench before he leaves we will be doing good.

you know that the liberals will fillerbuster anyone Bush tries to nominate.

Just say NO to liberals.

quote:

Originally posted by rpschnecksr:
you know that the liberals will fillerbuster anyone Bush tries to nominate.

Shut the government down then. This subject would be worth it. We are talking about decades of constitutional influence or if the Democrats take the White House more liberal judicial activism and constitutional tampering.

As a lame duck what does Mr. Bush have to lose?

This is more neocon hate spin against the ACLU.

The USSC did not "Slap down the ACLU," it simply correctly ruled on the basic idea that a lawsuit brought before it has to have standing to have merit. The ACLU and others argued that this issue was a Catch-22 because those who have standing have not been revealed because of the secrecy they are suing to have lifted. No one has merit to sue because it is a secret to reveal who has standing, and therefore merit to sue.

Of course, all the neocons see is that the ACLU lost...but in their gloating, they fail to realize that more cherished American civil liberty have been lost to an increasingly secret Big Brother government also.

I've addressed this in other threads, so at the risk of being repetitive:

What's so wrong with expecting the Government to produce credible information first, and then presenting it to a judge or FISA Court for approval to conduct more invasive search procedures such as wiretaps? It's a fundamental principle (the idea of obtaining court approval before searching) that has stood the test of time and is one of the basic tenets of the Constitution. Why are some in here so willing to embrace a Government that rationalizes shortcutting this fundamental principle? Is it because they believe that only the "guilty" need to be afraid and the innocent have nothing to fear? Are some in here willing to accept that Government sometimes goes after the wrong person, but that's okay if that person hasn't really done anything wrong?

And why does Government believe it doesn't have the time to go through all the oversight and approval procedures? Does it not have a good case that will withstand the scrutiny of court proceedings and therefore seeks to rush its wiretap findings as evidence? Does Government have such a perfect prosecution record that it NEVER EVER wrongfully accuses an innocent person? Are we that naive?

For those who would typecast me and others as being soft on terrorism, let me make this point clear: I've BTDT in the real world. I clearly understand what's at stake, who the players are and how the game is played. Even so, we cannot allow ourselves to fall under the ends justifying the means. We cannot forsake the fundamental principles of the Constitution. We've all sworn to uphold and defend it. I see this wiretapping policy as a slippery slope that will end up doing more harm than good.

It's not a matter of "what have you got to hide?" It's a matter of "what business is it of yours?" That's the backbone of American liberty. I have a right not to be spied on by Government; that means that if Government thinks it has a case, then it had better present its case following all of the procedures established by law and withstanding the scrutiny of a court magistrate.

Once again Toome...

quote:

Originally posted by SeaWitch1220:
Once again Toome...

I'll add to that bravo! As long as SOME OF US get it, the Republic may survive.