BF2S Forums Court decision today about govn't wiretaps

The ACLU "Judge shopped" and knew this was the person who would rule against a republican President.
Now go read the ruling - I did - and you'll find why she will be overruled even before it gets to the Supreme Court.  I would suggest you not show your stripes so obviously - the gloating gave you away.
Can you spell W-A-R  !!!!  My family and I are both safe and have nothing to hide...

Kaboom.

Rick_O_Shea678 wrote:

The ACLU got a little victory today.
Under the guise of "the war on terror", the Bush administration has been conducting wiretaps (phonetaps) and reading private emails without a court order.  In the past, govn't had to have cause, and they had to obtain a warrant.

Well, today the ACLU's challenge that this was a violation of the Constitution and rights of privacy was upheld by a federal court judge. 

Court rules secret wiretaps violate rights

What do you think?  Should the govn't have to get a court order before tapping anyone's phone and email?

They have been wiretapping long before Bush, and will continue to long after he's gone. They have been doing this since the 60's.

AAFCptKabbom wrote:

The ACLU "Judge shopped" and knew this was the person who would rule against a republican President.
Now go read the ruling - I did - and you'll find why she will be overruled even before it gets to the Supreme Court.  I would suggest you not show your stripes so obviously - the gloating gave you away.
Can you spell W-A-R  !!!!  My family and I are both safe and have nothing to hide...

Kaboom.

Can you give a link to the ruling? I can't find it.

And do you have any sources on the "judge shopping"? Curious to know how that's possible. I am very ignorant about how judges are chosen for cases.

fadedsteve wrote:

Yea, but it wont be hard to obtain that court order!

All the authorities need is probable cause, and thats not too hard for the police to figure out.  I doubt it will be tough when Abu Mustafa is contacting a known terrorist in Pakistan, from his cell phone in Dearborn, Mich.  Pretty sure the cops can get a court order to check his phone and tap that shit!

I dont know why everyone is up in arms about this ruling! If Britain has tougher terrorist laws than we do, than were in trouble, and not getting it!! Give the authorities what they need to catch these assholes!!!

Britain doesn't haver tougher anti-terrorist laws than the US, don't worry. We aren't allowed to hold people without trial, like in Guantanamo. In fact there was just a hearing before one of the top judges, concerning the attempted plane bombing suspects, the police wanted more time to interview/interrogate them before they had to charge them and they've got another month or something.

I think it's a very good thing that the US government needs a court order to look at emails and conduct phone taps. It shouldn't be hard to get and shouldn't interfere with tracking down real terror suspects, but civil liberties are a great thing - Liberty being a concept very in line with American thinking and I certainly think that it's good that peoples privacy is not going to be invaded without court orders.

It won't be hard for the government to get it's court orders when they are needed, nor should it be. But it is good that they do need to.

alpinestar wrote:

AAFCptKabbom wrote:

My family and I are both safe and have nothing to hide...

Kaboom.

Then watch this.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … &hl=en

So what??? Half of the photos are not even US related

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

[KS]RECON wrote:

Let them wiretaps, read e-mails and everything else necessary to keep us, the American people safe ... The government is doing it for all of us to protect us and yes they do not violate our rights of privacy, because they do not know who is Mr.X or Mrs. Z but just making sure that Mr.X is not a treat to the country or anybody else. I support them.
Why against if you have nothing to hide? or may be you do, hmmm ...

Personally I am against it because I like the Constitution. I agree with keeping the American people safe but I don't agree with taking a shit on the Bill of Rights to do so. KS RECON if you support "everything else necessary to keep us safe" would you agree to body cavity searches every day before you'd be allowed to enter your school or workplace? You might have a bomb up there. Or worse, some nail clippers or box cutters.

you make point ... but is also sick to allow a fully armed teen near schools, right? The Government will find other more civilized ways to keep us safe, so no body cavity search will be necessary (example: e-mail quick check, no harm)

Multiple lawyers with in the administration and outside of the administrations have found it to be legal under the constitution. 

Also about gitmo.  If they aren't U.S. citizens they have not rights under our constitution.  They answer to no laws so why should our laws apply to them.  They are terrorists they have no rights.

They don't know who they are listening to and they are only listening for key words and phrases.  If they need to find out who they are listening to a court order is needed.

Constitution is the same piece of paper that gave us Presidency and wiretapping call by president is against it.
We do not have a King we have a President.

Colfax wrote:

Multiple lawyers with in the administration and outside of the administrations have found it to be legal under the constitution. 

Also about gitmo.  If they aren't U.S. citizens they have not rights under our constitution.  They answer to no laws so why should our laws apply to them.  They are terrorists they have no rights.

They don't know who they are listening to and they are only listening for key words and phrases.  If they need to find out who they are listening to a court order is needed.

People keep bringing up the fact that non-US citizens are not protected by the constitution and the right to fair trial. I should point out that EVERYONE has the right to fair trial under international law. But of course international law doesn't apply to America.

They are only terrorists with no rights once they have been proven to be terrorists in a court!

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-08-18 09:54:16)

Bertster7 wrote:

People keep bringing up the fact that non-US citizens are not protected by the constitution and the right to fair trial. I should point out that EVERYONE has the right to fair trial under international law. But of course international law doesn't apply to America.

They are only terrorists with no rights once they have been proven to be terrorists in a court!

Ok well this is what your missing chief...under International law, which does apply to America (enough hippy crap)......ENEMY COMBATANTS that are detained while IN BATTLE most certainly do not have the same rights as someone detained say, while being stopped in a traffic stop by the police. 

Those detained whilst in battle have been treated with respect and dignity, received food and prayer effects (rugs, Korans, etc).  Whats the problem?  We have to detain those that are trying to KILL US, don't you understand that they want to kill US, they don't care if your left or right or Jewish or Christian, they HATE AMERICA.  I wish that would change, but hey, its kind of hard to change someone's mind when they have a bomb strapped to their chest.

I think it's funny how none of this wire tap is mentioned until Bush came into office.
As many have said, this has been done since wire tap was created by every administration.

The whole problem is the Democrats trying to find anything they can to make Bush and Republicans look bad so they can take the next election.

spacebandit72 wrote:

The whole problem is the Democrats trying to find anything they can to make Bush and Republicans look bad so they can take the next election.

DING DING DING DING, we have a winner.  Tell em what he's won Johnny!!

Johnny: He's one a +1, good job!!!!!