LOS ANGELES - A federal appeals court in San Francisco yesterday handed a major victory to the Bush administration, ruling that a lawsuit challenging the government's warrantless wiretapping program could not go forward because of the "state secrets" privilege.

In a 3-to-0 decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sided with the government, which had argued that allowing an Islamic charity's assertion that it was illegally spied upon would threaten national security.

In the opinion, Judge M. Margaret McKeown flatly rejected the government's argument that "the very subject matter of the litigation is a state secret."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/17/court_upholds_bushs_state_secrets_defense/

How many freedoms will this country's government take away before we, the citizens, open our eyes and say NO MORE? How many corporate assholes like Bush, Hillary, Romney, etc. do we have to elect before the electorate figures out that they're destroying this country? I'm getting mightily sick of the disappearing freedoms, the tanking dollar, and so forth.

it will go on as long as there is cheap junk food, easy chairs, and T.V. for the masses.

television, drug of a nation.

What 'freedoms' are being given up? The judges looked at the case the gov't was going to present and sided with it, in accordance with the law. Unless you beleive the judges have been bought and sold i'm not sure what your complaint is.

What 'freedoms' are being given up? The judges looked at the case the gov't was going to present and sided with it, in accordance with the law.
I'm not sure how you (or they, for that matter) can read the Fourth Amendment and claim this decision is "in accordance with the law" with a straight face. The Constitution is not suspended just because the Bush Administration claims "state secrets".

I'm not sure how you (or they, for that matter) can read the Fourth Amendment and claim this decision is "in accordance with the law" with a straight face. The Constitution is not suspended just because the Bush Administration claims "state secrets".

The judge was afforded the opportunity to examine the "secrets" at stake. As long as we're getting judicial review, it sounds reasonable to me. This actually happens in other areas of the law...it's called "in camera" review. This technique is used for situations when the judge must review the evidence in question to make a decision, but the information is of such a nature that it can't be revealed to the other party.

This puts a lot of power in the hands of the judge, yes, but it preserves the system of checks and balances and makes more sense than publishing sensitive information.

Besides, do you really want some policy in place that enables foreign enemies to obtain sensitive information merely by filing suit?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/17/court_upholds_bushs_state_secrets_defense/

How many freedoms will this country's government take away before we, the citizens, open our eyes and say NO MORE? How many corporate assholes like Bush, Hillary, Romney, etc. do we have to elect before the electorate figures out that they're destroying this country? I'm getting mightily sick of the disappearing freedoms, the tanking dollar, and so forth.

Well said. I cannot say I am suprised that the politicized judicial system is defending Bush.

Americans have our work cut out for us in restoring the Constitution. It will be a steep uphill battle.

Uh, the 'politicized' judgement came from the 9th circuit appeals court. The 9th is widely considered the most liberal circuit appeals court.

Uh, the 'politicized' judgement came from the 9th circuit appeals court. The 9th is widely considered the most liberal circuit appeals court.
What's your point?

The notion that the 'politicized judicial system' is defending bush is a crock of shit.

Um... Waldo... they are supporting Bush. Hence the ruling that was not against him. That was kind of the entire point of this thread. :rolleyes:

The judge was afforded the opportunity to examine the "secrets" at stake. As long as we're getting judicial review, it sounds reasonable to me. This actually happens in other areas of the law...it's called "in camera" review. This technique is used for situations when the judge must review the evidence in question to make a decision, but the information is of such a nature that it can't be revealed to the other party.

This puts a lot of power in the hands of the judge, yes, but it preserves the system of checks and balances and makes more sense than publishing sensitive information.

Besides, do you really want some policy in place that enables foreign enemies to obtain sensitive information merely by filing suit?
I absolutely agree with you here. Considering that the court is considered "liberal", I'm not worried about any sort of conspiracy. Our system of checks and balances is not perfect, but I don't think we'll ever find a way to run our government that is absolutely flawless.

Um... Waldo... they are supporting Bush. Hence the ruling that was not against him. That was kind of the entire point of this thread. :rolleyes:

If you think that was the point of the thread you might want to re-read Borg's opening post. To wit How many freedoms will this country's government take away before we, the citizens, open our eyes and say NO MORE? How many corporate assholes like Bush, Hillary, Romney, etc. do we have to elect before the electorate figures out that they're destroying this country? I'm getting mightily sick of the disappearing freedoms

And then you would want to read drama's support of that position and his description of the judicial system as politicized. Then come back and tell us what you think.

If you think that was the point of the thread you might want to re-read Borg's opening post. To wit

And then you would want to read drama's support of that position and his description of the judicial system as politicized. Then come back and tell us what you think.
Who appoints judges?

By the way, I never said the court was "politicized". I said they were taking away our freedoms. There's a difference.

If you think that was the point of the thread you might want to re-read Borg's opening post. To wit

And then you would want to read drama's support of that position and his description of the judicial system as politicized. Then come back and tell us what you think.
You said that it was nonsense that the judicial system is supporting Bush. They are supporting Bush. Perhaps you meant to say that dharma's claim that the judicial system is politicized is nonsense. By the "point of the thread" I meant the reason Borg started it, not the opinions he or dharma put forth. Of course I don't agree with either of them; I already stated that I agreed with what Leper said in his post.

The judge was afforded the opportunity to examine the "secrets" at stake. As long as we're getting judicial review, it sounds reasonable to me. This actually happens in other areas of the law...it's called "in camera" review. This technique is used for situations when the judge must review the evidence in question to make a decision, but the information is of such a nature that it can't be revealed to the other party.

This puts a lot of power in the hands of the judge, yes, but it preserves the system of checks and balances and makes more sense than publishing sensitive information.

Besides, do you really want some policy in place that enables foreign enemies to obtain sensitive information merely by filing suit?
I don't honestly care if they have state secrets that they need to protect. What I don't understand is how warrantless wiretapping is consistent with the Constitution. That's my point.

I absolutely agree with you here. Considering that the court is considered "liberal", I'm not worried about any sort of conspiracy. Our system of checks and balances is not perfect, but I don't think we'll ever find a way to run our government that is absolutely flawless.
Are you saying that because the government is a work of man, and man is imperfect, we should allow the executive branch to tap people's phone lines without a warrant? I don't understand how that follows.

Are you saying that because the government is a work of man, and man is imperfect, we should allow the executive branch to tap people's phone lines without a warrant? I don't understand how that follows.
If the judge thinks it's appropriate, because of whatever secrets he saw, then I'd say it's the best solution we have. We can't exactly make the government release those secrets to the public. But I have to ask, if they could get a judge to agree with them after the fact, how come they couldn't get a judge to give them a warrant in the first place?

If the judge thinks it's appropriate, because of whatever secrets he saw, then I'd say it's the best solution we have. We can't exactly make the government release those secrets to the public.
I don't understand how it could ever be appropriate to disregard the Constitution. But I suppose that's why I'm not a federal judge.

I don't honestly care if they have state secrets that they need to protect. What I don't understand is how warrantless wiretapping is consistent with the Constitution. That's my point.

International communications are not protected by the Constitution.

International communications are not protected by the Constitution.
Is this wiretapping going on by the CIA off of U.S. soil? If so, I retract what I said. I was under the impression this was occurring on U.S. soil.

Who appoints judges?if you read the article it tells you who appointed the judges.

By the way, I never said the court was "politicized". I said they were taking away our freedoms. There's a difference.

The comment wasn't directed to you, rather drama.

You said that it was nonsense that the judicial system is supporting Bush. They are supporting Bush. Perhaps you meant to say that dharma's claim that the judicial system is politicized is nonsense. By the "point of the thread" I meant the reason Borg started it, not the opinions he or dharma put forth. Of course I don't agree with either of them; I already stated that I agreed with what Leper said in his post.

No. i pointed out that the notion that the system was 'politicized', which is what drama was suggesting, is a crock.

No. i pointed out that the notion that the system was 'politicized', which is what drama was suggesting, is a crock.
Perhaps that's what you meant to say, but if you reread your sentence I'm sure you'll realize that's not what you said. :thumbs: