Finally, someone tells the ACLU to fuck off !!!

[Nicolos_Darvas]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 20px" vAlign=top width="99%">Fuck the ACLU -- they have done more damage to this nation than just about any group around.




Court Rejects ACLU Challenge to Wiretaps
</TD><TD vAlign=top align=right></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- headline end --><!-- date/author start --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=2> </TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="99%">Feb 19 05:49 PM US/Eastern
</TD><TD style="PADDING-TOP: 5px" vAlign=bottom align=right><TABLE style="BORDER-RIGHT: #bababa 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #bababa 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #bababa 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #bababa 1px solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #edf0f4" height=33 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=1 border=0></TR><TBODY><TR><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 15px; PADDING-LEFT: 15px; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; WHITE-SPACE: nowrap">76 Comments </TD><TD background=http://www.breitbart.com/images/article/dots.gif> </TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"></TD><TD background=http://www.breitbart.com/images/article/dots.gif> </TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"></TD><TD background=http://www.breitbart.com/images/article/dots.gif> </TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><SCRIPT type=text/javascript> digg_url = 'http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UTLREO0&show_article=1'; digg_title = 'Court+Rejects+ACLU+Challenge+to+Wiretaps'; digg_bodytext = 'WASHINGTON+%28AP%29+-+The+Supreme+Court+dealt+a+setback+Tuesday+to+civil+rights+and+privacy+advocates+who+oppose+the+Bush+administration%27s+warrantless+wiretapping+program.+The+justices%2C+without+comment%2C+turned+down+an+appeal+from+the+American+Civil+Liberties+Union+to+let+it+pursue+a+lawsuit+against+the+program+that+began+shortly+after+the+Sept.+11+terror+attacks.+'; digg_media = 'news'; digg_topic = 'world_news'; digg_bgcolor = '#edf0f4'; digg_skin = 'compact'; digg_window = 'new'; </SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="http://digg.com/tools/diggthis.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT><IFRAME src="http://digg.com/tools/diggthis.php?u=http%3A//www.breitbart.com/article.php%3Fid%3DD8UTLREO0%26show_article%3D1&t=Court+Rejects+ACLU+Challenge+to+Wiretaps&w=new&b=WASHINGTON+%2528AP%2529+-+The+Supreme+Court+dealt+a+setback+Tuesday+to+civil+rights+and+privacy+advocates+who+oppose+the+Bush+administration%2527s+warrantless+wiretapping+program.+The+justices%252C+without+comment%252C+turned+down+an+appeal+from+the+American+Civil+Liberties+Union+to+let+it+pursue+a+lawsuit+against+the+program+that+began+shortly+after+the+Sept.+11+terror+attacks.+&m=news&c=world_news&k=%23edf0f4&s=compact" frameBorder=0 width=120 scrolling=no height=18></IFRAME></TD><TD background=http://www.breitbart.com/images/article/dots.gif> </TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><SCRIPT type=text/javascript> farkItButton("Court Rejects ACLU Challenge to Wiretaps", "http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UTLREO0"); </SCRIPT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- date/author end --><!-- article start --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 10px" vAlign=top align=middle>

View larger image

</TD><TD> </TD><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 14px" vAlign=top width="99%">WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to civil rights and privacy advocates who oppose the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. The justices, without comment, turned down an appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union to let it pursue a lawsuit against the program that began shortly after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
The action underscored the difficulty of mounting a challenge to the eavesdropping, which remains classified and was confirmed by President Bush only after a newspaper article revealed its existence.
"It's very disturbing that the president's actions will go unremarked upon by the court," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's national security project. "In our view, it shouldn't be left to executive branch officials alone to determine the limits."
The Terrorist Surveillance Program no longer exists, although the administration has maintained it was legal.
The ACLU sued on behalf of itself, other lawyers, reporters and scholars, arguing that the program was illegal and that they had been forced to alter how they communicate with foreigners who were likely to have been targets of the wiretapping.
A federal judge in Detroit largely agreed, but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the suit, saying the plaintiffs could not prove their communications had been monitored and thus could not prove they had been harmed by the program.
The government has refused to turn over information about the closely guarded program that could reveal who has been under surveillance.
ACLU officials described the situation as a "Catch-22" because the government says the identities of people whose communications have been intercepted is secret. But only people who know they have been wiretapped can sue over the program.
A lawsuit filed by an Islamic charity met a similar fate. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year ruled against the Oregon-based U.S. arm of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, concluding that a key piece of evidence is protected as a state secret.
In that case, the charity alleged the National Security Agency illegally listened to its calls. The charity had wanted to introduce as evidence a top-secret call log it received mistakenly from the Treasury Department.
A separate lawsuit against telecommunications companies that have cooperated with the government is pending in the San Francisco-based appeals court. A U.S. district court also is examining whether the warrantless surveillance of people in the United States violates the law that regulates the wiretapping of suspected terrorists and requires the approval of a secret court.
The administration announced in January 2007 that it would put intercepts of communications on U.S. soil under the oversight of that court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
The ACLU, in urging the justices to consider its case, said that because the administration voluntarily ended the warrantless wiretapping, it could easily restart it.
The administration acknowledged the existence of the program in late after the New York Times published an article about it.
The White House said the monitoring was necessary because the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act left dangerous gaps in the government's eavesdropping authority.
Last August, Congress made temporary changes to FISA that made the warrantless wiretapping legal in some instances and also extended immunity from lawsuits to telecommunications companies that help with the intercepts.
Those changes expired over the weekend, amid disagreements between congressional Democrats and President Bush over the immunity issue. Existing wiretaps can continue and any new surveillance the government wants to institute has to follow the FISA rules, which could require court warrants. The case is ACLU v. NSA, 07-468.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[4625]

