Gay Patriot Header Image

ACLU Sues White House For Spying On Terrorists.

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 6:00 am - December 19, 2005.
Filed under: War On Terror

A great parody (maybe?!?) at Jerhad!.com.

WASHINGTON, DC — The ACLU announced today that they are representing more than 200 Al Qaeda members in the United States in a lawsuit against the White House after it was discovered that they were being monitored without a warrant.

“We’re outraged!” said ACLU representative, Commie Greenstien. “I can’t believe the nerve of these people spying on terror.. um, immigrants without getting a warrant. They’ll pay for it. Trust me. Some day these people will get the respect they deserve from our government. Maybe once this lawsuit is filed we’ll step in the right direction.”

The ACLU was unable to disclose the names of any terrorists they represent for fear of having their heads cut off. The New York Times offered to assist in any way possible with the case.

This is also a my subtle way to allow you to comment on the President’s authorizing of spying of international calls made from the US following the 9/11 attacks.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

19 Comments

  1. In a free country, I think it’s legitimate to have the spying come out and to ask questions about it.

    …Even if the spying was a national security operation, leaked illegally to the media by partisan (Democrat-leaning) officials in an hypocritical violation of all those laws they are worked-up about in the Plame case. Because lovers of liberty should not eternally trust any government officials.

    I think the right questions to ask about the spying are:

    – Did the Administration restrict it to legitimately terrorist suspects?
    – Did the Admin. consult the Legislative and Judicial branches?
    – Did the Admin. strictly follow U.S. law, and intend to?

    On present information, the answers would be: yes, yes and yes. That’s where, when and why the Democrats should cut the crap.

    Comment by Calarato — December 19, 2005 @ 11:07 am - December 19, 2005

  2. Exactly, Calarato. What the ACLU and others have their pants in a wad over is the fact that our own government had the gall to monitor international phone calls and emails to and from the phones and email accounts of known terrorists and those linked to known terrorists.

    As the original article points out, what really kicked this program into high gear was the capture of several al-Qaeda operatives and their phones/address books/computers. The government then worked backwards from those, as one would in a typical investigation.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2005 @ 12:17 pm - December 19, 2005

  3. Perhaps an additional question that should be answered is how far should we go in waging the war on terror? Is there any price to high to pay?

    Democracy is after all, an inherently risky system. You can’t have the Democracy without accepting the risk.

    This President is vigorously defending his actions by saying this is what he has to do in order to keep Americans safe. So what actions would he NOT be willing to take?

    Americans have shown a sensible willingness to suspend the recognition of some civil right in war-time, in order to protect national security. But what about when that war has no conceivable end?

    In the end it matters little whether what the President did broke any laws, its what the people think about the idea of the government wiretapping citizens that will control the outcome of this latest tempest at the White House.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 19, 2005 @ 6:07 pm - December 19, 2005

  4. “This President is vigorously defending his actions by saying this is what he has to do in order to keep Americans safe. So what actions would he NOT be willing to take?”

    Violations of the law, Gryph.

    Of course I can’t speak for Bush and he might well violate the law if it were a question of New York being incinerated in the next 24 hours. But the hallmark of everything this Administration has done, that we know about, has been its conscious and intentional legality (under existing law).

    “In the end it matters little whether what the President did broke any laws, its what the people think about the idea of the government wiretapping citizens that will control the outcome of this latest tempest at the White House.”

    In other words – You have no real point? Are you saying, ‘If a statistical majority views it as bad, then it is or will have been bad; if a statistical majority views it as good, then it is or will have been good’?

    That’s sure what it sounds like… so if not, please tell us what you do mean.

    Comment by Calarato — December 19, 2005 @ 7:07 pm - December 19, 2005

  5. Oh, and RE: “…the idea of the government wiretapping citizens…”

    That mischaracterizes the situation. Let’s be clear. The government wiretapped legitimately suspected terrorists, in their overseas phone conversations only.

    And as allowed under existing law, and in consultation with Congressional leaders of both parties. Keep all that in mind before writing anything too hyperbolic or Andrew Sullivan-ish.

    Comment by Calarato — December 19, 2005 @ 7:15 pm - December 19, 2005

  6. 3/5: So when is the line drawn on this? If the wiretaps are secret, then who will decide the legitimacy of them? Why can’t wiretaps be approved by the judicial system, but left sealed? If this war against terrorism is indeed never-ending, then that means that there is no line deep or wide enough that can’t be crossed.

    I think we need to look a little more closely at any leader (again, I don’t care if they are conservative or liberal) who advocates secretly spying on his/her own citizens, no matter how justified we might believe it to be. a lot of governments eventually came down by starting on this path.

