D. Armenta
PlagmanCourt Dismisses Lawsuit Against Government Surveillance Program
The ACLU, or American Civil Liberties Union, not to be confused with the AACLU, or Americans Against Civil Liberties Union, has long been the voice of reason among terrorists who don’t appreciate being spied on. But today, a federal appeals court has dismissed the ACLU’s lawsuit that was challenging Bush’s domestic surveillance program.
The court ruled 2-1 in favor of those who don’t mind the government spying on potential terrorists. The plaintiffs were a collection of journalists, “scholars,” and legal advocates, none of whom had anything better to do. The 2-1 ruling was made on the grounds that the group “had no legal standing to pursue their claims because they could not show they were targeted by the National Security Agency’s warrantless spying program.” (CNN) Wrote Judge Alice Batchelder, “They cannot establish they are ‘aggrieved persons.’”
For decades, the ACLU and its legal supporters have been protecting the privacy of Americans from a government just aching to spy on them. “Of the 300 million Americans,” commented ACLU spokesman Ron Kuchen, “we estimate that if the government had their way, 297 million of them would be under constant phone, satellite, and telekinetic surveillance. That last one is so secret that people don’t even know about it. Thanks to us, the NSA and whoever else only spy on people they ‘suspect’ have ‘connections’ to ‘terrorism,’ but with any luck we’ll put an end to that, too. Cause if we can’t even uphold our Constitution, we’re no better than the terrorists.”
The program in question was instituted in secret by the National Security Agency after the 9/11 attacks, which FBI officials report occurred in New York back in 2001, although the ACLU is currently suing the FBI for releasing that information on the grounds that it could cause prejudice against radical Islamic terrorists.
Last August, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor decided that the program violated not only the “rights to free speech and privacy under the 1st and 4th amendments,” but also the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that was passed by Congress in 1978 after President Carter wanted to know how his wife was racking up such high phone bills. Several reports, however, claim that Judge Taylor was merely on her period at the time of the ruling.
The 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals gave the government time to appeal Taylor’s ruling, thus allowing the program, which monitors phone calls and e-mails without a warrant, to continue. When word of this first got out, creepy old men were hesitant to send random e-mails to young girls on MySpace for months.
The NSA’s surveillance programs were first called into question after the New York Times reported in December of 2005 that they were “listening in on international phone calls involving people suspected of having ties to terrorists.” (CNN) Given that people with ties to terrorists do not appreciate being eavesdropped upon, the commotion caused by the report came as no surprise since they had heard them talking about it on the phone the night before.
Certain legal scholars, who must not have ties to terrorist networks since they’re objecting, argue that the program “is an illegal and unwarranted intrusion on Americans’ privacy,” with an emphasis on “unwarranted.” Said legal scholar John Kreyson, “since they started surveillance on suspected terrorists, there has not been one single terrorist attack in the United States. Yes, part of that is because of Jack Bauer, but it still begs the question, so then why must we invade the privacy of every American in America? Trust me, if they have the power to spy on terrorists, they’re going to spy on each and every one of us, just because they can.”
Since the 1970s, a special federal court has been meeting in secret to decide whether or not to approve warrants for national security surveillance. Just as a police officer believes he has probable cause when approaching a black man at 3am on MLK Boulevard just because he’s selling drugs, the government believes they reserve the right to bypass the FISA court, just because they “think” there is an “imminent security threat”; racist bastards.
The court ruled 2-1 in favor of those who don’t mind the government spying on potential terrorists. The plaintiffs were a collection of journalists, “scholars,” and legal advocates, none of whom had anything better to do. The 2-1 ruling was made on the grounds that the group “had no legal standing to pursue their claims because they could not show they were targeted by the National Security Agency’s warrantless spying program.” (CNN) Wrote Judge Alice Batchelder, “They cannot establish they are ‘aggrieved persons.’”
For decades, the ACLU and its legal supporters have been protecting the privacy of Americans from a government just aching to spy on them. “Of the 300 million Americans,” commented ACLU spokesman Ron Kuchen, “we estimate that if the government had their way, 297 million of them would be under constant phone, satellite, and telekinetic surveillance. That last one is so secret that people don’t even know about it. Thanks to us, the NSA and whoever else only spy on people they ‘suspect’ have ‘connections’ to ‘terrorism,’ but with any luck we’ll put an end to that, too. Cause if we can’t even uphold our Constitution, we’re no better than the terrorists.”
The program in question was instituted in secret by the National Security Agency after the 9/11 attacks, which FBI officials report occurred in New York back in 2001, although the ACLU is currently suing the FBI for releasing that information on the grounds that it could cause prejudice against radical Islamic terrorists.
Last August, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor decided that the program violated not only the “rights to free speech and privacy under the 1st and 4th amendments,” but also the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that was passed by Congress in 1978 after President Carter wanted to know how his wife was racking up such high phone bills. Several reports, however, claim that Judge Taylor was merely on her period at the time of the ruling.
The 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals gave the government time to appeal Taylor’s ruling, thus allowing the program, which monitors phone calls and e-mails without a warrant, to continue. When word of this first got out, creepy old men were hesitant to send random e-mails to young girls on MySpace for months.
The NSA’s surveillance programs were first called into question after the New York Times reported in December of 2005 that they were “listening in on international phone calls involving people suspected of having ties to terrorists.” (CNN) Given that people with ties to terrorists do not appreciate being eavesdropped upon, the commotion caused by the report came as no surprise since they had heard them talking about it on the phone the night before.
Certain legal scholars, who must not have ties to terrorist networks since they’re objecting, argue that the program “is an illegal and unwarranted intrusion on Americans’ privacy,” with an emphasis on “unwarranted.” Said legal scholar John Kreyson, “since they started surveillance on suspected terrorists, there has not been one single terrorist attack in the United States. Yes, part of that is because of Jack Bauer, but it still begs the question, so then why must we invade the privacy of every American in America? Trust me, if they have the power to spy on terrorists, they’re going to spy on each and every one of us, just because they can.”
Since the 1970s, a special federal court has been meeting in secret to decide whether or not to approve warrants for national security surveillance. Just as a police officer believes he has probable cause when approaching a black man at 3am on MLK Boulevard just because he’s selling drugs, the government believes they reserve the right to bypass the FISA court, just because they “think” there is an “imminent security threat”; racist bastards.
