Alpharetta Lawyer Sues Bush Over Wiretaps

AJC ^ | 01/21/06 | Carlos Campos

[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.

[sinkspur]

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?

[operation clinton cleanup]

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.

[takenoprisoner]

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

[A CA Guy]

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.

[takenoprisoner]

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.

[sinkspur]

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.

[grey_whiskers]

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!

[tcrlaf]

<<< 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!!!!

[CedarDave]

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.

[operation clinton cleanup]

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)

[operation clinton cleanup]

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

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

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

[operation clinton cleanup]

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.

[thoughtomator]

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.

[livius]

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

Excellent point (from Toensing article).

[Lazamataz]

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.

[Admin Moderator]

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.

[AmericaUnited]

He should have his law license revoked

And also he should get slapped with a nuisance fine.

[oneofmany]

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.