Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Alpharetta Lawyer Sues Bush Over Wiretaps
AJC ^ | 01/21/06 | Carlos Campos

Posted on 01/20/2006 7:36:18 PM PST by groanup

Alpharetta lawyer sues Bush over wiretaps

By CARLOS CAMPOS

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 01/21/06

An Alpharetta man filed a federal lawsuit on Friday against President Bush, claiming the administration's secret wiretapping program aimed at nabbing terrorists is unconstitutional.

Mark Guzzi, 40, claims that the government's surveillance of telephone and Internet communications violates his First Amendment protection of free speech and the Fourth Amendment's right to privacy. Guzzi is a lawyer for the state Department of Corrections, but he said he filed the lawsuit as a private citizen.

The lawsuit names President Bush, the National Security Agency and the NSA's director as defendants.

snip

Guzzi said Friday he has developed friendships overseas, before the 2001 terrorist attacks, and worries that communications with those friends are being monitored.

snip

It was not unusual for him to discuss topics such as the mindset of terrorists, suicide bombings, the United States' approach to the war on terror, the war in Iraq and other related subjects in the course of a typical conversation — particularly since his friends are both of Middle Eastern descent, he said.

snip

Guzzi said he has no way of knowing whether he was actually monitored, since the program is secret.

snip

Guzzi emphasized that his lawsuit has nothing to do with his position as assistant general counsel — the No. 2 lawyer — for the Georgia Department of Corrections. Guzzi also said the lawsuit is not politically motivated and that he supports the war on terror and the goal of apprehending terrorists. He simply objects to the wiretapping, claiming that the administration is pursuing terrorists at the expense of his civil liberties and the American form of government.

Staff writer Bill Rankin contributed to this article.

(Excerpt) Read more at ajc.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: homelandsecurity; lawsuit; nsa; patriotleak; spying; wiretaps
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-103 next last
To: takenoprisoner
Is it OK if an American of Vietnamese or Russian ancestry serves in the Armed Forces?

Or will you be suspicious they might write another Patriot Act?

61 posted on 01/20/2006 10:00:56 PM PST by sinkspur (Trust, but vilify.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
you'll get your answer when you can tell me who wrote the unpatriot act.

I already told you I can't... but if I am going to be against it, I need some specifics.

62 posted on 01/20/2006 10:02:23 PM PST by operation clinton cleanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

I made it clear that was a part of proving loyalty. You can read correct?


63 posted on 01/20/2006 10:06:56 PM PST by takenoprisoner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: groanup

I would think the courts have to throw that out for actions in defense of the country in time of war.
There are also national security issues there.


64 posted on 01/20/2006 10:08:24 PM PST by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: operation clinton cleanup

Michael Chertoff and Viet Dinh wrote the unpatriot act.

You should read the "patriot" act it before commenting on it...and the first step to show others you have read it is to know who authored it.


65 posted on 01/20/2006 10:10:05 PM PST by takenoprisoner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
I made it clear that was a part of proving loyalty. You can read correct?

I can. However, your "loyalty test" is un-American. Not everybody has, or can, serve in the Armed Forces.

Don't bother responding. I'm thinking you're a garden-variety bigot.

66 posted on 01/20/2006 10:11:12 PM PST by sinkspur (Trust, but vilify.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: groanup; All
A suit by the ACLU
wants to keep Bush from spying on you
but that ol' NSA
keeps Al Qaeda at bay
So I wish they'd just STFU!

Cheers!

67 posted on 01/20/2006 10:11:53 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chuck54

<<< I would think the loon would have to at least have some proof of damages.>>>

Libs don't want PROOF, they want THE ISSUE....
They could care less about FACTS of any kind, it's just one more thing to throw at the wall and see if it sticks...

not a SINGLE shred of proof exists that ANYTHING illegal was done, yet Libs are trying to spin this into some Grand Conspiracy against America!!!!


68 posted on 01/20/2006 10:15:46 PM PST by tcrlaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: groanup

Anyone got a free link to the Wall Street Journal article by Victoria Teonsing (Terrorists on Tap) earlier this week? It's been quoted on quite a few news shows, but its subscription only on the WSJ site. Supposedly it's the best legal defense of NSA actions out there.


