Friday, July 06, 2007

Court overturns lower court ruling on Un-American warrantless wiretapping program

Some points to ponder:

1) The Bush administration admitted, after being exposed, that it purposely ignored Federal law in regarding to obtaining warrants under the FISA court to monitor international calls of US residents.

2) The court ruling states that the parties that filed suit against the National Security Agency could not prove that they were being spied on because the evidence is secret. Does this mean that after the government admits to illegally spying, no one can file suit against the government if they saw that their evidence is all secret?

3) The Department of Justice applauds today's decision when they are suppose to charge government officials with knowingly breaking the law, right?

Federal appeals court overturns wiretap ruling made last August
July 6, 2007



A federal appeals court panel today vacated an order by a federal judge in Detroit that ruled that the Bush Administration's wiretapping program was unconstitutional -- a move that concerned local civil rights advocates and Muslim leaders.

In a 2-1 vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati said that the plaintiffs, which included local Muslim and Arab-American groups, could not prove they have been harmed by a National Security Agency spying program created in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The Bush administration argued that such a program was legal and necessary to defend the nation from terrorism.

But the American Civil Liberties Union, along with groups and attorneys based in Michigan, filed a lawsuit in Detroit in January 2006 saying that the government’s surveillance program was unconstitutional and interfered with their jobs.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit ruled in favor of the plaintiffs last August...

Dawud Walid, head of the Michigan branch of the Council on American Islamic Relations, one of the co-plaintiffs, said: “It’s a shame that the court overturned the decision... what the executive branch was doing was unconstitutional.”(MORE)

No comments:

Blog Archive