PDA

View Full Version : Not What The Anti-Bush Folks Wanted



Kathianne
07-06-2007, 11:26 AM
I guess even GW can't lose them all:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070706/ap_on_re_us/domestic_spying&printer=1;_ylt=AgnXPnZ24Cw9Z3AO8QyJhSlH2ocA


Court rejects Ohio domestic spying suit

By LISA CORNWELL, Associated Press Writer 46 minutes ago

A federal appeals court ordered the dismissal Friday of a lawsuit challenging President Bush's domestic spying program, saying the plaintiffs had no standing to sue.

The 2-1 ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel vacated a 2006 order by a federal judge in Detroit, who found that the post-Sept. 11 warrantless surveillance aimed at uncovering terrorist activity violated constitutional rights to privacy and free speech and the separation of powers.

U.S. Circuit Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, one of the two Republican appointees who ruled against the plaintiffs, said they failed to show they were subject to the surveillance.

The dissenting judge, Democratic appointee Ronald Lee Gilman, believed the plaintiffs were within their rights to sue and that it was clear to him the program violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

Although the Bush administration said in January the program is now overseen by a special federal intelligence court, opponents said that without a court order, the president could resume the spying outside judicial authority at any time. The Justice Department has said the case is moot...

nevadamedic
07-06-2007, 11:34 AM
The Liberals will come up with an excuse, they always do.

Kathianne
07-06-2007, 11:36 AM
The Liberals will come up with an excuse, they always do.

An excuse for what?

nevadamedic
07-06-2007, 11:39 AM
An excuse for what?

Why he didn't get introuble like he paid he courts or something stupid.

Hagbard Celine
07-06-2007, 11:40 AM
The Liberals will come up with an excuse, they always do.

You mean a LEGAL excuse? What they're really going to come up with is a plaintiff who was targeted with illegal surveillance.

Kathianne
07-06-2007, 11:45 AM
You mean a LEGAL excuse? What they're really going to come up with is a plaintiff who was targeted with illegal surveillance.

Yep, at least have a reason.

Mr. P
07-06-2007, 11:46 AM
You mean a LEGAL excuse? What they're really going to come up with is a plaintiff who was targeted with illegal surveillance.

You would think they would have done that to start with..makes ya think there aren't any doesn't it.

nevadamedic
07-06-2007, 11:48 AM
You would think they would have done that to start with..makes ya think there aren't any doesn't it.

Either that or they just arn't smart enough to realize that they should have done that to begin with.

nevadamedic
07-06-2007, 11:51 AM
When you bring allegations against the any President of our country the burden of proof should be higher, like someone witnessing high heels sticking out under Bill Clinton's Presidential Desk, or going in his cigar box and finding a soggy cigar. :laugh2:

avatar4321
07-06-2007, 03:10 PM
You mean a LEGAL excuse? What they're really going to come up with is a plaintiff who was targeted with illegal surveillance.

Well considering no one has, i doubt they will ever succeed.