Re: Public Wants Court to Okay Wiretaps

In fact, we already do. Non-citizens in the US are generally denied
> the rights, enjoyed by citizens, to: > . reside > . employment > . possess a firearm > . public assistance > . vote, etc.

It goes a little further than that. Lawyers for the US government, in response to being sued by a Canadian (Maher Arar), indicated that they couldn't have trampled his rights while he was in the US (eg, he had no access to a lawyer). He doesn't _have_ any rights. They stated that the US Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens while they are in the US.

Makes a non-US person want to vacation there, huh?

In other cases (e.g., Canada), the very document that states all these > wonderful rights gives the government the power to abridge them > whenever it thinks it's necessary. Don't believe me? Read Canada's > "Charter of Rights and Freedoms", and note the "notwithstanding" > clauses (in particular section 33): >
formatting link

Seems a little out of scale with the eavesdropping.

The notwithstanding clause in the Charter allows Parliament (either federal or provincial) to pass a law which it deems necessary but which violate someone's rights. It may deem it necessary to pass a law which violates someone's rights because the effect on society as a whole is so great.

The notwithstanding clause has never been used. Should it's use get proposed, it would have to be passed through Parliament and the Senate and the law would have to be renewed by Parliament every five years. One of the parties in the current Canadian election campaign is proposing a Charter amendment to drop the notwithstanding clause.

All of these hurtles and sober thought by society. And this is brought into discussion in reference to Bush not even wanting to need a judge to approve the wiretaps?

Regards,

Steve