There are no words.

SackAttack · 07-25-2006, 05:24 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060725/...ecords_lawsuit

"The court is persuaded that requiring AT&T to confirm or deny whether it has disclosed large quantities of telephone records to the federal government could give adversaries of this country valuable insight into the government's intelligence activities."

Let me rephrase that.

"The court is persuaded that requiring AT&T to confirm or deny whether it has broken federal law in illegal cooperation with the federal government could give adversaries of this country valuable insight into the government's illegal intelligence activities."

Anybody who votes for either of the major parties at this point is just perpetuating the problem.

Anybody who can look at bullshit like this and still vote for either of the major parties because they're afraid of the other one gaining power is just a political tool, and perpetuating the problem.

To the lawyers on this board, can a dismissal be appealed?

Jonathan Ezarik · 07-25-2006, 05:38 PM

Damn those liberal activist judges!!!

These two sections make me scratch my head:

Quote:

Justice Department attorneys had argued it that would violate the law against divulging state secrets for AT&T to say whether it had provided telephone records to the supersecret spy agency.

Quote:

(U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly) also said Terkel and the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which sought class-action status, had not shown that their own records had been provided to the government. As a result, they lacked standing to sue the government, he said.

How can the plaintiffs show that their records have been turned over to the government if the government claims it is illegal to do so? Sounds like a Catch-22 to me.

SackAttack · 07-25-2006, 05:59 PM

Yeah, that's the retarded part.

They lack standing because you're denying them the right to prove that they have that standing.

What the judge is saying, in effect, is "It doesn't matter if they broke the law because we accept the government's assertion that allowing you to proceed with a suit against them under existing federal telecommunications law would break the law, even if the government may also have broken the law here - which you also cannot attempt to discover. State secrets, bitches!"

Johnny Slick · 07-25-2006, 07:52 PM

Oh, how I wish this country had a party that, you know, sought to protect peoples' rights to privacy and stuff.

dbd1963 · 07-25-2006, 07:58 PM

It really is time for a new party. The two are so screwed up there's no helping them. The two party system is broken (if it ever worked..)

07-25-2006, 05:59 PM	#3
SackAttack Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Green Bay, WI	Yeah, that's the retarded part. They lack standing because you're denying them the right to prove that they have that standing. What the judge is saying, in effect, is "It doesn't matter if they broke the law because we accept the government's assertion that allowing you to proceed with a suit against them under existing federal telecommunications law would break the law, even if the government may also have broken the law here - which you also cannot attempt to discover. State secrets, bitches!"

07-25-2006, 07:52 PM	#4
Johnny Slick Mascot Join Date: May 2006	Oh, how I wish this country had a party that, you know, sought to protect peoples' rights to privacy and stuff.

07-25-2006, 07:58 PM	#5
dbd1963 High School JV Join Date: Jun 2006	It really is time for a new party. The two are so screwed up there's no helping them. The two party system is broken (if it ever worked..)

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)