69 posted on 01/20/2006 10:16:03 PM PST by CedarDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
You should read the "patriot" act it before commenting on it...and the first step to show others you have read it is to know who authored it.

OK, now that we have established who wrote it... what provision(s) are unconstitutional? (we have also established I have not read it, that is why I am asking you)

70 posted on 01/20/2006 10:16:48 PM PST by operation clinton cleanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

Comment #71 Removed by Moderator

To: groanup

Thank you. That is very helpful, as opposed to others input.


72 posted on 01/20/2006 10:40:13 PM PST by operation clinton cleanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: groanup

is this the lawsuit being handled by the Rosenbergs grandaughter, Ivy Meeropol?


73 posted on 01/20/2006 11:10:07 PM PST by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
I did. Then I found that a vietnamese ( from north or south I dont know) and son of a russian immigrant wrote it.

Assistant Attorney General Viet D. Dinh Viet D. Dinh was sworn in as Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy on May 31, 2001. Prior to his entry into government service, Dinh was Professor of Law and Deputy Director of Asian Law and Policy Studies at the Georgetown University Law Center. Dinh graduated magna cum laude from both Harvard College and Harvard Law School, where he was a Class Marshal and an Olin Research Fellow in Law and Economics. He was a law clerk to Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. He served as Associate Special Counsel to the U.S. Senate Whitewater Committee, as Special Counsel to Senator Pete V. Domenici for the Impeachment Trial of the President, and as counsel to the Special Master in In re Austrian and German Bank Holocaust Litigation. He is a member of the District of Columbia and U.S. Supreme Court bars. As an academic, he specialized in constitutional law, corporations law, and the law and economics of development. His representative publications include Reassessing the Law of Preemption, 88 GEO. L.J. 2085 (2000); What Is the Law in Law and Development?, 3 THE GREEN BAG 2D 19 (1999); Codetermination and Corporate Governance in a Multinational Business Enterprise, 24 J. CORP. L. 975 (1999); and Races, Crime, and the Law, 111 HARV. L. REV. 1289 (1998). Born on February 22, 1968, in Saigon, Vietnam, Dinh came to America as a refugee in 1978. After 2 years in Portland, Oregon, his family settled in Fullerton, California. He currently resides in Washington, D.C.

74 posted on 01/20/2006 11:17:34 PM PST by operation clinton cleanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: groanup

He should have his law license revoked. There is no way he does not know that he hasn't a prayer of establishing standing - unless he really is working with terrorists.


75 posted on 01/21/2006 2:22:43 AM PST by thoughtomator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: groanup
The overarching problem is that FISA, written in 1978, is technologically antediluvian.

Excellent point (from Toensing article).

76 posted on 01/21/2006 2:27:43 AM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: groanup
He's got a point.... warrantless wiretapping is extraconstitutional, and since there is no way to find out if any of us have been tapped, there is no way to determine if you have standing or not.

Preferably, though -- since this smacks more of grandstanding by an out-of-work lawyer than anything else -- I would prefer to see Congress and the Senate (backed by the courts) put Messr. Bush back into his place.

Not that I worry about Bush. I worry about the precedent. Hillary with this sort of power simply will never relinquish her Presidency. Period.

77 posted on 01/21/2006 2:30:18 AM PST by Lazamataz (I have a Chinese family renting an apartment from me. They are lo mein tenants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: groanup

Your post in response #71 had to be removed because it contained a complete Wall Street Journal article.

Please do not attempt to bypass copyright restrictions again.


78 posted on 01/21/2006 2:41:21 AM PST by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
He should have his law license revoked

And also he should get slapped with a nuisance fine.

79 posted on 01/21/2006 2:55:47 AM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

I have heard this argument before about precedent and what a future pres. would do with it. Bill and Hillary engaged in this activity for eight years already. You are assuming that previous administrations didn't do it because it was against the law. Don't be so naive.


80 posted on 01/21/2006 3:09:18 AM PST by oneofmany (ACLU -- Destroying America since 1920)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-103 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson