Government defends domestic spying in court

[sabra]

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1535523

Government defends domestic spying in court

DETROIT (AP) -- The federal government defended its warrantless domestic surveillance program in court for the first time Monday, saying it is well within the president's authority but that proving that would require revealing state secrets.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor was hearing arguments in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union against the National Security Agency.

The ACLU wants the program halted immediately, arguing that it violates the rights to free speech and privacy, and says the government has already publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to find it illegal.

The Bush administration wants Taylor to dismiss the lawsuit.

"This case does not involve easy questions," government attorney Anthony J. Coppolino said. "It's a case that requires a robust factual record."

[Norquist Nemesis]

1. Well, I didn't expect Bush etal to just throw up their hands

and say "oops!" Especially in an election year. Some of those warrentless, un-reviewed conversations and emails could prove very...valuable.

[Vincardog]

2. This case DOES involve easy questions for anyone who can read the 4'th

4th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Does anyone see any BS about except when an Insane pResident starts a voluntary war of aggression against an country that poses no threat to us?

[Kagemusha]

3. There is no secret US Constitution. What state secrets?

What factual basis is required to prove it's well within the President's power if it's not in the President's power according to the written law known to the public?

[HuffleClaw]

4. "revealing state secrets" has been BushCo.'s latest catchall 'defence'

when facing embarassing questions in court. they've used this defence more than any other administration.

[Judi Lynn]

5. Government defends domestic spying in court

Government defends domestic spying in court
Plaintiffs, judge hampered by access to classified information

Updated: 31 minutes ago

DETROIT - The federal government defended its warrantless domestic surveillance program in court for the first time Monday, saying it is well within the president’s authority, but that proving that would require revealing state secrets.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor was hearing arguments in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union against the National Security Agency.

The ACLU wants the program halted immediately, arguing that it violates the rights to free speech and privacy, and says the government has already publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to find it illegal.

The Bush administration wants Taylor to dismiss the lawsuit.

“This case does not involve easy questions,” government attorney Anthony J. Coppolino said. “It’s a case that requires a robust factual record.”
(snip/...)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13280547/

[Qutzupalotl]

6. The administration's defense is

to play the "9/11-do-anything-I-want" card. Good luck with that.

So proving the program is within the president's authority would require revealing state secrets? Oh, then I guess you won't be able to prove that, huh? Does the defense rest?

[Ringo84]

7. Re:

"Defend" domestic spying? Can't be done; domestic spying is indefensible. It's illegal, it's unconstitutional, it's unamerican.

I also agreed with the other person who said that * was trying to play on the "'9/11 so I can do whatever I want' card". Americans may finally be starting to see through that ruse.
Ringo

[Qutzupalotl]

8. That's why they want to dismiss the lawsuit.

Because they know they'd lose.

[depakid]

9. Alice in fucking wonderland

Nothing- and I mean nothing these people say surprises me anymore.