« DO most Democrats agree with Jimmy Carter? | Main | Somewhere between Friday and Monday »

August 18, 2006

ACLU lawsuit admits terrorist ties

Patterico wades into the opinion yesterday from one federal judge declaring the terrorist surveillance program (which is erroneously referred to in the MSM as 'wiretapping') unconstitutional and finds a stunning admission.

Plaintiffs here contend that the TSP [”Terrorist Surveillance Program”] has interfered with their ability to carry out their professional responsibilities in a variety of ways, including that the TSP has had a significant impact on their ability to talk with sources, locate witnesses, conduct scholarship, engage in advocacy and communicate with persons who are outside of the United States, including in the Middle East and Asia. Plaintiffs have submitted several declarations to that effect. For example, scholars and journalists such as plaintiffs Tara McKelvey, Larry Diamond, and Barnett Rubin indicate that they must conduct extensive research in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, and must communicate with individuals abroad whom the United States government believes to be terrorist suspects or to be associated with terrorist organizations. In addition, attorneys Nancy Hollander, William Swor, Joshua Dratel, Mohammed Abdrabboh, and Nabih Ayad indicate that they must also communicate with individuals abroad whom the United States government believes to be terrorist suspects or to be associated with terrorist organizations, and must discuss confidential information over the phone and email with their international clients. All of the Plaintiffs contend that the TSP has caused clients, witnesses and sources to discontinue their communications with plaintiffs out of fear that their communications will be intercepted.
Patterico points out that this also belies the bleating from the Islamist apologists on the Left who, upon the NYTimes unconscionable leaking of this program, declared the terrorists already knew they were being monitored and this program was hurting Aunt Mabel trying to exchange recipes with Grandma Matilda.

Obviously, not.

So where is the Constitutional right of American citizens to confidentially communicate with the sworn enemies of the United States? Enemies who have declared war on us?

Anyone honestly think FDR would have sat still for that rationale in WWII?

Oh. That's right. He didn't.

Technorati: , , ,

Posted by Darleen at August 18, 2006 06:54 AM

Comments

You know, just because the government says someone is a terrorist, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are.

Posted by: Josh at August 18, 2006 02:03 PM

"Anyone honestly think FDR would have sat still for that rationale in WWII?"

Darleen,
Please continue to press this point.
FDR, in spite of his sponsorship and support of many social spending programs that complicate our national budget today, was a war hawk who had in mind one singular goal...to defeat our enemies. I would add to his list of policies/strategy that were both controversial and effective the folllowing:

1) Rationing of food items
2) Extensive domestic spying and surveillence by both govt entities and civilians. My grandfather ( too old to serve in WWII) spent every week for three years cruising Norris Lake in East Tennessee as part of an organized unit to detect potential threats to the dam there)
3) Incarceration of Japanese Americans ( Can you even imagine the thought of that today given our current enemies? That would make for an intersting thread.)
4) Massive bombing of "civilian" targets that were known in FDR"s admin as weapons sites hidden among innocents ( sound like Israel?)
Dresden. Berlin. Tokyo. Hamburg.
4) Establishing active defense systems on the beaches of our country? See photo archives of Ponte Vedra beach in 1944, Nantucket, Outer Banks etc. Gun emplacements were everywhere.

And a note to Josh, yeah, you're right in the abstract sense. But if a terrorist had killed many of your friends and family, would you become a little more vigilant? A little more on guard? A little more careful to make sure they didn't kill or harm more of them?

Posted by: Hugh Slatery at August 18, 2006 05:27 PM

And a note to Josh, yeah, you're right in the abstract sense.

You mean the "actual" sense, don't you?

But if a terrorist had killed many of your friends and family, would you become a little more vigilant? A little more on guard? A little more careful to make sure they didn't kill or harm more of them?

What does that have to do with anything? Darleen went from "the Government believes the plaintiffs have terrorist ties" to "the plaintiffs have terrorist ties." Do you share her belief that the government is always right?

Posted by: Josh at August 21, 2006 04:55 PM

Did you know Darleen pays for this weblog from proceeds she receives personally from Osama bin Laden?

It makes sense really when you think about it. His goal is to start WW III. Darleen's goal is to start WW III. Why wouldn't they be working together?

Posted by: Some Other Brian Guy at August 24, 2006 05:13 AM