Court Backs Terrorist Surveillance Program

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by red states rule, Jul 7, 2007.

  1. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Another loss for the terrorists and for the kook left. The Carter appointed Judge who ruled the program was illegal was reversed, and some sanity returned to the fighting of terrorism




    Court backs Bush's spying
    By Jerry Seper
    July 7, 2007
    A federal appeals court panel in Cincinnati yesterday dismissed a lawsuit challenging President Bush's domestic terrorist surveillance program, ruling that those who brought the suit — led by the American Civil Liberties Union — did not have the legal authority to do so.

    In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit panel did not rule on the legality of the surveillance program but vacated a 2006 order by a lower court in Detroit that found the post-September 11 program to be unconstitutional, violating rights to privacy and free speech and the separation of powers.

    The majority opinion was written by Appeals Court Judge Alice Moore Batchelder, who recently was considered by Mr. Bush as a potential nominee for a U.S. Supreme Court seat that ultimately went to Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. She was named to the bench by the first President Bush in June 1991.

    Judge Batchelder was joined by Appeals Court Judge Julie Smith Gibbons, named to the bench in 2002 by Mr. Bush.

    Both said the plaintiffs had failed to show they were subject to the surveillance.

    The dissenting vote was cast by Appeals Court Judge Ronald Lee Gilman, nominated to the bench in 1997 by President Clinton, who said the plaintiffs were within their rights to sue and it was clear to him the program violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

    The case will be sent back to U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit for dismissal.

    Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the ruling "disappointing."

    for the complete article

    http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070707/NATION/107070048/1001
     
  2. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,575
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,993
    Actually as I understand it the losing side can now request that the entire 6th circuit review and rule on the matter. It is only "over" and "sanity" returned if the people that brought the case agree it is over, as I understand it.
     
  3. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Oh, it will go to the SC - where the sanity will prevail

    At least Pres Bush got it right with his picks to the Court
     
  4. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    32,795
    Thanks Received:
    6,625
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +11,112
    Good Morning RSR! :)

    That is a very misleading headline imho.

    Because, the Court did not back domestic spying.

    What the court said is that before a lawsuit could be sought or determined, proof of the government spying on an individual has to be present.

    This just encourages every hacker out there, to find "such proof" by digging in to the communication company's files, imo. They better tighten up their own security, the government better too! If they don't want another lawsuit, with actual facts/proof, showing up down the road, again, imo.

    I personally don't understand their ruling? It reminds me of the Bush v Gore ruling, they agreed that there should be a statewide recount, but then only gave 2 hours for this to take place? :question:
     
  5. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Good Morning Care


    The Pres Peanut Judge ignored the law and ruled based on her personal opinions

    This case should never have seen the inside of a court room to begin with and the Pres has every right to do what he is doing

    For some reason, the left thinks terrorists have the right to plot their attacks in private and not have the US listen to their phone calls

    Cre, Al lost Fl - please get over it. It has been more then 6 years - let it go
     
  6. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,575
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,993
    I have explained to you before why the Court made the ruling in 2000. The federal law requires that the Electors to the Electoral College be certified by a set day. The ruling had to take that into account. There was NO TIME to finish a recount in time for Certification. The Florida Supreme Court knew that when they made their ruling. It was an attempt by Gore to disenfranchise the entire State of Florida.

    With out Florida's Electors he had the majority of Electors in the College. He was hoping that he would then win because of that.
     
  7. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    32,795
    Thanks Received:
    6,625
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +11,112
    No. The Supreme Court had NO BUSINESS to make a decision based on that political reason.

    NONE!

    WHY?

    Because writen in to Florida was was THAT precise thing, HOW this State was to handle a situation like this....and if electoral votes were not to go to congress cuz of a cutoff, then that WAS the law, and should not have been part of their decision...and I am not even certain it was part of their VOCAL decision, maybe "behind the scenes".

    The Supreme Court had NO RIGHT to change what Florida Legislators wrote in to the Law.

    In addition to THIS, PREVIOUSLY in USA history, I believe it was the state of Hawaii, came upon the same situation, where due to recounts, their electors missed their cut off to get the electoral votes to Washington AND washington made the exception and took their electoral votes in, because there was still a few weeks before those electoral votes had to be counted and recorded.

    So, just plain right wing spin on that issue imho. :D
     
  8. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,575
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,993
    It was a LEGAL Federal Issue once the Florida Supreme Court ignored their own laws and made a ruling designed to thwart the will of the voters.
     
  9. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    32,795
    Thanks Received:
    6,625
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +11,112
    Where is it given authority, in the Constitution, to be involved in a State, election issue? I don't think it is...

    ANDDDDDDD, :D, it is the Republicans from day 1, that tried to disenfranchise legitimate voters in Florida, and legitimate votes, of the ones that actually GOT to vote!!!

    But anyway, I did not mean to bait you, and get this thread off topic of Domestic Spying!

    and Good Morning RetSgt! Don't know what i WOULD DO, if I didn't have you out there to argue with on some of the partisan issues! :thup:

    Care
     
  10. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,575
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,993
    It was a FEDERAL Election, the rights of the Citizenry are protected now by the Constitution even against State action, perhaps you have never read the 14th and 15th amendment? Nor the plethora of rulings made since they were passed as to the broadened power of the Constitution in protecting the rights enumerated in that document?
     

Share This Page