Re: Finally, someone tells the ACLU to fuck off !!!

Fortunately, the ACLU protects Nic's rights as well. As an American citizen, he is free to be as deluded as he wishes to be. As the story below shows, the current regime is having great difficulty in continuing its illegal and unconstitutional intrusion on the rights of all Americans.

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Bush Spying Program
By Greg Stohr
<!-- WARNING: #foreach: $wnstory.ATTS: null at /bb/data/web/templates/webmacro_en/20601103.wm:314.2 --> <!-- WARNING: #foreach: $wnstory.ATTS: null at /bb/data/web/templates/webmacro_en/20601103.wm:328.19 --> Feb. 19 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court refused to revive a challenge to a Bush administration terrorist surveillance program, turning away an appeal by the American Civil Liberties Union and other opponents of the spying program.
The justices, making no comment, today left intact a federal appeals court's conclusion that the ACLU and its allies lacked the legal right to sue over the program because they couldn't show they suffered any harm.
The rejection is a victory for the Bush administration, insulating from legal attack a spying program that critics say violates speech and privacy rights. The ACLU and its allies also criticized President George W. Bush's assertion of broad presidential authority to eavesdrop on potential terrorists during wartime.
``This claim, which challenges the very foundations of our constitutional democracy, should not go unreviewed by the courts,'' the unsuccessful appeal argued. The ACLU was joined in its appeal by attorneys, journalists and scholars.
The Bush administration urged the Supreme Court to reject the appeal, saying those challenging the program ``cannot prove that they were surveilled.'' The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the suit in July on a 2-1 vote.
The high court action comes as the president and lawmakers spar over a possible extension of congressional authorization for Bush's surveillance efforts. The central sticking point has been legal immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperate with the government.
Sept. 11 Attacks
Bush began the spying program, originally known as the Terrorist Surveillance Program, shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks. Bush acknowledged the program's existence after a 2005 New York Times story, saying he had directed the National Security Agency to intercept communications into and out of the country involving people linked to al-Qaeda.
At the Supreme Court, the administration argued that the original Terrorist Surveillance Program no longer exists and has been superseded by spying conducted under different legal rules. In 2007 a secret court that supervises foreign intelligence surveillance authorized the government to collect communications believed to involve al-Qaeda members.
The Democratic-controlled Congress later enacted a law temporarily authorizing surveillance, requiring telecommunications companies to cooperate and shielding them from civil lawsuits for doing so. That measure expired Feb. 16, leaving a legal gap that the Bush administration says will jeopardize spying efforts.
Although the government can continue using existing wiretaps, cooperation from telecommunications companies is no longer assured. Expiration of congressional authorization also may complicate efforts to eavesdrop on new targets.
The case is American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency, 07-468.
To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net .
Last Updated: February 19, 2008 10:02 EST

Bloomberg.com: U.S.

 

[4625]

Re: Finally, someone tells the ACLU to fuck off !!!

I intend to send the ACLU a donation tomorrow because of this decision. A great man once said that "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." I, for one, will do something. . . .You will thank me later. . . .

 

[mr merlin]

Re: Finally, someone tells the ACLU to fuck off !!!

I intend to send the ACLU a donation tomorrow because of this decision. A great man once said that "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." I, for one, will do something. . . .You will thank me later. . . .

Since its's unlikely you'll be on the supreme court anytime soon, your support and kind words for the aclu are irrelevent.

 

[4625]

Re: Finally, someone tells the ACLU to fuck off !!!

