January 17, 2006, - 1:35 pm

Interested in Opposing Today’s ACLU NSA Lawsuit? . . .

By Debbie Schlussel
You’ve no doubt heard that, today, the ACLU–and assorted other enemies of America–filed a lawsuit against the government for NSA “spying” (interesting that there was no such lawsuit when Bill Clinton was doing the same thing–Remember “Echelon” and “Carnivore”?).
Since the lawsuit was filed in U.S. Federal Court in the Eastern District of Michigan, where I practice, I’ve already been contacted by concerned U.S. citizens who wish to intervene in the case as interested parties (whose interests and welfare are affected by this case) in support of the government’s activities. And we may do so. You may feel free to contact me regarding this if you are interested in adding your name.
I note that among the Plaintiffs (besides HAMAS front-group CAIR) is Christopher Hitchens. Trotskyite Hitchens was scheduled to appear at a Republican Jewish Coalition event, tomorrow–until I and others protested this far-left wacko’s appearance.
The text of the Complaint is very similar to–and includes a lot of the same language–as the ACLU’s lawsuit against Section 215 of the Patriot Act, also filed in Detroit, in 2003. That case has NEVER been decided and languishes in the courtroom of Judge Denise Page Hood. The judge drawn by the ACLU, Anna Diggs Taylor, is a liberal judge, but not as liberal as several of the others they could have drawn (like Judges Arthur Tarnow and Avern Cohn–who decided in favor of Islamic terrorist Ibrahim Parlak; or Republican Appointee Gerald Rosen, who overturned the Detroit Terror Cell conviction–all while behaving unethically behind the scenes while the case was before him).
See more links on this compiled by Michelle Malkin.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

19 Responses

the ACLU went against the Clinton administration on a number of items during his Presidency.
Clinton’s drug policies, for example, were routinely attacked by the ACLU. All you have to do is check Lexis/Nexis or even Google for hundreds of occurances of the ACLU going against the Clintons.
Calling the ACLU anti-American because they oppose illegal spying is rather interesting. Is it because they want to uphold the US constitution instead of nodding and smiling like everything is fine?
Some people aren’t as comfortable handing over their rights as you are. Maybe you’d be happier in a country like China?
Bush’s illegal spying didn’t have to be illegal. He could have just asked for the warrant. Maybe it would have been denied if the standard for getting that warrant wasn’t met, but wouldn’t you rather he did it legally, instead of taining any evidence gained by doing it illegally?
What is so wrong with playing by the rules, instead of resorting to terrorist tactics to fight the bad guys?

jjames on January 17, 2006 at 4:12 pm

I was surprised when I saw Hitchens name among the plaintiffs. Can he make up his mind on whose side he is on?
James, tell me what ‘rights’ of yours that have suffered. Name one.

John Sobieski on January 17, 2006 at 4:39 pm

But jjames, the premise is totally incorrect. You’ve already decided it was illegal and are starting from there on your argument. The ACLU is starting there also. When in fact, it has yet to be proven to be illegal when plenty of laws support the precise activities that occur.

Shannon on January 17, 2006 at 4:54 pm

I jjust wanted to add a comment about what Jjames says.
Everyone will agree that ILLEGAL spying is wrong. That isn’t the issue. The issue is whther the surveillance carried out by the FBI et al was or was not illegal. It appears, in fact, that it was (and is) LEGAL. Further,this opinion appears to have been shared by previous administrations of both parties.
Thus, the attempt by the ACLU and its supporters to characterize the acts as illegal is simply an attempt to skew the debate. It is their desire to win the debate in the public arena not by intellectual argument but by some sort of semantic fiat.
This is a trick played by these guys in other fields as well. For example, with respect to the prisoners held at Guantanamo, there are constant complaints that they are being denied their rights under the Geneva convention and that they have to be treated as prisoners of war.
In fact,by and large, they do not meet the definition of prisoner of war contained in the Convention. (If there are any Iraqi army members there then I suspect they WOULD qualify as POW’s). They were mostly out of uniform, not fighting as a part of any recognizable military structure and were not fighting as the part of any country’s military (the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was not recognized by anyone other than Pakistan…its fighters were not, accordingly entitles to Geneva Convention protection). Further, a Convention binds the parties to it…Al Queda/Taliban and the rest have not signed anything. Accordingly they are not entitled to the benefits of any treaty.
The problem is that the US administration consistently loses these semantic battles. Semantics are important because they define the terms of the debate. It’s like winning the high ground in a battle.
If Guantanamo internees are called POW’s and the warrantless searches are called illegal searches, then the administration may well win the battle in the courts, but lose in the arena of public opinion. After all, how often do we see journalists provide the REASONS for judicial decisions.
I think that the administration should not abdicate these battles as merely semantic…they must fight every inch of semantic ground because words mean things.

