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

Filing lawsuits? I don't understand it.

[Kirth]

Do I have some misconception about your law, or is "filing a lawsuit" in this case referring to civil law (as opposed to criminal law)?

If so, why is this? As far as I can tell spying is considered a criminal offense. In this case, the juridical system should automatically start to investigate Georg W. Bush for charges of "illegal espionage against the american people". in other words: high treason.

That's not really true...

[msauve]

no matter who you are, you have to admit that the ACLU prevents you from losing anything that might be considered a civil liberty.

The ACLU is a left wing organization, and their actions show it. On some issues, such as the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."), they argue and stretch the meaning beyond the clear wording (i.e. States are not "Congress," so the prohibition does not apply to State establishment of religion, although most states have similar Constitutional prohibitions). Yes, I recognize that the Supremes have in this matter already said that the amendment says something other than what it clearly does.
In other matters, such as the Second Amendment, they argue against civil liberties in opposition to the clear wording and intent ("..the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."), by arguing it somehow doesn't recognize an individual right.

Breaking the law for the sake of security?

[digitaldc]

Bush had the power to do spy on people legally, but for whatever reason, he did it illegally.

How are you supposed to trust ANYTHING the Bush Administration does after they admit to starting a war based on false pretenses? They defended the invasion of Iraq SO HARD that they would demonize their opponents and always would deny any wrongdoing was done, until it came out that it was all a lie. It is shameful.

It is unfortunate to say, but this Bush Administration is one of the most corrupt in history. Look at the Abramoff lobbying scandals, FEMA's failure with Katrina, the huge deficit and debt, the no-bid contracts for rebuilding Iraq, the $9 Billion that just went missing that was supposed to be spent on rebuilding Iraq, the lies about the reasons to invade Iraq, the torture of innocent prisoners, and the military contracts for inferior armor.

If President Clinton can be impeached for an affair, what makes Bush immune from impeachment for lying and spying?

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[Erwos]

"Regarding gun ownership, isn't that down to a particular interpretation of the constitution (and its ammendments). Do you think the ACLU should be defending the rights of white supremacists (or radical muslims, for that matter) to own machine guns, nuclear weapons etc?"

Everything comes down to an "interpretation" of the Constitution, so your argument is kind of silly. It's funny, though, how their interpretations seem to line up _exactly_ with the Democratic party's interpretations. If they're defending citizens' liberties, why aren't they doing so for the right to own whatever property they want?

And, yes, I support white supremacists being able to buy machine guns, assuming they haven't been convicted of a crime before.

-Erwos