Since its's unlikely you'll be on the supreme court anytime soon, your support and kind words for the aclu are irrelevent.

If the fact that whether one will "be on the Supreme Court [sic] anytime soon" is the criterion for relevance, perhaps we should all swallow our strychnine. . . . .

 

[mr merlin]

Re: Finally, someone tells the ACLU to fuck off !!!

If the fact that whether one will "be on the Supreme Court [sic] anytime soon" is the criterion for relevance, perhaps we should all swallow our strychnine. . . . .

Weather you swallow poison or not is irrelevant, the issue of wiretaps is closed. It's time you face the truth that the people who make decisions in this country dont think the way you do, nor do they share your values.

 

[4625]

Re: Finally, someone tells the ACLU to fuck off !!!

No, the article dealt with a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court's refusal to grant certiorari. by my count, that three people on the Sixth Circuit Panel, and at least six people on the Supreme Court. You do the math; nine is what I come up with. . . .Moreover, it appear the Demorats have visited the wizard and discovered a backbone. . . .I don't see much future for random spying on American citizens in the same vein as before. . . .

 

[mr merlin]

Re: Finally, someone tells the ACLU to fuck off !!!

No, the article dealt with a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court's refusal to grant certiorari. by my count, that three people on the Sixth Circuit Panel, and at least six people on the Supreme Court. You do the math; nine is what I come up with. . . .Moreover, it appear the Demorats have visited the wizard and discovered a backbone. . . .I don't see much future for random spying on American citizens in the same vein as before. . . .

I dont like random spying on americans either, however keeping an eye on potential or likely terrorists is another matter. Especially when its so easy to identify them.

 

[4625]

Re: Finally, someone tells the ACLU to fuck off !!!

I dont like random spying on americans either, however keeping an eye on potential or likely terrorists is another matter. Especially when its so easy to identify them.

"potential or likely" terrorists??? Exactly who does this definition exclude????

 

[Road Dawg]

Re: Finally, someone tells the ACLU to fuck off !!!

I dont like random spying on americans either, however keeping an eye on potential or likely terrorists is another matter. Especially when its so easy to identify them.

Even if it is a clear violation of their rights as defined by the Constitution?

 

[mr merlin]

Re: Finally, someone tells the ACLU to fuck off !!!

"potential or likely" terrorists??? Exactly who does this definition exclude????

This excludes normal, honest americans, it includes muslims who preach hate and 8th century viewpoints. We're at war people, and we know exactly who we're at war with, this isnt rocket science.

 

[Road Dawg]

Re: Finally, someone tells the ACLU to fuck off !!!

This excludes normal, honest americans, it includes muslims who preach hate and 8th century viewpoints. We're at war people, and we know exactly who we're at war with, this isnt rocket science.

Please post the actual declaration of war that was issued by Congress. America isn't at war. America, more specifically the Bush administration, invaded and is currently occupying another nation. This isn't war, it's imperialism.

 

[mr merlin]

Re: Finally, someone tells the ACLU to fuck off !!!

Please post the actual declaration of war that was issued by Congress. America isn't at war. America, more specifically the Bush administration, invaded and is currently occupying another nation. This isn't war, it's imperialism.

Get your facts straight, we are occupying 2 nations!

By the way, do you now admit we are getting $600 in tax free non-rebates soon?

 

[Road Dawg]

Re: Finally, someone tells the ACLU to fuck off !!!

Get your facts straight, we are occupying 2 nations!

By the way, do you now admit we are getting $600 in tax free non-rebates soon?

Sorry, like the REST of the nation, Afghanistan is often forgotten about.

Not until you post something credible.

 

[mr merlin]

Re: Finally, someone tells the ACLU to fuck off !!!

You have eyes - but you do not see
you have ears - but you do not hear
It's no up to me to convince you, but don't worry, I'll keep rubbing it in, friend.

 

[Road Dawg]

Re: Finally, someone tells the ACLU to fuck off !!!

You have eyes - but you do not see
you have ears - but you do not hear
It's no up to me to convince you, but don't worry, I'll keep rubbing it in, friend.

You can't rub anything in because you have nothing more than what you simply say.

 

[mr merlin]

Re: Finally, someone tells the ACLU to fuck off !!!

I notice you dont state that you are right....hmmm.

 

[Road Dawg]

Re: Finally, someone tells the ACLU to fuck off !!!

I notice you dont state that you are right....hmmm.

What I have said, Merlin, is post something that is credible, something besides YOUR WORDS, and I might change my mind. Until then, I will go by the information that I have found and have yet to see refuted.

