« "Sicko," U.S. health care | Main | Quoting Epicurus »

July 14, 2007

Wiretapping decision

I am appalled by the recent appeals court ruling preventing citizens from challenging potentially unconstitutional behavior by the government (7/7, A-2, "Spying suit rejected; Judges say plaintiffs lack standing to sue without proof they were monitored"). If allowed to stand, it jeopardizes the value of Constitution upon which our government is based and which the president swore to uphold.

In ruling that the parties filing the suit don't have legal standing since the government declared the evidence a secret, the court has allowed the government to do nearly anything it calls a secret. That is frighteningly similar to the tactics of totalitarian regimes.

While our government must be allowed to ferret out terrorism and other (true) threats to national security, it must operate within constitutional boundaries, using powers obtained through the due process of law. Congress must provide the president with adequate powers and the president must act within the bounds of the law and the Constitution.

Although I hope the current administration has good intentions, many of its actions have been declared unconstitutional and received sharp rebukes by the courts. Thus, while the secret details about efforts like the national surveillance program should not be made public, it is critically important that the key concepts receive a proper adjudication by the court.

Rob Stitt
Lee's Summit

Comments

BuddyT

You know you never know the width and the depth of the dork-wads on here till they post,up...."fox-cooker", lmfao....

BuddyT

Hey "Fox Cooker" look me up, I got your typo right in the front of my skivies, "maroon", lol....

Engineer

Thomas Kirby
Just what are the ill intentions of the Administration? They want to prevent another terrorist attack?

Engineer

Isn't this just a simple legal matter? To sue for damages you have to be able to show that you have been damaged.

cooker_fox

Once I can understand a typo, but twice just shows ingnorance. Typical of his normal rambo drivel.

" Al Quaeda Bill or Rights." - buddyt

Try bill OF rights... and maybe Al-Qeada, or al-qaida, or even al-Qaudah, but not Al Quaeda... geez.

As Bugs Bunny is so fond of saying.. what a maroon...

BuddyT

Like I said the nimrods are writing the Al Quaeda Bill or Rights.....

Tom K

Also: What secrets? They want to spy on whoever they want to spy on. Other than that, there is no information to keep a secret.

Tom K

A "suspected terrorist" can be anyone.

No, the current administration does not have good intentions. That is why people are leaving it. Even John Ashcroft isn't evil enough for them.

irishguy

"Listen the conversations being eavesdropped upon are between suspected and/or confirmed terrorists talking to persons outside this country, they are not between you and your Aunt Mildred Mr. Stitt."

And you know this because George Bush says it's so, and George has never told a lie.

BuddyT

What was it Lincoln said, "I do not think Habeous Corpus should be a death warrant", or something akin to that.

Listen the conversations being eavesdropped upon are between suspected and/or confirmed terrorists talking to persons outside this country, they are not between you and your Aunt Mildred Mr. Stitt.

I, for one, pray to God this surveillance keeps taking place. If it does not, well the next dirty bombing on our shore's blame will be laid at the feet of nimrods like Stitt, who are writing the Al Quaida bill or rights with this kind of drivel.

God save us.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright