Comments on: ACLU Lawsuit Against NSA Is Weak

By: A Tic In The Mind's Eye

A Tic In The Mind's Eye — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:50:18 +0000

Stop The ACLU Blogburst – Stop the Insanity!
This is a bit extreme. But it makes sense considering the ruling of Detroit 36th District Court Judge Rudy Serra that this…

is not a weapon but a religious symbol, and could be allowed on a campus near you! Read about it
here
…
Had e…

By: Peakah's Provocations...

Peakah's Provocations... — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 04:40:58 +0000

And in this Corn-ahh, Weighin in at…
Remember all the blowhards who had a soapbox screaming that Bush didn’t ‘connect the dots’ that lead to the disaster on September 11th? Well, the same schmucks are now attempting to take his dot connecting pencil away…

By: The Political Teen &#187; ACLU To Sue NSA, Case Is Apparently Week

The Political Teen &#187; ACLU To Sue NSA, Case Is Apparently Week — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 01:05:38 +0000

[...] (via Stop the ACLU) [...]

By: Ms. Underestimated

Ms. Underestimated — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 22:47:50 +0000

ACLU to Take On NSA
Excuse me, Mr. Diamond, but isn’t the burden of proof your onus? You can’t just make broad-brush generalizations against the NSA without any proof!

By: ReidBlog

ReidBlog — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 21:23:12 +0000

What Gore said
If the President has the inherent authority to eavesdrop, imprison citizens on his own declaration, kidnap and torture, then what can?t he do?

By: Jack

Jack — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 19:45:00 +0000

As a lawyer involved in the case, I want to assure AJ that we did indeed discuss the standing issue, specifically whether journalists can claim a chilling effect on their sources and the decidely WRONG chiling effect on the attorney-client privilege, which is the oldest privilege at English common law. We believe the suit is sound.

But it was Peter Bella’s comment that made me want to add two cents here. Years ago, Boswell reported Samuel Johnson’s reply to the question: How can a lawyer represent a cause he knows is wrong? Dr. Johnson supposedly replied, “My dear Sir — I know not whether my cause is right or wrong until the judge tells me so!”

This lawsuit is good for all Americans, but particularly so for those U.S. persons with unusual political and religious beliefs and associations.

By: sharky

sharky — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 18:25:25 +0000

I support what the President is doing, but looking at FISA doesn’t solve his problem. “Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.”

Yes, we are at war, the war on terror is real and needs to be one, but it isn’t a declared war. They are going to have to find another loop-hole.

By: Peter Bella

Peter Bella — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 18:20:09 +0000

The problem with legal experts is that no matter their expertise in interpreting the laws and regulations and how right they may be, they can still be wrong. Remember, jurists render decisions. Many times, as we see on a daily basis, these decisions defy belief. All it takes is one judge who is on the same agenda with the ACLU and they win.

Then the appeals process begins. Up until the point that the US Supreme court rules, years later, they can claim victory. That is all that counts, claiming victory.

By: Anonymous Liberal

Anonymous Liberal — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 15:28:21 +0000

As a purely legal matter, AJ doesn’t really know what he’s talking about. Standing is a notriously nebulous doctrine and it’s always difficult to predict how a judge will rule, but these suits aren’t surefire losers. The ACLU has good lawyers working for them and they’ve come up with a fairly clever argument for standing.

They’re arguing that the mere fact that warrantless wiretapping is taking place is chilling protected communications. The alleged injury does not depend on whether the plaintiffs can show that they were personally spied upon. And they’re not arguing that commucations with terrorists are being disrupted. They are arguing that communications with non-terrorists are being disrupted because those non-terrorist value their privacy and don’t want to be caught up in the NSA’s net.

Again, who knows whether a court will buy this argument and allow the cases to proceed, but the argument itself is stronger than you or AJ give it credit for.