Blaise on January 17, 2006 at 6:07 pm

Once communications reach international waters they are fair game for anyone. Where are the complaints about foreign governments listening to our conversations? The concept is also similar to the “Constructive Border” such as when the government follows someone who crosses the border until they stop or land somewhere. Once you dial an international number, what difference does it make if the NSA taps in space, here, or in the ocean. How do you think Nick Leeson lost Billions of Barrons money so easily? The Japanese had tapped his phones and traded seconds ahead of him, at least that’s what I think.
When some ding-a-ling Department of State Bozo threw Yardley out on his behind during the Depression, he wrote, “The American Black Chamber” about listening in on Diplomatic cables from DC. The book became a best seller in Japan, making cracking their code during the WWII much more difficult.
I also believe that foreign governments listen to our Defense Contractors when they lunch around town, too. Think I’m too far out there? I could care less, if don’t exercise caution in what you say over the phone it’s on you. My friend’s Uncle was executed by the Iranians when they overheard him say a visa was ready for him.
Who cares what the ACLU thinks, it’s just a money grab for legal fees.
The jurisdiction on this case belongs in DC because the phone calls went international! Case over for years.

code7 on January 17, 2006 at 9:14 pm

jjames: the rules have changed and not in your favor it seems. You and The Lawman should go to potlucks together ,take the wife + kids.

danny on January 18, 2006 at 1:51 pm

Law Enforcement taps Americans telephones all the time without warrants. I have personally seen them do “Illegal” surveillance up close and personal. This is what happens,they call the telephone company and they flip a switch and type in the number to route for eavesdropping.I have never once seen the telephone company ask for a warrant, not once.
The only time they get warrants is when they intend to use the “tap” information to prosecute a criminal in court, then they go by the book and see a judge. They monitor people all the time to gather surveillance.
Ask yourself why the phone companies equipment has this ability if Congress did not mandate the capability being built into all of their switching offices.
Do I agree with this practice..no but I am telling you how it is. Ask anyone who is ex law enforcement, emphasis on ex because they will not risk their jobs before they start collecting retirement.
Moral of this story is do not ever say anything on the phone you do not want to end up on a transcript.

ScottyDog on January 18, 2006 at 1:52 pm

Scotty Dog; No, the moral of this story is not how to ‘hide’ your actions.But to live a life that your actions ‘ALL’ your actions are nothing to hide in this war.Ex law enforcement ScottyDog ? Yea,sure you are.

danny on January 18, 2006 at 2:01 pm

Just look at the company these people keep. If one of these pedophile-lovers ever so much as approached my little niece I would react like a Rottweiler. I wonder if they’d defend my right to defend my family. Most likely not. Someone seriously needs to take these lowlife degenerates off the streets, the ones with lolliops and kiddie porn and the the ones with law degrees.

KnightoftheImpaler on January 18, 2006 at 7:34 pm

When George Washington stepped outside of what the Constitution presribed as his duties by issuing a proclaimation that the US would be neutral in the conflict between the England and France, the precedent was set for the issuance of presidential directives. Every President from Washington up to Bill Clinton and now, GW Bush, has done this. Further, there have only been two Supreme Court cases that address this form of presidential activism.
The reality is that there are people in the world that would not mourn this country’s passing and ‘yes’, those people, when identified, need to be monitored.

zzx375 on January 18, 2006 at 10:57 pm

“What is so wrong with playing by the rules, instead of resorting to terrorist tactics to fight the bad guys?”
“Terrorist tactics,” jjames? Even if we accept your tendentious characterization of what the NSA does, is that really what you think terrorists do?
On 9/11, Mohammed Atta and his gang listened in on people’s phone calls? All those Palestinians infiltrate Israel to do suicide wiretapping? Leon Klinghoffer was wiretapped to death? The Cole was blown up by a listening device? The Munich massacre was an eavesdropping session gone wrong?
I know you lefties get upset when righties dismiss your complaints out of hand, but what on earth do you expect? If you want sensible people to take your opinions seriously, you must stop saying such thunderously silly things.

