|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 246 of 404:
| 
Jan 18 02:36 UTC 2006 |
The ACLU today filed suit against the National Security Agency for
illegal spying.
The case is ACLU v NSA, and it was filed today, 2/17/06, in federal
district court in Michigan, listing the ACLU of Michigan as co-lead
plaintiff.
Here are the other plaintiffs:
NSA Lawsuit - Stop Illegal Surveillance
ACLU, ACLU of Michigan and co-plaintiffs:
American Civil Liberties Union
American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan
Council on American-Islamic Relations
Rabiah Ahmed
Arsalan T. Iftikhar
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
Joshua Dratel (Statement)
Nancy Hollander (Statement)
Greenpeace (Statement)
James Bamford, journalist/author (Statement)
Larry Diamond, Hoover Institution, Stanford University (Statement)
Christopher Hitchens, journalist/author (Statement)
Tara McKelvey, journalist/author
Barnett Rubin, New York University Center on International Cooperation
|
richard
|
|
response 247 of 404:
|
Jan 18 02:41 UTC 2006 |
Open letter released today from the President of the American Civil
Liberties Union"
"For over eighty-five years the ACLU and its members have been there to
stand up for freedom when our leaders disregard and defy the
Constitution.
We follow in that tradition today with the filing of ACLU v. NSA, a
lawsuit seeking an end to the secret program of illegal electronic
surveillance, authorized by President Bush.
Our lawsuit claims that this spying program violates Americans' rights
to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments of the
Constitution and that the president has exceeded the limits of
executive authority under separation of powers principles.
The suit was filed in federal district court in Michigan, on behalf of
several prominent journalists, scholars, attorneys, and national
nonprofit organizations (including the ACLU) who frequently communicate
by phone and email with people in the Middle East.
Though our president claims he can authorize warrantless spying on
Americans, this surveillance program is illegal. The ACLU has launched
an intensive effort to put an end to the program and restore lawfulness
to government and law enforcement activities.
In addition to the ACLU v. NSA lawsuit, we've launched a multi-channel
ad campaign, a widespread call for congressional hearings, and are
urging the appointment of a special counsel who can independently
investigate the actions of this administration and prosecute any and
all crimes committed.
In the coming days, watch for news about our suit and other continuing
efforts. Partisans in Washington have already been scrambling to
undermine inquiries into the NSA scandal, but this lawsuit is grounded
in our most basic American principles, and not driven by the tides of
politics or spin.
Please continue to stand with us. Look for our advertisements in print
and on the Web. Join our call for a special counsel and urge your
friends to do the same. Your support has been, and will continue to be,
fundamental to our success.
I'm never more proud to lead the ACLU than on days like today when we
take the bold steps needed to preserve fundamental Constitutional
principles. Through our actions, we will see that justice prevails.
Sincerely,
Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director"
The case paperwork and other details are at
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/
With the ACLU of Michigan as co-plaintiff, I wonder if dave cahill--
grex's resident aclu guy-- is involved.
Remember too that GREX was itself once the lead co-plaintiff in an ACLU
case. ACLU and Cyberspace Communications v Michigan.
|
cross
|
|
response 248 of 404:
|
Jan 18 03:47 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
keesan
|
|
response 249 of 404:
|
Jan 18 03:54 UTC 2006 |
What happened to the war on poverty - did we win it yet?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 250 of 404:
|
Jan 18 03:55 UTC 2006 |
That war doesn't have the "shock and awe" that Bush likes.
|
cross
|
|
response 251 of 404:
|
Jan 18 04:55 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 252 of 404:
|
Jan 18 08:12 UTC 2006 |
resp:249 - I think they've declared a cease fire. No, wait, they're
still firing people.
|
klg
|
|
response 253 of 404:
|
Jan 18 11:49 UTC 2006 |
If we haven't won the war on poverty it's because the liberals have
been putting up a good fight against it.
|
twenex
|
|
response 254 of 404:
|
Jan 18 11:51 UTC 2006 |
rotfl.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 255 of 404:
|
Jan 18 13:35 UTC 2006 |
Well, it's kind of hard to fight it all by yourself. The conservatives
never showed up.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 256 of 404:
|
Jan 18 14:14 UTC 2006 |
I think its funny that Hillary Clinton said the republicans ran the
house of representatives like a "plantation". Its funny because she
didn't seem disgusted, but rather jealous! Jealous because that is
exactly how her party seems to want to run this country...force everyone
to rely on the government welfare, and make it impossible for people to
be independant.
