E-Mail: Password: SIGN UP for free Forgot my password Hello Visitor! You aren't a registered user here. Won't you consider registering with our site? You can unlock more features of the site, leave comments and even elect to receive our "Weekly Shoveling" - a summary of all the coolest stories added each week! It's totally free and takes a few seconds. We don't give out your e-mail or personal information to anybody! Try it! Main Home Page BSAlert Radio! Info/FAQ Links Feedback Fallacy List Bookmark BSAlert FreeThought Wiki BSA on Twitter Articles Submit Article (Login required) Latest Articles BSA Exclusives Article Summary Articles by Main Topic Most Popular Latest Comments Active Articles Features Fairness Doctrine Great Recession Crypto-currency Visit the BSA: Bumper Sticker Store   T-Shirts & More Web bsalert.com   Utilities Have a GREAT day!

Bush's Warrantless Wiretaps Ruled Unconstitutional Posted by Pile (8340 views) [E-Mail link] [Good News] A federal judge ruled today that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge (of hopefully many, who aren't so afraid as to uphold the Constitution) to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy. Score another one for the ACLU! The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly taping conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries. The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets. The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule.   DIRTBAG! Posted by Cuban Exile on 2006-08-17 23:08:41 What are you worried about? They might find out you just scored some really good bud? There is already a stay allowing this program to continue while it is under appeal. Which they immediately did. This activist judge will be overturned! Wake up & smell the coffee. Peas out! Why worry? Posted by wizeGurl on 2006-08-18 09:59:51 What would we be worried about? How about precedent? If the courts rule that THIS president can illegally wiretap (they did pass the law expressly to make this kind of thing illegal--and last time I checked, it's not activist for a judge to rule that breaking the law is illegal), then every president from now on will have the same power. Yes, even ones that you might trust less than the current one, if that's possible. Will the same people cheering at the thought that Bush can listen in to protect them feel the same way when it's Hillary (or someone like her) on the line listening to them in secret? Posted by Pile on 2006-08-19 15:37:51 The old "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" line. People today seem to have forgotten this idea of "the principal of the matter." All the bad shit in the world needs to land in their lap before they get upset. It's a shame. Beyond all this, the operative thing about these wiretaps is that there's no indication whatsoever that the administration couldn't use established, traditional recourses to get the wiretaps legally, so ironically, they're looking to set their own precedent, a very bad precedent. Posted by lep on 2006-08-20 13:21:05 I like how "activist judge" now means "judge who disagrees with the Republican party line." American Exile ? Posted by turk_182 on 2006-08-24 01:22:07 Worried, be scared be very scared! King george started this as soon as he unpacked his bags in D.C., he allready had plans for Iraq. Why would he violate FISA when they could get warants 72 hours after the fact. Thats 9 months befor 9/11 and the anthrax. What is george curious about who is he listening to and for what reason? And you better hide your Social Security check because george wants that too. And who you calling dirt bag, dirtbag ?   Comments   Name: (change name for anonymous posting) Title: Comments:     1 Article displayed.

Pursuant to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC § 230), BSAlert is a user-contributed editorial web site and does not endorse any specific content, but merely acts as a "sounding board" for the online community. Any and all quoted material is referenced pursuant to "Fair Use" (17 U.S.C. § 107). Like any information resource, use your own judgement and seek out the facts and research and make informed choices.