Courts : ACLU suit against warrantless spying can go forward!

Hell yeah!

Amnesty et al. v. Clapper: FISA Amendment Act Challenge

In September 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the government's request that all of the court's judges rehear a lawsuit filed by the ACLU challenging the FISA Amendments Act (FAA), a law that gives the executive branch virtually unchecked power to collect Americans' international emails and telephone calls. The denial of rehearing allows the ACLU's lawsuit to proceed, upholding an unanimous March 2011 ruling by a three-judge panel that the plaintiffs have the right to challenge the constitutionality of the law.

WAY TO GO ACLU! Time to bring down those bastards violating the constitution, OBAMA INCLUDED.

Obama voted for warrantless spying...
Obama's surveillance vote spurs blogging backlash

Sen. Barack Obama's vote for a federal surveillance law that he had previously opposed has sparked a backlash from his online advocates, who had energized his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.

But eh, keep denying reality, Obama supporters... if there's any of you left around.

reply to post by Vitchilo


I predict a lot of anti-ACLU rhetoric from the GOP to follow if anyone bothers to reply to this thread at all. They seem to think that the ACLU " manufactures 'the gays' ".

For what it's worth, regardless of what opinions you might have against the ACLU, thank God we have groups like the ACLU for times like this so we don't have to sit back and wait for some moronic pipe-dreaming brats from ANON to pretend to protect us from these pigs. Good find

I haven't heard a thing about the wiretaps from the MSM since Obama took office.

Originally posted by Gannicus
I haven't heard a thing about the wiretaps from the MSM since Obama took office.

Big surprise from them...

As always ignoring the important stuff.

They are still ignoring the protests on Wall Street.

Good on the ACLU.

I just wish they werent a bunch of hypocrites pushing for liberty when it suits them and ignoring it when it doesnt.

As far as I know the ACLU still had the official position of damning firearm ownership for individuals.

I guess the "Liberties" in their title is a selective plural rather than an all encompassing one.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Good on the ACLU.

I just wish they werent a bunch of hypocrites pushing for liberty when it suits them and ignoring it when it doesnt.

As far as I know the ACLU still had the official position of damning firearm ownership for individuals.

I guess the "Liberties" in their title is a selective plural rather than an all encompassing one.

Not everyone shares the rhetorical view on firearms... not even all libertarians. America has disgusting gun violence rates compared to every other developed country, especially those resulting in deaths. The argument is that a gun will "protect you from a tyrannical government"... but that's just ridiculous. You can shoot at bulletproof equipment all that you want but it's not going to accomplish anything. You're better off with a flak jacket and a broadsword than a gun if you're going to defend yourself against a tyrannical government.

reply to post by Partisanity


Did I use that argument? I dont believe Ive ever used that argument.

Whether it's guns, coc aine, sodomy, transfats or praying the banning or regulating of a thing, any thing, is a direct contradiction to liberty.

There are a lot of fair-weather libertarians out there who would gingerly accept bans and regulations, sure.
There are a lot of hypocrites and mock-idealists all over the globe.

Doesnt mean squat in the face of reality. We're either free or we arent. There is no middle ground. There is no give and take when it comes to binding chains.

It's a great societal commentary that the American Civil Liberties Union picks and chooses from set "liberties" to form it's positions and pick it's battles. Pathetic and sad really.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Partisanity

 

Whether it's guns, coc aine, sodomy, transfats or praying the banning or regulating of a thing, any thing, is a direct contradiction to liberty.

And murderers should be allowed to murder, people should be allowed to sell their children as sex slaves, etc.. People like you are quite funny, you think that "freedom" is an absolute, where in reality, freedom comes from laws and regulations; how can you feel "free" if you're afraid of your neighbor 24/7? Don't be so naive. Guns don't fall under the category of "things that don't harm others". Please feel free to regurgitate the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" rhetoric so that I can have a monstrous laugh at how such a "devout libertarian" adheres to such obvious partisan nonsense.

It's a great societal commentary that the American Civil Liberties Union picks and chooses from set "liberties" to form it's positions and pick it's battles. Pathetic and sad really.

Nice, cute, and, of course, troll-esque. Glad you decided to tack that on the end.

reply to post by Partisanity


Murderers are allowed to murder and parents are allowed to sell their children.

What barriers exist right now to prevent anyone from walking into where you are right now and killing you? Are they impassible?

What is stopping white-trash Betty from selling her kid for some meth right now?

What are these magical force fields that are preventing any of these horrible things to happen?

Sure, there is a system in place to exact vengeance after the child has been abused and after you or I have been killed. But what's to prevent it? Besides the individual.

Liberty is an absolute. Even with all of these manufactured fantasy safeguards we've put in place we essentially live in complete anarchy since there are no preventative measures that exist now that have not always existed. The only difference now is that we have a vehicle to ruin the lives of an infinite number of non-criminals who harm no one but themselves which is by virtue of it's design supporting the existence of the very entity which created these criminals.

A man once grew a plant and harmed no one. A group of men came along and decided that act was immoral, unethical and declared it "against the law". The majority made the minority "illegal". Now that man under the majority is constantly under pressure to surrender property to that majority, time to that majority, and even his life to that majority. None of what the majority did prevented that man from growing that plant but everything the majority did made that man a bound slave for the benefit of the majority.

This is all law.

If you honestly believe that laws are keeping you safe right now then there's nothing I can say to change that. You have to think about what I've asked you. What is keeping anyone from walking up to you right now and murdering you?

If you think that should these laws be erased tonight the streets would fill with blood tomorrow then there's nothing I can say to change that either. If you've thought about the first question then the same answer applies to the second.

Anyone who is committing a crime right now is doing so regardless of law and would do so without the law. Anyone who is not committing a crime right now would not just opt into harming others if the law went away.

Unless you yourself are some murdering, raping monster only held back by fear of potential consequence then you know what I'm saying is true. Believing otherwise is what makes you the one living in fear 24/7.

As a side note I've never argued gun ownership for the sake of defending myself either. Not from the government, not from my neighbors. I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth.