I think Mary has touched on this before

But could the reason they’re fighting this so hard is it’s all CYA because they know they’re guilty as sin and they think millions of us will make Bivens claims?

Heck, I’ll just settle for a “sorry won’t happen again”

This unconstitutional assault on the civil rights of Americans shows your utter disrespect both for the laws of the nation and for those of us who voted for you.

Continuing the illegal spying or torturing would be an actual assault. Do you also consider the taking of a particular legal position to be an assault?

What if there is a strategy at play and you simply don’t see the full intent of this one step? Are you willing to at least pocket the letter until you see the whole sweep of this thing, before deciding?

FBI Director Pushes to Renew PATRIOT Act Surveillance Powers
>>
Earlier this month, the ACLU released a report taking stock of the USA PATRIOT Act, almost eight years after its passage. The study, titled “Reclaiming Patriotism,” identifies key sections of the law that codified the most radical abuses of power under the Bush administration, interweaving stories of people who were unlawfully spied on, coerced, and intimidated through the PATRIOT Act’s sweeping powers.

“More than seven years after its implementation, there is little evidence to demonstrate that the Patriot Act has made America more secure from terrorists,” the report’s authors write. “But there are many unfortunate examples that the government abused these authorities in ways that both violated the rights of innocent people and squandered precious security resources.”

The ACLU report highlights three specific provisions of the PATRIOT Act that have led to unprecedented surveillance against Americans:>>>>>>>

Definitely worth a read. And I think Pelosi is rather alarmed at this power grab or she wouldn’t have gone on Olbermann.
Gotta go…I’m working. Vale!

Here’s my comment on parts of the brief from yesterday’s Greenwald thread:

I really, really hate this part:

plaintiff’s allegation that the NSA has indiscriminately collected the content of millions of communications sent or received by people inside the United States after 9/11 is false

Think like a weasel: ‘indiscriminately’ maybe should have been ‘in a discriminating manner’; ‘collected’ maybe should have been ‘recorded’; ‘millions’ should maybe have been ‘billions’; ‘people’ should maybe be ‘any person or persons’.

They said a lot, but clearly did not say they weren’t spying on Americans.

Is it a requirement of lawyering and judging that common sense be thrown on the trash heap?

Yes. ‘common sense’ is something entirely different from law. Remember, law is created by politicians and we know they have a lot of things influencing them and common sense is low on the list.

Can’t someone be “aggrieved” by being illegally spied upon, even if the government never publicly releases the information it gathered? This argument just doesn’t make any sense to me.

I am not terribly happy that one has to prove the government has violated the law specifically with regard to oneself before taking a case to court to prove the same.

Isn’t there a case to be made that when the government acts illegally, say in foreign relations with people of some other countries, that each and every American is aggrieved and harmed? Am I not harmed when my government intentionally violates the Constitution of MY nation?

Constitutional Law and government actions go beyond it’s interactions with each of us American persons.

Please be advised I will be paying off and canceling my Visa card if JP Morgan Chase forces Chrysler into bankruptcy, by denying it the necessary restructuring of debt to complete its merger with Fiat.

Please advise me of the Company’s intentions in this matter, as soon as determined.

This one I hate to have to do, as it is/soon-to-be-was my airline mileage earning card with United. Perhaps United should hear from us, as well? How many other corporations have their affinity cards with Chase?