| Help Us To Spread The Word - Vote for this and other Start The Revolution articles. Just click the "Shout It" button! | |
 |
 |
| | home | sign up | news tips | |
Way back in December 2005 we told you that they were doing this and that it was illegal. We also questioned why they would need to perform warrantless wiretaps if "national security" was genuinely at risk as obtaining a warrant in the face of such clear and present danger would be a fairly routine process.
Did you get that? The same judge that ruled that the wiretaps are illegal has agreed that they can continue pending a hearing requesting a stay of the judgment pending an appeal! How on Earth is anybody supposed to take this process seriously? When somebody is committing a crime and the judge makes a ruling to confirm the illegality of that crime, one must assume that the criminal should probably be made to stop performing the illegal action! Only in America! And if this is not a good indication of the mindset of these lunatics, how about this for a quote from Rep. Pete Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican and chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives intelligence committee (and somebody who should really know better)...
Give me a break. I find it hard to believe that in the face of all the evidence they are still trotting out that old rubbish. Firstly, were there probable cause (a legal term meaning to get a warrant to search, surveil or seize the property of a suspect you must prove to a court that they are indeed a suspect - something that Dubya and his neo-con henchmen clearly have no understanding of) they would have no problems whatsoever obtaining a warrant. For the record, they are allowed to start tapping somebody's phone immediately and without a warrant for 72 hours to give them time to apply for the court order so that they do not miss an opportunity. This means that even after 72 hours of communications surveillance they STILL did not have enough to apply for a warrant. Secondly, they obtained the telephone records of 50 million US citizens...Are they REALLY claiming that all those people are involved in terrorism or are, at the very least, a threat to national security? Thirdly, the most ridiculous part of that ridiculous statement is actually the one that is easiest to miss, so let me spell it out for you... "...EVERY TOOL AT OUR DISPOSAL..." Illegal wiretaps are NOT and never have been a tool at your disposal because they are...fanfare here...ILLEGAL. This is the equivalent of poor people claiming that robbing houses is fine because they need to use this particular tool to change their financial circumstances! If it is illegal it is not at your disposal - END OF STORY. Are these people really this ignorant or do they think that we are? I hope and pray that the appeal fails as dismally as it deserves to and some bright spark in the justice department realises that a serious crime has taken place and arrests the whole lot of them. Well, we all have to have a dream huh?!??! |
Thursday 17th August 2006 | Reuters |
|
The administration, buoyed by polls showing Americans back its handling of security and terrorism, appealed against the federal court ruling, saying: "We couldn't disagree more." U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said the wiretaps under a five-year-old "Terrorist Surveillance Program" violated freedom of speech, protections against unreasonable searches and a constitutional check on the power of the presidency. "There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution," Taylor said in a 44-page ruling. The National Security Agency program has been widely criticised by civil rights activists and raised concern among lawmakers, including some in President George W. Bush's own Republican Party, who say he may have overstepped his powers. Bush authorised the NSA program after the September 11 attacks on the United States, and it became public last year. Both sides agreed the program could go on until the judge hears the government's case for a stay pending appeal. The program allows the government to eavesdrop on the international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens without obtaining a warrant, if those wiretaps are made to track suspected al Qaeda operatives. "We have confidence in the lawfulness of this program," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, said after Thursday's ruling. "That's why the appeal has been lodged." A Justice Department statement called the program "an early warning system to detect and prevent a terrorist attack." Officials said last week a foiled plot to blow up airliners from Britain underscored the need for secret surveillance. "The very real threat posed by radical Islamists requires every tool at our disposal, including the ability to track financial activity and the communications of terrorists," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican and chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives intelligence committee. SUPREME COURT? The American Civil Liberties Union filed the suit which could well end up being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court delivered a similar blow to the administration in June when it struck down as illegal a system of military tribunals set up to try foreign terrorism suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp. On Thursday, the judge ruled the Bush administration had violated the terms of a 1978 law by skirting a requirement that warrants be issued by a special secret court for eavesdropping on individuals or suspects in the United States. The judge sided with the government on one issue -- that arguments in open court about the NSA's "data mining" of phone records would jeopardise national security and rejected an ACLU challenge to that part of the NSA's surveillance program. The ACLU suit was filed on behalf of scholars, attorneys, journalists and nonprofit groups that regularly communicate with people in the Middle East and believed their phone calls and e-mail may have been intercepted by the U.S. government. "The ruling of the judge is not only a victory for the American Muslim community but a victory for the entire American population," said Dawud Walid, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations for Michigan, which joined the ACLU as a plaintiff in the lawsuit. A similar suit brought by the Centre for Constitutional Rights is pending in federal court in New York. The judge in that case is set to hear arguments on September 5. The Bush administration has thrown its support behind a bill sponsored by Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania that would submit the NSA's surveillance program to a secret court for review. (Additional reporting by Jui Chakravorty; Claudia Parsons and Daniel Trotta in New York; Deborah Charles and Frances Kerry in Washington) |
