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 ...
Not so
The government(at all levels) can and is often sued if it waives soverign immunity which it does frequently.
Certainly you are not saying that, because it was illegally done before, that we should ignore the illegal behavior now or in the future?
COMMENTARY
By James Sullivan
MSNBC contributor
Updated: 1:53 p.m. ET Sept. 28, 2004
But uncompromising political views never hurt the sales of the now-defunct hard rock group Rage Against the Machine, and the Dixie Chicks actually gained admirers when singer Natalie Maines uttered her infamous anti-Bush sentiment.
First, let's not assume that what Bush did was illegal. That's begging the question. He is using presidential powers in time of war. The Clintons used eavesdropping for political gain during peacetime. I'm not saying that any illegal activity should be ignored at anytime but if it's going to be done anyway, precedent means nothing.
Here's the problem: The war is perpetual, can never be declared over, and thusly is carte blanche to violate the intent of the 4th amendment forever.
In World War II, we didn't fight the tactic of the blitzkrieg; we fought the Germans. We didn't fight the tactic of the kamikaze, we fought the Japanese.
Today, we fight no one people -- we fight a tactic. A war against a tactic can never truly be called over. And therefore, the abrogations against the Bill of Rights remain in perpetuity.
Lest we forget: Oceania has ALWAYS been at war with Eurasia.
I'm not saying that any illegal activity should be ignored at anytime but if it's going to be done anyway, precedent means nothing.
This statement still indicates a lack of resolve for the detection and successful prosecution of any illegal act -- at the Executive level -- if there is precedent.
That's why I pinged you with the post, in case I was violating rules.
Don't know him. Have never had dealings with the DOC.
O.K., hold on a minute, I'm getting confused. Who violated the fourth amendment?
This is precisely why all these lawsuits coming out of the woodwork on NSA spying are bogus to begin with. NO ONE, I repeat NO ONE except someone from within the Agency can offer up proof they were intercepted. Absolute fact - it is all classified and anyone that comes forward to the press is committing a felony.
I must admit that is quite a resume for a Vietnamese refugee born in Saigon in 1968. You have read this part right?
Yes I did. I don't think Communism is in his genes, though.
"Yes I did. I don't think Communism is in his genes, though."
Maybe maybe not. Still, some nam refugees were communist sympathizers, and some even fought with the NVA.
My real beef here is that we elect congress persons to write our laws. Now I learn that some nam refugee writes our laws while congress merely skims over his cliff notes making his unconstitutional policies the law of the land...
Oh did I mention his co author, also not an elected member to congress has dual citizenship. If it were any other country but Israel I would be outraged at that alone. But after reviewing some of his misdeeds and the mishandling of critical terror cases, amongst others, and the fast track he was placed on, it's really scarey at least for me to see such a person in charge of our security...iow, his mis-deeds in NJ, and at the DOJ goes well beyond the unpatriot act he co wrote with this refugee from vietnam.
I would be interested in reading about Chertoff's unsavory background if you have any links. I have never heard anything bad about him in the past, so I have no reason to question his integrity.
Two words: No Standing.
If you are really interested in seeking the truth, you may begin your quest from here...
http://freerepublic.info/focus/f-chat/1327033/posts
If he hasn't had his phone tapped, how has he been affected enough to be able to sue?
Must be something in the water in that part of Georgia, Jammah Cahtah, Cynthia Tucker, Max Cleland - gets their minds all bent around.
Trouble maker.:-)
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.