August 18, 2006

Not If But When

Zipcard2 says: when it does happen, when we're hit again; don't just blame the terrorists, along with them make sure you add the ACLU and the New York Times to the list as well!

From CNN:

A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency?s program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly taping conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.

In his capacity as ACLU's executive director, Anthony Romero opposes the Bush administration's campaign against international terrorism. Referring to the August 17, 2006 federal court declaration that the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" was unconstitutional:

He called the opinion "another nail in the coffin in the Bush administration's legal strategy in the war on terror." (MSNBC)

It also states in the Fourth Amendment:
Regarding what level of notification must be provided to those who are to be searched: in some cases, notification of not only being searched, but also what is being searched, is necessary. For example, if you are being provided the service
of a pregnancy test, and your sample is used to determine whether or not you have used illicit drugs, that is an illegal means of search if you are not informed. In certain cases the courts have found that where there is reason to believe that notification will lead to the destruction of evidence or the endangerment of lives, the government is not required to notify the searched party. This has been applied in the case of delayed notification, where the government is not required to inform you that you or your residence has been searched. It remains difficult to determine, though, whether certain federal actions are truly legal, or are merely the result of poorly defined legal boundaries.

The law is grey here. No clear cut. Read the Fourth Amendment for Yourself and you will see. So what they are doing is not unconstitutional. Getting a warrant on the other hand, that is still up for debate. Personally they need to clean out the leakers and then they won't have to worry so much about the New York Times getting front page stories!

No comments:

Post a Comment