msnbc.msn.com — In a 2-1 decision, two Republican appointees on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against allowing the lawsuit. A Democratic appointee judge disagreed, saying it was clear to him that the post-9/11 warrantless surveillance program aimed at uncovering terrorist activity violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
Jul 6, 2007 View in Crawl 4
lordmikeJul 7, 2007
Well, it is... in theory... judges are appointed, then confirmed and are not elected.. this is supposed to take politics out of hte equation, but, unfortunately, since politicians make the appointments... well, you know the rest....
sgboothJul 7, 2007
You should read the article again. The law requires standing, which is either harm or threat of harm. The problem here is that the plaintiffs could be harmed, however they were not able to demonstrate they were harmed because any harm would have been a state secret.Accordingly, the judges in this case ruled that there was no standing. The judges merely sidestepped the issue of the program, a typical move for judges. Let me phrase that slightly differently - if the law had been violated - then the court would have made a full decision as to the constitutionality of the program. By pointing out the plaintiffs could not demonstrate harm (because it was a secret), they can dismiss the case without making any ruling on the program.
oprahstitsJul 7, 2007
@GaybrielS"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."-Benjamin Franklin
cryptokiJul 7, 2007
oh and i forgot the monitoring of all phone calls and voip traffic too... sorry. emails, sound files, private programming code, university research.... all potentially tapped. right?
macman88Jul 7, 2007
In Soviet America, International Airports Nationwide signs see you.
ff1959Jul 8, 2007
Another outrage. It never seems to end. All persons opposed to this unspeakable road to dictatorship should run for office and put a stop to this foolishness.