Nov 17, 2007

Domestic Spying Legal? Court Rules Against 4th Amendment

This is an example how one case sets precedent. The legal case is extraordinary. Yet the Constitution is not to be violated, and the previous FISA laws even permit domestic spying in "emergency", and that a warrant can be obtained post facto. Question: If there is probable cause (as this particular case might be)--THEN WHY NOT GET A WARRANT IF EVEN A "LIBERAL COURT" WOULD GIVE YOU ONE? Unless perhaps the Executive has other motives, or questions would be made about who else it wanted to spy upon. The truth is that this "charity" is but one fish caught in a very large net of American citizens (maybe even you), and therefore should not be the basis of broad policy which contradicts the Constitution that preserves our freedoms!

The Constitution does NOT forbid ALL cases of domestic spying, it only forbids it without a warrant from a judge issued upon probable cause! Too much propaganda has clouded this issue. Would republicans want Hillary to have absolute power of domestic spying? (History proves it is abused for political ends). If not they should be sure that the Constitution is upheld irregardless of the Executive in power.

Here is the 4th amendment, which every American should want to safeguard, it prevents tyrannical government powers:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
clipped from

Court rejects challenge to wiretap program

The Bush administration's warrantless spy effort is protected by the 'state secrets' privilege, federal judges rule.

In rejecting a key element of a legal challenge to the government's warrantless wiretapping program, federal appellate judges on Friday demonstrated once again the willingness of U.S. courts to give the Bush administration considerable latitude in handling the war on terror.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, by a 3-0 vote, barred an Islamic charity from using a confidential government document to prove that it had been illegally spied upon, agreeing with the administration that disclosure would reveal "state secrets."

Erwin Chemerinsky, a liberal constitutional law professor at Duke University law school, said the court showed "how much deference even a liberal panel of judges is willing to give the executive branch in situations like this, and I find that very troubling."