Two Groups File Domestic Spying Lawsuits

An anonymous reader writes "The Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU both recently filed lawsuits, in New York and Detroit respectively, claiming that President Bush's electronic eavsdropping program is illegal and exceeds his constitutional powers. From the article: 'The Detroit [ACLU] lawsuit, which names the National Security Agency and its director, said the program has impaired plaintiffs' ability to gather information from sources abroad as they try to locate witnesses, represent clients, do research or engage in advocacy.'

Comments

Its Interesting

[kalel666]

How this all comes up now, and how so many people act as if this issue is something new, or even exclusive to the Bush administration. For instance, fill in the blanks on this paragraph:

The ________ administration claims that it can bypass the warrant clause for "national security" purposes. In July____ Deputy Attorney General ___________ told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." [51] According to _______, the president (or his attorney general) need only satisfy himself that an American is working in conjunction with a foreign power before a search can take place.

If you guessed Bush, 2004, and Gonzales, try again: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/al-gore- arrogates-to-himself-power-to.html/

I understand being concerned about possible domestic wiretapping, but lets get real. Many people are suddenly outraged only because it is this administration at this time, when it has been going on and has been an issue for many, many years. Clinton/Gore not only used it, but justified it for completely domestic issues as well.

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[Aneurysm9]

The ACLU very much supports the right to freely exercise one's religion. You must be careful not to conflate the Establishment Clause with the Free Exercise Clause. Just because the ACLU advocates on the one hand that the government cannot coerce religious speach or give its imprimatur to religious expression does not mean that they do not support your right to freely exercise your religion, even on government property. You have the right to use every pulic forum for private religious exercise. You do not have the right to have the government create a semi-private forum solely for your private religious exercise.

As for the latest talking point about physical searches during the Clinton administration, remember that was before FISA required warrants for physical searches. That provision was not inserted until the PATRIOT Act. I'm not saying Clinton was entirely without fault, but attempting to smear him certainly does not clear Bush.

If you think that there are only around 36 phone calls that were tapped you're seriously deluded. We're talking around 500 "individuals" monitored per day. Even if each of those persons only made one phone call that's more than 500,000 calls that have been monitored. Stop drinking the kool aid and start thinking for yourself. This administration is destroying this country. Don't help them do it.

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless, of course, you're talking about the right to own a gun.

The NRA has something like 10x the operating budget of the ACLU. So even if the ALCU's position on the issue was "liberal" (supporting gun rights above and beyond the literal wording of the constitution), the 2nd Amendment wouldn't be smart place to spend their resources. I covered all bases by joining both organizations.

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[NutscrapeSucks]

Press Release: As Trials Of Waco Survivors Open In Texas, ACLU, NRA, Others Ask Clinton To Address Federal Police Abuse.

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[hamburger lady]

I'm guessing that you are not aware that the ACLU was founded by a hardcore communist whose basic ideology is that you have NO individual liberties. Just a thought.

and america was founded by hardcore slaveowners. what's your point?