The Plaintiffs allege the government violated their First Amendment rights?!?!Plaintiffs have alleged that the TSP violates their free speech and associational rights, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution;
Well if the damage is already done and is irreparable, why are they wasting the court's valuable time? :twisted:Plaintiffs have requested a permanent injunction, alleging that they sustain irreparable damage because of the continued existence of the TSP.
You are getting your wiretapping methods slightly confused.
I was just being a smarta$$ about the irreparable harm business, but thanks for the explanation. I have to say, though, I'd be willing to take some cash as compensation for the delay in receiving my GFL. :lol:jrm said:In order to get an injunction (one of the so-called "extraordinary remedies"), one must prove that he has been (or will be) irreparably harmed by the complained-of action. Irreparable harm is harm that cannot be "repaired" with money. Another way of saying this (perhaps making more intuitive sense) is that money damages will not or can not compensate the plaintiff for his injuries. It is commonly understood that money damages do not compensate someone for the loss or infringement of a fundamental right.
Gunstar1 said:You are getting your wiretapping methods slightly confused.
1. Court ordered wiretap (taped the entire conversation) = OK
2. FISA Court ordered sealed wiretap (taped the entire conversation and call records) of international calls to possible terrorists = Ok
3. President Approved NSA wiretap (taped the entire conversation and call records) of of international calls to whoever the NSA wants to listen to that might remotely be a terrorist (no judicial oversight) = As of this ruling, not ok
4. President Apporved NSA searching of phone company database records of local and national call details (basically the detailed phone bill of every call to or from AT&T customers) (international calls are covered under #3) (no judicial oversight) = As of this ruling, National Security Secret
Even though the cell phones they wanted to tap were operating within Iraq, because the conversations were shunted through US hubs, they were subject to FISA restrictions.[quote:121zkin9]October 15, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - U.S. intelligence officials got mired for nearly 10 hours seeking approval to use wiretaps against al Qaeda terrorists suspected of kidnapping Queens soldier Alex Jimenez in Iraq earlier this year, The Post has learned.
This week, Congress plans to vote on a bill that leaves in place the legal hurdles in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - problems that were highlighted during the May search for a group of kidnapped U.S. soldiers.