ScottM on January 18, 2006 at 11:30 pm

> The reality is that there are people in the world that would not mourn this country’s passing and ‘yes’, those people, when identified, need to be monitored.
That’s a LOT of Republicans — and Democrats — you’re calling for monitoring there. I don’t know if there are enough people in this country left who actually believe in the Constitution to monitor that many people!

IO ERROR on January 19, 2006 at 1:21 am

ACLU and the other lawsuit against the government for NSA “spying, should be thrown out of court. We’re at war and everything possible should be done to protect us. That’s me, you and the 300 million other people in America. If people have a problem with spying, tell the islamic extremists, they are responsible. Better yet, lets all file a lawsuit against ACLU, CAIR and Greenpeace for giving favour to terrorism.

herself on January 19, 2006 at 5:57 am

Count me in. I oppose the ACLU NSA lawsuit against the government for NSA spying for the same reasons as everyone else has posted.

ana007 on January 19, 2006 at 6:07 am

I guess, some people have forgotten that horrific scene, on a bright Tuesday morning, a few years ago.
I haven’t forgotten, and I doubt I EVER will.
If “dubya” wants to listen to MY phone calls, he’s got my permission…I got nothin’ to hide.
Sign me up.

Franksalterego on January 19, 2006 at 8:57 am

I wish someone would explain the logic(?) that would allow someone to hide behind the Laws and the Constitution, to plot the undermining, and overthrow of our Laws and Constitution.
Do they really think(?) the Constitution was written as a document of Self-Destruction?
Furthermore, no one has yet explained, how Carter and Clinton had Executive Authority, that Bush DOESN’T have.
Ref:
Exercise of Certain Authority Respecting Electronic Surveillance, Executive Order 12139, 23 May 1979
Foreign Intelligence Physical Searches, Executive Order 12949, 9 February 1995

Franksalterego on January 19, 2006 at 9:43 am

Article. IV. Section. 4. of the United States Constitution
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Here is what CAIR’s religion commands them to do in America:
004.101 When ye travel – through the earth – there is no blame on you if ye shorten your prayers, for fear the Unbelievers [non-Muslims] May attack you: For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies.
004.104 And slacken not in following up the enemy: If ye are suffering hardships, they are suffering similar hardships.
008.065 O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding.
033.061 They [non-Muslims] shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain without mercy.
CAIR’s religion clearly violates the United States Constitution on domestic Violence
Article. III. Section. 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
CAIR’s religion commands all Muslims….
003.028 Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless it be that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking as it were security. {Telling lies to non-Muslims – is permissible in Islam!
008.067 It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war [slay them first] until he hath thoroughly subdued the land. {Treason in America!
Article. VII of the constitution of the United States of America:
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven {that year signifies only One possible Lord for America] and of the Independence of the United States of America.
CAIR’s religion commands that all Muslims fight those who believe in the Son of God} 009.030 009.123 008.065 {A clear violation of America’s laws
On a level that a child can understand – CAIR’s religion cannot peacefully coexist with the United States Constitution.
Islam is the problem – Period!
Mass Murder……..009.005 033.061
Mass Rape……….033.050 033.052
Beheadings………047.004
Crucifixions…….005.033
Robbery…………008.041
Treason…………008.067
The New Testament – the only Religion that the US Constitution does recognize [Article. VII] condemns every single one of those commands on a level that a child can understand.
And so does the United States Constitution.
Because of Islam’s teachings, Muslims forfeit themselves from the protection of the US Constitution.
The most powerful weapons for destroying all Islamic ‘terrorists’ in America are available. But American leaders refuse to implement them.
Why?

Beth on January 20, 2006 at 1:51 am

One difference is Monitoring vs. individual wiretaps which can be used as evidence in a court of law for civil or criminal prosecution.
Jamie Gorrick tried to enforce “the wall” before 9/11/01. The Church/Kennedy “unwriten rules” prevented the FBI from even sitting on a park bench on public property and looking (monitoring) people.
Take a look at a piece, Monitoring on my blog. Comment there if you wish to reply, or here.
We have come a long way. We were attacked.
This issue is one of national defense. There are those in this country and outside this country who would like to defeat us and take the spoils for themselves. They are: Communists and islamofacists as well as some plain criminals like xx-13, Mexican Government supported drug importers and others.

Chief RZ on January 20, 2006 at 11:03 am

??????

?????? ?? ?? on October 21, 2013 at 10:10 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field