Blog powered by Typepad
Ma Photo

Lectures récentes

« Evolution des débits et unification des services | Accueil | Cinq points importants pour l'adoption d'un nouvel usage : Moves »

22/06/2006

Commentaires

Sechaba

so' would be a striking abadoiticn of its authority. Congress should let the courts address the critical legal questions raised by the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program especially the question of whether the president and the phone companies are bound by Congress' laws in this area. That sums it up nicely, but it gets even worse when you consider some of the that are to take place. The legality of such operations should absolutely be challenged in court.The ACLU has tried, but it lacked standing. No citizen has come forth and claim that any government agency tapped his line without a warrant. Am I wrong in this?Not technically wrong, but it isn't an accurate representation of the legal of this decision. Neither the appeals court nor the Supremes are saying that the wiretapping is illegal. They’re just saying that only those actually impacted by the wiretapping can bring suit — which is tricky since the whole point is that there’s no way for those being tapped to actually know they’re being tapped. This would appear to be a rather ominous omission in the “checks and balances” our government is supposed to have.Of course there is one where the plaintiffs know they were spied on without a warrant, because of a document that was to the plaintiffs by the government that is alleged to demonstrate that they were subjected to warrantless wiretapping. Should that case also be thrown out?Let a judge decide whether to allow surveillance of foreign communications to terrorists in the US.”That is part of it. A judge's approval should be required when one wants to wiretap a communication that has one of its endpoints in the US. After all of one end point is in the US how do you ensure that an American isn't on that endpoint. As I have said before (and the Bush administration has ) foreign to foreign communications that pass through the US are not part of this debate.The other part has to to with the aspects of this program that you continually ignore. There have been that the NSA has/is conducting operations within the US. These operations (aside from being of ) have the gravest privacy implications for Americans, and should almost certainly be halted. At the very least they should be tested in the courts to to determine their constitutionality.Well, one safeguard, dear Dan, is — as I repeatedly stated — the Constitution of the United StatesWhich is a large portion of the legal basis for many these lawsuits. In other words they are trying to use the constitution as a legal tool to provide the safeguards it promises. I cannot understand why you are against this. If no one is allowed to constitutionally challenge the activities of the government, then the protections in the constitution can't be exercised effectively.

L'utilisation des commentaires est désactivée pour cette note.