Noted journalist Studs Terkel is the lead plaintiff in
Terkel v. AT&T, the
ACLU of Illinois' case against the
phone company's collusion with the NSA. On Sunday, the
Chicago Tribune published Terkel's op-ed on why he's a part of this case:
We... are committed to assuring that these giant companies are punished for violating the law and thus dissuaded from violating the law in the future.
...Congress is supposed to act to protect the rights of American citizens, not sacrifice those rights to large corporate entities. The House and Senate should resist the bullying tactics of the Bush White House and ensure that we have our day in court to vindicate our rights and reveal any illegality engaged in by the telecoms. We need to know about the Bush White House's secret program.
The New York Times also wrote over the weekend about
how empty and without merit Bush and the Republicans' scary, we'll-be-attacked-any-day-now rhetoric is.
After watching House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes' weak-kneed statements on immunity on CNN over the weekend, Glenn Greenwald wrote in Salon that it appears the House is ready to give in to the White House's demands.
But we're not ready to give up hope. We are keeping the pressure on Congress and asking our representatives not to rubber-stamp President Bush's request to legalize wiretapping of Americans without warrants. We're also demanding that Congress not let the telephone companies off the hook for giving up our private information without a warrant. We are asking them to stand up to the administration's fear-mongering, oppose immunity for the phone companies and also oppose warrantless wiretapping.
The ACLU is airing radio ads markets where we think we can make a difference. (Click to listen to the radio ad.)
Also check out our rebuttal to Bush's claim last week that the lawsuits are just a gravy train for trial lawyers.
One important law in that regard is the prohibition on politically partisan activity. Given our nonprofit status, we may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office. That means we cannot host comments on our site that show a preference for one candidate or party. Although we in no way wish to discourage you from that activity elsewhere, we ask that you not engage in that activity on our website (or include links to other websites that do so). Additionally, given that we are subject to very specific rules concerning the collection of personally identifying information through our website (names, email addresses, home address, financial information, etc.), we ask that you not use the comments portion of this blog to solicit this information from users of our website. We also ask that you not use the comments portion for advertising or requests for legal assistance, and do not add to your comment links to other websites, as we cannot be responsible for the content on other websites.
We are not able to respond to unsolicited inquiries, complaints or requests for assistance sent to this blog. Please direct your complaint or request for assistance to the ACLU affiliate in your state. Requests for legal assistance left in the blog comments will not receive a response or be published.
Finally, the ACLU cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information in the comment section and expressly disclaims any liability for any information in this section.