Judge Nixes Warrantless Surveillance
By SARAH KARUSH
DETROIT (AP) - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.
"Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly listening to conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.
The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.
The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule.
Jack Cafferty had a great segment on CNN, spelling it out for some of our slower colleagues:
Cafferty on the NSA Ruling: Bush is breaking the Law!
See the video on "Crooks and Liars"
I think the judge had her eyes under her robes and was sitting on her brain. Another expample of liberalism opening the door wider for terrorism.
save us from the terrorists is to abolish the Bill of Rights and make W. President for life. If we don't, we will be doomed! DOOOMED, I tell you!...Damn, I just peed myself.
I don't understand why Bushies find this whole issue so difficult to grasp. The FIAS court was established by Congress specifically for these types of situations so that if an administration wanted to wiretap an American citizen it needed to get a warrant. Bush's argument was that the rules don't apply to me and I can do what I want. To the surprise of nobody who has a brain, as a result he got bitch slapped hard by a Federal judge today who ruled his conduct unconstitutional and illegal. Keep this in mind Bushies: the court said that Bush had broken Federal law on more than 30 occassions, thus violating his oath of office that to make sure that the laws will be faithfully executed. Can you say impeachable offense(s)?
The ruling was pretty explicit and straightforward:
"The President of the United States, a creature of the same Consitution which gave us these Amendments, had undisputedly violated the Foruth in failing to procure judicial orders as requroied by FISA and accordingly has violated the First Amendment rights of these plaintiffs as well....the Terroist Surveillance Program violates the Administrative Powers Act; the separation of powers doctrine, the First and Fourth Amendments of the United State Constitution, and the statutory law."
What part of Bush's illegal acts don't you understand?
Lets see.......I could spend my life trying to explain to left leaning liberals but they would not listen anyway...it doesn't fit their perception of the world. Let's just say sorry to the islamic facists and ask them to please leave us alone....yeah.....yeah...thats the ticket...
Do anything, please! I am so afraid that I pooped my pants.
"Islamic Fascists", ah yes, would those include Saddam Hussein, who was suppose to have WMD and was about to attack us, and oh yes, was responsible for 9/11.
Only thing is, Hussein had no WMD, was not about to attack us, and had nothing to do with 9/11.
Keep your eye on the ball, old bean, which seems to be par for the course for you and your fellow "travelers". It was Al Qaida, headed by Bin Ladin and Ayman al Zawahiri that we should be fighting.
You still don't get it so I'll go slow and explain it again....the government has always had the power to wiretap foreigners without a warrant. The FISA law simply says that to wiretap American citizens the government must go in front of a secret FISA court and get a warrant. In emergency case, the law allows the government to perform the wiretap provided they get the FISA warrant within 48 hours after the fact. Even with this flexibility Bush decided not to obey the law and wiretapped US citizens without warrants. The court simply ruled that the President has to follow the law.
I'm curious how you get to the point that you believe that the President is not bound by federal law and the Constitution.
you just follow the playbook written by your gurus of garbage, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, and repeat emotionally charged statements and often make inflammatory remarks about anyone who doesn't agree with you. I'd love to see a right winger make an argument based on a logical presentation of the facts rather than making sweeping and totally false statements like, "Liberals just want to welcome terrorists to our shores." Huh??? We do?
The Constitution clearly states that we have no right to protect ourselves from terrorists but we do have a right to abortions on demand. It's right there in black & white!
Thank goodness we can't tap calls to Pakistan anymore. This will only help us.
Maybe you should get someone to read the judge's ruling to you because if you actually read it came to those conclusions then the country is in worse shape than I feared. Listen close now: the government has always had -- and still has -- the right to wiretap phone calls to Pakistan and any other country. This ruling only says that if an American citizen is involved in the call then the government has to follow the FISA law that was specifically established to adddress these situations and get a warrant. This is hardly a hardship on the government sicne it still has the ability to perform the wiretap and get the warrant retroactively. The FISA court has imposed no extra burden on the government's ability to surveil suspected terrorists. Since the FISA court began operation in 1979 and 2004, it approved 18,748 warrants and rejected five.
But what if I'm a Republican who CAN'T read because the schools failed me? I'm not making lame excuses, I'm just saying, what about those Republicans who've been lazy all their life and don't want to change now?
You can always count on the Bushies to use blatant non-sequiturs in their fallacious arguments. For example: If you disagree with the Bush power grabs, you hate America. Makes as much sense as Bush unscripted. Or scripted, for that matter.
And talk about "doesn't fit their perception of the world"? Give me break. Who has been proven to be more deluded than the neocons about the realities of this world?
That's what I'd like to know. All this says is that the executive branch has to get a warrant from the judicial branch. From what I understand, it was set up so the President could do it retro-actively within a certain time frame.
How does this equate to a victory for Islamic Fascists? I mean, besides, warrantless searches are a quality of fascism. So the question becomes whether we prefer homegrown fascism to the other fascism. I don't prefer either.
"Those who would trade essential liberties for some temporary security; deserve neither"
I hope the good judge can think better than she can spell. Does political correctness awlways trump common sense?
It certainly appears that there is room for argument about that and ridicule of those who oppose your view probably doesn't eliminate that legitimate disagreement.
She didn't start the trend but she is following it. Multiple courts -- including all those terrorist-loving liberals on the US Supreme Court -- have ruled against Bush on every issue related to his war on terror and democracy including the government's ability to hold people in custody indefinitely without charges being filed.
Even the Washington Post ED. page thinks she made a bad opinion.
BTW, is this judge, the same Anna "Diggs" Taylor, previously married to US Rep. Charles Diggs Jr.?
That's not what the editorial said. It basically agreed with the decision but questioned her reasoning to get to that decision and the guidance (or lack thereof) of how to make the program satisfy legal requirements.