 

[spartacus]

Re: Finally, someone tells the ACLU to fuck off !!!

I intend to send the ACLU a donation tomorrow because of this decision. A great man once said that "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." I, for one, will do something. . . .You will thank me later. . . .

 

[Nicolos_Darvas]

Re: Finally, someone tells the ACLU to fuck off !!!

You send the ACLU a donation and you are sending money to a group that supports and defends child molesters !!!

 

[4625]

Re: Finally, someone tells the ACLU to fuck off !!!

The American Civil Liberties Union defends the Constitution of the United States of America. That document applies to everyone, no matter what they are charged with. You might try reading it sometime. . .

You people deserve what you get. You all fall for the latest "boogyman" of the week; no matter if it's the "terrists" or "child molesters" or the "immigrints." Of course, you are probably the same type of people who were so worried about past generation's boogyman of the "black's wanting to rape your white wimin." Wake up, take your blinders off and think for yourself. Yes, you'll hate what you used to be, but in the end you'll be a better person. . . .

 

[Nicolos_Darvas]

Re: Finally, someone tells the ACLU to fuck off !!!

The American Civil Liberties Union defends the Constitution of the United States of America according to their own standards and who they choose to defend. Unfortunately, they are notorious for defending worst forms of human life.

Anyone that defends child molesters pro bona simply to get attention or get in the news is a fucked up organization and fucked up in the head if you ask me.

 

[Road Dawg]

Re: Finally, someone tells the ACLU to fuck off !!!

The American Civil Liberties Union defends the Constitution of the United States of America according to their own standards and who they choose to defend. Unfortunately, they are notorious for defending worst forms of human life.

Anyone that defends child molesters pro bona simply to get attention or get in the news is a fucked up organization and fucked up in the head if you ask me.

Despite your eloquent post, Nic, you need to understand that EVERYONE, regardless of the crime they are accused of, has rights until they are found guilty by a court of law according to due process.

No one will defend what the child molester does, but the person has rights until they are found guilty. While I don't necessarily support everything the ACLU does, I do applaud their courage in taking on the role of the "bad guy" and doing their best.

 

[Nicolos_Darvas]

Re: Finally, someone tells the ACLU to fuck off !!!

While I don't necessarily support everything the ACLU does, I do applaud their courage in taking on the role of the "bad guy" and doing their best.

Well, aren't we just a pillar a truth and justice today !!!!

As for me, I will continue to expose this trash organization for the types of cases they take on. Since you are still active duty (Unfortunately) , why don't you write the ACLU and ask them why they didn't step up and defend those Marines that were charged and acquitted in Iraq.

Why ?? Because the ACLU would only take on a case like this to either get attention in the media or to say they did it for some other bull shit reason. If fact, they would rather only defend child molesters to try and make their case as an organization that defends the constitution. GET THIS SHIT OUTTA HERE !!!! No one buys it.

 

[Road Dawg]

Re: Finally, someone tells the ACLU to fuck off !!!

Well, aren't we just a pillar a truth and justice today !!!!

As for me, I will continue to expose this trash organization for the types of cases they take on. Since you are still active duty (Unfortunately) , why don't you write the ACLU and ask them why they didn't step up and defend those Marines that were charged and acquitted in Iraq.

Why ?? Because the ACLU would only take on a case like this to either get attention in the media or to say they did it for some other bull shit reason. If fact, they would rather only defend child molesters to try and make their case as an organization that defends the constitution. GET THIS SHIT OUTTA HERE !!!! No one buys it.

I have no idea why they didn't defend the Marines. I would hazard a guess that they didn't want to wade into the arena of the UCMJ and since the Marines were acquitted, they probably had good defense lawyers.

Nic, do you deny that everyone has rights and should have those rights protected?

 

[4625]

Re: Finally, someone tells the ACLU to fuck off !!!

I've never heard of the ACLU getting involved in military justice cases. Though the Constitution protects all, the unique circumstances that are attendant for those in uniform do curtail some of the rights they enjoy.
Second, the ACLU rarely (if ever) gets involved in actually providing counsel for criminal defendants at trial, who are already provided an attorney at trial if they cannot afford one. The ACLU is much more likely to get involved in situations where the right to counsel does not adhere; such as free speech cases, religious freedom or exercise cases, etc. . . .
Third, the ACLU is usually on the side of the less-popular, because the popular idea does not require constitutional protection. This is because usually the majority will is not oppressed by the minority will. In other words, the popular idea or opinion does not need constitutional protection because no one is trying to suppress or oppress it. Rather, it's usually the popular majority which is attempting to suppress the minority dissent. . . .