Im one against this spying and find our rights are violated,but here is my problem with verizon.Every time I pay my bill and get the next one its doubled.I heard some where that verizon was in trouble over billing? Anyone got any information on this?

Count me in on this lawsuit. I’ve complained to Verizon about the NSA illegal wiretapping for months.
Article 5 of the United States Constitution clearly states: NO UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.
Got that? Right wing nutsos?
Don’t cover for criminal Bush and Company. All of them need life in prison!

Information about the lawsuit (supporting it and joining it) by public interest lawyers Carl Mayer and Bruce Afran can be found here:

http://newjerseyuntouchables.blogspot.com/

If this is going to be a class action suite please include me.     
            Tony Collins

Bravo!

Finally, people that are taking action and doing something to protect American’s from being treated as terrorists. I think using private industry as a means to investigate phone calls is wrong. I also think people have the right to be left alone, maybe this will serve as a good example to protect the simple human rights to privacy. From invading privacy to sealing up the borders, may as well keep us all in a glass jar.

M

Sue them Verizon is a fraud.Sue them till we can find a less greedy and mean company.

Well Jack, let’s try it this way: They’re not going stop terrorism by spying on you…are they now? That and try to understand that not everyone who comments on this Website’s posts is out of the Michael Moore crowd. Make a Goddamn effort to see that this transcends the war terrorism, and involves the institution of a Police State. One in which you might not feel nearly as safe in, with, say Hillary Clinton assuming these powers in lieu of George Bush. One in which the first thing you’re going to lose, is your gun…and frankly where I live, having one handy isn’t a bad idea. Especially on the weekends. Bottom line: Don’t let ‘em sit you in a high chair, put a Patriot Act bib on you, and feed you shit. And remember Jack, that in War: The innocent are the first to suffer and if they suffer at all? The guilty are the very last…Think about it. Like I say make an effort.

To Mr. Cairns:
While frequently misquoted (see below) and its exact origins are not entirely clear, you may wish to review one of the most respected founding fathers observations on the rationale you advance.
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

(Many variants derived from this phrase have arisen and have usually been incorrectly attributed to Franklin:
“They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
“Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither”
“He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security”
“He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither”
“If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.”
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
“He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither”)

Government under article 4 of the Bill of Rights and article 3 of the Constitution are accorded a right of search and seizure under particular circumstances; “probable cause” to believe a crime will be, or has been, committed and only then under judicial supervision.  Recognizing the potential for mischief by executive authority (King George in particular at the time) the executive branch was given no authority to initiate search and seizures otherwise. Nor was the executive branch given the authority to disregard law passed by Congress absent exercise of the veto power.  Yet on hundreds of occasions in the latter case and apparently in millions of occasions in the former, this administration has done both.

That there has been no terrorist attack within the United States since 1991 is no different than the fact that there was no terrorist attack in the United States since the first attack on the World Trade Center in the decade before 1991.  Massive attacks are difficult to organize and effectuate.  It is at best dubious, and in fact virtually impossible, for some kind of data mining operation consisting of billions of phone records with literally trillions of possible combinations to produce anything of utility.  Far more direct information was entirely ignored by the intelligence agencies for September 11, 1991.

Worse, and this administration is as likely of this misconduct as any other, the executive branch has always shown a penchant for power—which is the reason for the checks and balances and the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.  A terrorist organization or more dangerously, it’s “affiliates,” is in the eye of the beholder—and when that beholder a political operative like Karl Rove, or bureaucratic and/or personal power grabbers like Dick Cheney or Don Rumsfeld, the possibilities for mischief in identifying persons who should appear on an “enemies list” (see: Richard Nixon) with expansive definitions out either terrorist or affiliates thereof are equally endless and troubling.

I would strongly suggest that you return to a seventh-grade civics class and possibly acquaint yourself with both the Constitution and history before essentially asserting that only those who are in compliance with government policy have nothing to fear—the essential underpinning of your argument.  You may also wish to read a little book written shortly after World War II entitled “They Thought They Were Free” written by Erich Fromm—a rather interesting study of the compliant German citizens that were quite willing to trade freedom for security fully believing that even after having clearly lost all freedom that they were nonetheless free and secure.  As Dr. Franklin observed in fact they had neither.

Hit the phone Co. hard

Enough already.  When will Bush be impeached if not charged with criminal acts (the war, torture, spying….)?

Right on!!! I hope they grow bankrupt from the number of lawsuits. By the way, Mr Cairns, no one is saying this may or may not be necessary. I believe what we are all objecting to is the manner in which it was done. When we allow the govt. to act outside the law we set a precedent that a corrupt government might use at a later date against us. That’s the quarrel with the “enemy combatant” deal too. I believe everyone is entitled to a trial and if they’re guilty, then by God, “hang ‘em high!!”

Assuming Verizon was paid by us (tax payers) for our phone records, shouldn’t we get a cut of the profits? Besides being illegal, as if that stopped anything these days, Verizon should have asked my permission to sell my phone records.  I mean, my bank, credit card etc. companies did.  But I guess the Decider doesn’t need my permission.

Excuse me? What makes our country unique and great are the founding principles which distinguished it from every other country at the time of its inception. Chief among them were the rights contained in the Bill of Rights. Bush’s domestic spying program violates the 4th Amendment—without question. There are already laws in place that could have been used for the type of surveillance he wanted—assuming it was legitimate. These are the FISA statutes. Bush didn’t go through FISA because he and his advisors knew the standard could not be met. George W. Bush believes he is above the law. This is dangerous. He has lied about Iraq, Katrina, and so much more—what makes anyone think he’s telling the truth about domestic spying? These matters need to be investigated. I am a Verizon and AT&T customer and I am outraged that these companies handed over private information without legal oversight. You should be too. Mr. Cairns may be comfortable living in a neo-Fascist state where government and corporations work hand-in-glove for an agenda that doesn’t serve the welfare of the public at large. But I would warrant that most Americans, if they actually knew the extent of what has been going on, would be nearly as sanguine about it. So I say kudos to these lawyers for bringing these suits. Someone has to stand up for the public—and it isn’t going to be the GOP dominated congress, nor the spineless Democrats. This government doesn’t know the first thing about combatting terrorism—that’s why 9/11 happened. And they still don’t—which is why Iraq will drag on and on. The America I was raised to love does not condone invading countries which are no threat to us, revenge killing in disproportionate numbers, and certainly would have no truck with legalized torture—which is essentially what we have the Bush Administration to thank for. Unless you are a member of the super-rich class, Bush is doing NOTHING for you. Wake up people!!!

Let’s hope the lawyers can stop the criminals in the White House.  Money is the only thing that these people understand and if it costs them big bucks to learn their lesson, so be it.  We must protect our constitution at all costs so people who support the president’s criminal behavior can’t lead us down the path to fascism.

How do we stop these people from turning over our phone records without a court order .Isn’t this against the law?

The reason the Founding Fathers of our country split gov’t into 3 branches was to create a system of checks and balances. When 1 branch of gov’t subverts those checks and balances , as has been done by the Executive branch by not consulting the FISA court with regards to these data mining activities by the NSA, then what exists is not a constitutional government, but rather a Tyranny. I hear people saying this is a slippery slope, I submit that this is an Avalanche of historic proportions and our very Constitution is under attack by the very Government it spawned.

How do we stop these people working against the security of the US from employing any and every ruse to defeat our governments efforts to combat terrorism?

I hope such suits are thrown out of our courts and some sort of penalty is imposed on the sue-ers for creating such impediments.