Oh, but its the republicans who disempower people. Riiiiiight. Don't
give me this bull about conservatives now showing up. I know of plenty
who do lot of charitable work for organizations like the Red Cross and
the Salvation Army.
|
jep
|
|
response 257 of 404:
|
Jan 18 17:44 UTC 2006 |
re resp:247: The ACLU's actions are invariably "driven by the tides of
politics (and) spin". I happen to agree with their stance against the
Bush Administration in this case but I don't believe the ACLU would be
doing anything if the administration were Democratic.
The very existence of an ACLU statement makes me question whether I am
in the right when I am on the same side as they are. I have no doubt
they would cheerfully side with terrorists, as they have with Nazis and
criminals, in order to oppose the interests and freedom of honest
Americans.
I wish there was a normal, positive group which was taking credit for
this lawsuit.
|
klg
|
|
response 258 of 404:
|
Jan 18 17:55 UTC 2006 |
Did the ACLU sue President Clinton over his "unauthorized" searches??
|
edina
|
|
response 259 of 404:
|
Jan 18 18:09 UTC 2006 |
Re 257 Most of my friends who are in the ACLU (to be honest, I would say
all), don't "cheerfully side with terrorists, Nazis or criminals". They side
with the Constitution. One of the things people never seem to understand is
that believing in free speech for all is to really believe in free speech for
ALL. The right thing and the easy thing are rarely the same.
|
jep
|
|
response 260 of 404:
|
Jan 18 18:15 UTC 2006 |
The ACLU doesn't support the 2nd Amendment, which is part of the
Constitution.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 261 of 404:
|
Jan 18 18:18 UTC 2006 |
I am opposed to the ideas and actions of "terrorists..... Nazis and
criminals" too, but I also do not think they should be deprived of the
Constutional rights that we all share.
It is amazing that so many people do not comprehend this concept. They
jeopardize their own rights by trying to deny them to others.
This issue reminds me of how the Bush administration people have denied
citizens access to public meetings with Bush if they show signs of being
protesters, and how protesters have been segregated off in remote areas
away from Bush motorcades. If they can use their overt powers to deny
citizens their rights in these ways, think of what they can do when they
engage in secret spying and actions against citizens.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 262 of 404:
|
Jan 18 18:34 UTC 2006 |
The ACLU DOES support the 2nd Amendment. Just not the 2nd Amendment with
the words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State" removed.
Don't reword the 2nd amendment in order to find a way to oppose the ACLU.
"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a
collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to
maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the
central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic
and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or
hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does
not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other
weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such
as licensing and registration."
(from http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html)
|
edina
|
|
response 263 of 404:
|
Jan 18 18:42 UTC 2006 |
And heck, I support that and never really understand why others don't....
|
jep
|
|
response 264 of 404:
|
Jan 18 18:43 UTC 2006 |
I don't think the Constitution says that Nazis should be able to
intimidate Jewish neighborhoods by hosting parades through them. I
don't think that's what freedom is like.
I strongly agree, and have written many times, that suspected
terrorists deserve trials just as anyone else does. The Constitution
works, it should be strictly followed, and if it is adhered to in all
cases, we will not suffer from it. There is no need and no
justification for the president to ever ignore it or to evade it with
secret arrests, foreign military trials, foreign concentration camps,
or infringing on any of the rights of Americans or others. I can't
imagine you and I disagree by the slightest amount about any of that.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 265 of 404:
|
Jan 18 18:49 UTC 2006 |
resp:256 There you go, completely missing the point. My statement is
just as ridiculous as the one to which I responded.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 266 of 404:
|
Jan 18 19:42 UTC 2006 |
Parades don't intimidate, although the expression of hatred toward others
can be perceived as a threat. There are laws to deal with threats.
|
naftee
|
|
response 267 of 404:
|
Jan 18 19:53 UTC 2006 |
charades can be intimidating, though
|
jep
|
|
response 268 of 404:
|
Jan 18 20:17 UTC 2006 |
There can't possibly be a reasonable interpretation of a group like the
Nazis picking a Jewish neighborhood for a parade, other than
intimidation. The obviousness of that conclusion is overwhelming.
The ACLU picked the side of violence and intimidation in that case.
I'll never forget what they chose to support.
|
klg
|
|
response 269 of 404:
|
Jan 18 20:20 UTC 2006 |
That's because they are fundamentalist radicals. Maybe it's a good
thing that they're dominated by athiests.
|
twenex
|
|
response 270 of 404:
|
Jan 18 20:22 UTC 2006 |
(Wow. That's rich.)
|