    Comment by Kevin — December 19, 2005 @ 8:18 pm - December 19, 2005

  7. This is not an easy black and white issue. I am, of course, grateful that the administration took steps that likely impeded or disrupted terrorist activities against the United States. But we are a nation of laws and I am bothered that the Bush Administration failed to make the NSA “syping” clearly legal by retroactively getting approval from the FISA court.

    Comment by Jack Allen — December 20, 2005 @ 2:17 am - December 20, 2005

  8. According to Volokh’s latest post (from Orin), no, the Bush Admin did not follow the law.
    http://volokh.com/posts/1135029722.shtml
    Even the arguments that he didn’t violate the Constitution are shaky. Does this mean we can talk about it again? Calarato, I understand your analysis, but do you think we could let somebody besides the people who did these things have a say in whether or not it was illegal? It’s like asking a corporate raider, “Did you steal from your company, and if so, was it legal?” We need to ask somebody besides the Bush Admin and their lawyers for an opinion.
    Has anyone read how Bush is defending this? He is either claiming that Congress’ Act after 9/11 gave him power to do anything he wanted, or that Article II does.
    If Clinton said this, would we be buying it?

    Comment by Daniel Montiel — December 20, 2005 @ 2:53 am - December 20, 2005

  9. #2

    What the ACLU and others have their pants in a wad over is the fact that our own government had the gall to monitor international phone calls and emails to and from the phones and email accounts of known terrorists and those linked to known terrorists.

    More specifcally, they’re hysterical because a Republican government did it. Nobody would bat an eyelash if it was a Democrat president. Actually, they’d be more pissed that it was leaked.

    What I want to know is why are we wasting our time with Valerie Plame BS instead of investigating REAL leaks which causing REAL danger to our country?

    Comment by TGC — December 20, 2005 @ 3:45 am - December 20, 2005

  10. Further, why would The DNC Times spike the story because WH asked them to?
    Why did they release the story to publicize the writer’s book?

    Jeremy also has an article on how The DNC Times printed a book ad on the front page.

    Comment by TGC — December 20, 2005 @ 5:53 am - December 20, 2005

  11. BTW, in Jerhad’s post I love the parody touch, “ACLU representative, Commie Greenstien” 🙂

    The parody is not that far off reality since some Democrats are (again) talking about bringing articles of impeachment against Bush.

    Some people make it a very strange world. The Federal government’s job is to monitor and block the activities of well-suspected terrorists – within existing law. The Bush Administration does, and for doing its job, it should of course be impeached. Meanwhile, Clinton was (as we now know) NEGLECTING the government’s national security duties while playing with the interns, and for that, Clinton should of course NOT have been impeached.

    Comment by Calarato — December 20, 2005 @ 10:38 am - December 20, 2005

  12. Thoughtful post from Powerline: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012606.php

    Comment by Calarato — December 20, 2005 @ 11:09 am - December 20, 2005

  13. “ACLU representative, Commie Greenstien” Red baiting and anti-semitism–how amusing. You people are pathetic.

    Comment by Brendan Flynn — December 20, 2005 @ 11:49 am - December 20, 2005

  14. Anti-Semitism? Where?

    And since when are parodies not supposed to make fun of near-Communist anti-Americans? – Oh, when one is a pompous liberal, who only wants parodies going the other way! 🙂

    Comment by Calarato — December 20, 2005 @ 11:58 am - December 20, 2005

  15. Are you as stupid as you appear or is it an act? “Commie Greenstein” and you ask “Anti-Semitism? Where?” the commie jew is an old trope–it played quite a role in Nazi Germany for example and the John Birch society was fond of it also.

    Comment by Brendan Flynn — December 20, 2005 @ 12:11 pm - December 20, 2005

  16. So, your claim is that “Greenstein”, as a name, is specifically and visibly Jewish?

    Comment by Calarato — December 20, 2005 @ 12:20 pm - December 20, 2005

  17. P.S. To me, it is an ethnically German name – translates as “green rock”, perhaps suggesting a moss-grown rock – and more evocative of liberal ACLU lawyer types in general.

    If there happens to be an overlap between Jews and “liberal ACLU lawyer types in general” as I’ve put it, please enlighten me as to its nature and extent.

    Comment by Calarato — December 20, 2005 @ 12:23 pm - December 20, 2005

  18. #15

    You forgot the modern liberals.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 21, 2005 @ 2:50 am - December 21, 2005

  19. “#15 You forgot the modern liberals. ” What an insightful argument–the analytical abilities of the posters on this site are remarkable!

    Comment by Brendan Flynn — December 21, 2005 @ 7:28 am - December 21, 2005

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.