Judge rules against Bush in spying lawsuit

[aps]

Judge rules against Bush in spying lawsuit
Administration argues defending case threatens to reveal state secrets

Updated: 2 hours, 35 minutes ago
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge Thursday refused to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the Bush administration’s domestic spying program, rejecting government claims that allowing the case to go forward could expose state secrets and jeopardize the war on terror.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker said the warrantless eavesdropping has been so widely reported that there appears to be no danger of spilling secrets.

Dozens of lawsuits alleging that telecommunications companies and the government are illegally intercepting Americans’ communications without warrants have been filed. This is the first time a judge has ruled on the government’s claim of a “state secrets privilege.”

“It might appear that none of the subject matter in this litigation could be considered a secret given that the alleged surveillance programs have been so widely reported in the media,” Walker said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13958508/

Ahhh, our justice system is working.

Will this federal judge be charged with treason? :shock:

 

[Captain America]

I doubt he'll be charged but no doubt the extreme rightwingnuts will be crying their "Activist Judge!!" conditioned response in a matter of minutes. Shhhh... I think I hear one coming now!

 

[aps]

For anyone who doesn't know, Judge Walker was appointed by George H.W. Bush.

 

[Captain America]

For anyone who doesn't know, Judge Walker was appointed by George H.W. Bush.

Well, in that case........I'm sure the word traitor will be thrown in the mix. :roll:

 

[jfuh]

rejecting government claims that allowing the case to go forward could expose state secrets and jeopardize the war on terror.

Well that's convenient, just classify it and then you can violate all civil liberties all you want. Not only can there be no revelation about it, but judges can't try it either because it'd reveal state secrets? Bullshit

FUnny thing though when one thinks about the mentioning of state secrets. Off the top of my head I know a country that commonly uses the state secret card whenever they try to silence opposition to thier authoritarian rule, Communist China.

 

[tecoyah]

Interesting....two days and not a single Conservative voice in this thread.

 

[danarhea]

Interesting....two days and not a single Conservative voice in this thread.

Actually, I posted the same thread and got a Conservative response. He said whoopdy doo, its just a legal procedure. :rofl

Didnt see this thread when I posted mine, so have directed anyone reading my thread to this one, and asked the mods to lock mine.

 

[taxedout]

The case should go forward.

It's funny though, when one president centralizes power, it is a welcomed protective measure, hailed as a great victory and called a "crime bill".
And when whole groups of peoples, rights are violated, we celebrate the victorious removal of "gun nuts" from society.

Most people hail the violation of rights as a victory if "their guy" does it, and as a totalitarian abomination if the other guy does it.

I disagree with both sides doing it. DEMS and REPUBS are on the same collectivist team, both avidly eliminating our rights and sovereignty.

 

[Zyphlin]

Great post Tax. In all reality, the majority of federal politicians and groups don't give a crap about "civil liberties"...they give a crap about thier constituents civil liberties. Take all the rights away from christians and firearm owners if you're a liberal...take rights away from muslims and foreigners if you're republican...take away rights of buisness corporations if you're democrat...take away rights of enviromentalists if you're republican. Both sides do it, they just dress it up to make it look pretty.

I'm a conservative. I honestly have no problem at all with this...or with Echelon which was a democrat initiative...and frankly don't think it should've been leaked. (I agree with the whistle blowers doctrine, I DISAGREE that a whistle blower can just leak anything they "think" "might" by illegal) But I agree with the Judge...by this point, let it go to court. I would just like to see the proceedings and records sealed for now.

 

[taxedout]

I do not think that the policies of the DEMS or the REPUBS would differ to any significant extent. Sure they would continue make the public spectacle of disagreement, and the thousands of strategists would accuse the other side of the typical stuff, and the actions would remain nearly cosistent.

Dems will embroil us in foreign conflicts, in apparrant agreement with UN direction, and they will be hailed as wonderful for the world. REPUBS will do the same but pretend to shun the UN. They will appear as unilateral "cowboys" to the world. Either way, the identical conflicts will continue , under the leading of the Fabian collectivist money changers that own the politicians and run the country. Both sides will increase the scope and cost of governmnet. Both sides will actively remove freedoms in the name of protection. Both sides will be sacrificing the american citizens in their world globalist/collectivist vision. We will continue to be divided, as planned, and things will forge ahead unhindered.

 

[TheNextEra]

Both sides will actively remove freedoms in the name of protection. .

I can agree with what you have said above except for this. I am curious what freedoms you think would have been removed in the name of protection if the Dems were leading?

 

[taxedout]

I can agree with what you have said above except for this. I am curious what freedoms you think would have been removed in the name of protection if the Dems were leading?

No difference.
Though the patriot act may have been called the "No Child Left Unprotected Act", and warrantless wire tapping could be called the " Child Safety and Citizen's Benevolence Act ".


The National parties and their presidential candidates, with the Eastern Establishment assiduously fostering the process behind the scenes, moved closer together and nearly met in the center with almost identical candidates and platforms, although the process was concealed as much as possible, by the revival of obsolescent or meaningless war cries and slogans (often going back to the Civil War). … The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ”throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. … Either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies. [Taken from Tragedy and Hope, by Carroll Quigley, pp. 1247-1248. ]

 

[TheNextEra]

No difference.
Though the patriot act may have been called the "No Child Left Unprotected Act", and warrantless wire tapping could be called the " Child Safety and Citizen's Benevolence Act ".

Well like I said, I agree with what you have said except that. Gonna just have to agree to disagree on this one.

That doesn't mean that I am claiming that the Dems are better, they just do different things. As far as corruption goes, you are dead on in what you are saying there. No party is free from corruption and the people of America are the ones to blame for letting politicians and officials getting away with it instead of holding them accountable as a whole.

 

[Stinger]

Interesting....two days and not a single Conservative voice in this thread.

Looks like our enemies got a leg up on us. Happy now?

 

[Zyphlin]

I can agree with what you have said above except for this. I am curious what freedoms you think would have been removed in the name of protection if the Dems were leading?

FDR and the camps for Japanese, Germans, and Italians.

Echelon has much the same "civil liberty" issues as the data mining program.

If you honestly don't think that a good bit of the Patriot Act would've been passed through even with a Dem in power, you have seriously not done any real scholarly resource into the manner. A good majority of the Patriot Act is simply bringing up old laws such as FISA and Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, among others, up to speed with the Digital Revolution considering the fact these are 20 and 30 year old acts. They simply could not realistically apply to the way the world has evolved and it had to be updated.

On a more simpler scale, gun laws are generally put down by the democrats "for our protection". As are a number of enviromental laws. "Protection" is pretty wide ranging.

 

[Goobieman]

Actually, I posted the same thread and got a Conservative response. He said whoopdy doo, its just a legal procedure. :rofl

And that's all it is. Just about every case has at least one pettition to dismiss.

Point is, the judge didnt rule on anything regarding the merits of the case - and so there isnt any real meaning to this ruling, other than the case can go to court.

What's the big deal? Are the anti-Bush people so desperate that the consider this some sort of win?

 

[Goobieman]

I can agree with what you have said above except for this. I am curious what freedoms you think would have been removed in the name of protection if the Dems were leading?

Similarly, I am curious as to what freedoms you do not have not now that you did have the Patriot Act was put in place.

Specifically.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Looks like our enemies got a leg up on us. Happy now?

LMAO!!!!!

You can bet they are!!

 

[Stinger]

Well Tecoyah? The enemy got a leg up on us, are you happy now?