Groups Sue to Stop Domestic Spying Program

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/000555print.html

Debbie Schlussel: Who's Behind the ACLU NSA Lawsuit . . . And Why Are They Lying?


By Debbie Schlussel

EXCERPT

You've heard a lot about the ACLU lawsuit since its filing yesterday.

But you haven't heard much about its less famous plaintiffs, plaintiffs with whom I'm all too familiar and about whom I've written a great deal. The details on these individuals makes the National Security Agency's monitoring of phone calls not just warranted, but a necessity.

I'm not referring to the famous Plaintiffs about whom you've heard: For example, Christopher Hitchens, the well-known Vanity Fair writer who is tight with convicted felon lobbyist Jack Abramoff's money launderer Grover Norquist. (Norquist's receipt of thousands from Saudi charities raided by Customs for billions in Al-Qaeda money laundering is well-known, and Hitchens wrote glowingly of Norquist's efforts on behalf of radical Islam).


ACLU Lawsuit's Noel Saleh & Mohammed Abdrabboh:
They SHOULD Be Monitored.
I'm referring to ACLU lawyers Noel Saleh, Mohammed Abdrabboh, and Nabih Ayad, the ACLU Plaintiffs named in the yesterday's Complaint, attorney William Swor, a member National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Nazih Hassan--all named in the lawsuit. They are exactly the kind of people whom the federal government SHOULD be watching, but probably isn't. One of these men admitted to funding Hezbollah, one was accused of tampering with a witness, and a third signed a document contradicting statements he made in the lawsuit. Not to mention, one of these men engaged in exactly the same "spying" (on me) that he now opposes when done by the NSA.

 

Argueably.

But not by the NSA and not without a warrant. There are legal ways to monitor. Are we not a nation of laws?

 

It is no surprise to me that some aclu attorneys have terrorist ties aside from some of their clients.

 

Truth doesn't matter to you people, does it? As Rush says, "It's the seriousness of the charge that matters", not substance.

 

Me, neither.

 

Unfortunately, Rush is nothing more than a shill for the Republican Party and the Bush administration. </font>[/QUOTE]--------------------------------
(Gasp!) I don't believe you said that KenH but you are only stating the obvious. Rush was at the top of his game in the early 90's but eight years of Clinton and more has obviously taken its toll on Rush.

 

Oh yeah . That'll do it everytime.

 

You call him a shill, which further exposes your leftward freefall, but I actually agree with your assessment here.

 

I believe this lawsuit is more about information than it is the fourth amendment, at least to some of the plaintiffs.

If you were communicating with a terrorist, wouldn't you want to know what intelligence agencies knew about your communications?

The pretrial battles will mainly be a fishing expedition with the plaintiffs trying to get their hands on intelligence that is highly classified. They won't hesitate to share whatever they find out with their terrorist connections, if they have any.

It is apparent by reading their complaints that none of the plaintiffs can establish going in that any harm has been done to them at all. A judge may throw the thing out of court to begin with.

 

The plaintiffs do not have legal standing to pursue this case...

 

Yep. Moving from the Right to the Center on non-cultural issues is a leftward move. It is not a free fall. I have moved there voluntarily with my eyes wide open. </font>[/QUOTE]I know, and that's the pity of it.

 

I have a problem with believers abandoning fellow Christians and their principals, and moving from Christian core values to leftist positions. What I fail to grasp is that, that persons true core values, are not what I would expect from a believer.

 

Unfortunately, Rush is nothing more than a shill for the Republican Party and the Bush administration. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm guessing you didn't listen to him during the Harriet Meyers debaucle. In fact, I don't have to guess, cuz you wouldn't have said that, if you indeed listened to him.