Judge nixes warrantless surveillance

[SLCPUNK]

Thread Started on Today at 4:38pm

AP - 55 minutes ago

DETROIT - 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.

[Mal Brossard]

I can hear it coming now... Blah blah blah blah blah, activist judges, blah blah blah, legislating from the bench, blah blah.

[Drew]

I can hear it coming now... Blah blah blah blah blah, activist judges, blah blah blah, legislating from the bench, blah blah.

I knew you were going to sy that.

[SLCPUNK]

I can hear it coming now... Blah blah blah blah blah, activist judges, blah blah blah, legislating from the bench, blah blah.

Yea, how dare they uphold our Constitution.

[mainline]

Yea, how dare they uphold our Constitution.

Except the NSA program is not governed by the Fourth Amendment's prohibitions.? It's a foolish decision but one that will likely be reversed, probably following a lengthy stay of the order.

P.S.? Hey SLC, how are those Karl Rove indictments coming along??

[Surfrider]

Yea, how dare they uphold our Constitution.

Except the NSA program is not governed by the Fourth Amendment's prohibitions.? It's a foolish decision but one that will likely be reversed, probably following a lengthy stay of the order.

P.S.? Hey SLC, how are those Karl Rove indictments coming along??

And how exactly does the NSA program not have to comply with the Fourth Amendment's prohibitions??

I am guessing not one person that has posted in this thread has read the opinion.? It is simply a gut reaction based on their political ideology.? It certainly doesn't surprise me that plaintiffs found one Carter appointee federal judge to rule this way.? I will reserve my opinion on the decision until I actually read it.



EDIT:
After reading the opinion, I am willing to bet anyone that this case will be reversed on the standing issue.

[Vicious Wishes]

Let's see, last week the UK thwarted plans to destroy ten planes over, or on America. Yeah, we probably shouldn't be trying to track their plans. What were we thinking?

[Guns N RockMusic]

Yea, how dare they uphold our Constitution.

Except the NSA program is not governed by the Fourth Amendment's prohibitions.? It's a foolish decision but one that will likely be reversed, probably following a lengthy stay of the order.

P.S.? Hey SLC, how are those Karl Rove indictments coming along??

And how exactly does the NSA program not have to comply with the Fourth Amendment's prohibitions??

I am guessing not one person that has posted in this thread has read the opinion.? It is simply a gut reaction based on their political ideology.? It certainly doesn't surprise me that plaintiffs found one Carter appointee federal judge to rule this way.? I will reserve my opinion on the decision until I actually read it.



EDIT:
After reading the opinion, I am willing to bet anyone that this case will be reversed on the standing issue.

Your exactly right Berkley.  When the Supreme Court hears this case and sides with Bush, a panel of 9 judges who only purpose is to rule on constitutional matters will be "wrong."  And yes, I do have a problem with judges legislating from the bench.  How many lives have been saved to these searches?  It amazes me how people will run to the constitution when they "think" it will serve their purpose.  It's an all or nothing deal, you don't get to pick and choose which parts you follow.  Furthermore, people who lack a college degree, let alone a JD aren't really the kind of people I would goto for constitutional advice.

[the dirt]

Furthermore, people who lack a college degree, let alone a JD aren't really the kind of people I would goto for constitutional advice.

What is this?

[SLCPUNK]

Let's see, last week the UK thwarted plans to destroy ten planes over, or on America. Yeah, we probably shouldn't be trying to track their plans. What were we thinking?

The only thing that has been asked is that surveillance of USA citizens by the government be reviewed in a court and then to have a warrant issued. None of this applies to individuals that are not citizens of the USA. .


In regards to my post above::

"Implicit in the term 'national defense' is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this nation apart ... It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of ... those liberties ... which make the defense of the nation worthwhile."

From the judge. You guys are either a) Muddying up the argument on purpose, or b) Don?t really understand the issue. Based on what you are saying, I?m going to go with option B.

How many lives have been saved to these searches?  It amazes me how people will run to the constitution when they "think" it will serve their purpose.  It's an all or nothing deal, you don't get to pick and choose which parts you follow.  Furthermore, people who lack a college degree, let alone a JD aren't really the kind of people I would go to for constitutional advice.

I?m not sure what you are talking about, and I?m not sure you do either???

Again it is not a matter of the searches. It is a matter of obtaining warrants to do so legally. This country was founded based on the rights and freedoms you seem eager to give away. Thousands and thousands of your countrymen died in order for you to have them. Yet here you are willing to give it up because it may keep you safe from a terror attack? Remembering that you probably have a higher odds of killing yourself then dying in an act of terror.

[Guns N RockMusic]

Again it is not a matter of the searches. It is a matter of obtaining warrants to do so legally.

Again, the system has been ruled legal.? There is suspicion of criminal activity and they seek a warrant and/or justification after the fact.? We don't need the New York Times publishing that certain individuals are being watched.

 

Thousands and thousands of your countrymen died in order for you to have them.

Exactly, thus why I support the investigation of all suspected terrorist so that more men don't have to die.

Yet here you are willing to give it up because it may keep you safe from a terror attack?

What am I giving up?? My right to conduct terrorist activity?? Nay, I'm not giving up anything.? We're not talking about Big Brother no matter how much you try to make it look that way.

Remembering that you probably have a higher odds of killing yourself then dying in an act of terror.

And the reason for such a statistic is because of the precautions we have in place.?

[sandman]

full article since it wasn't posted in the first post....

DETROIT ? 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 U.S. Justice Department appealed the ruling and issued a statement saying the program is "an essential tool for the intelligence community in the war on terror."

"In the ongoing conflict with Al Qaeda and its allies, the president has the primary duty under the Constitution to protect the American people," the department said. "The Constitution gives the president the full authority necessary to carry out that solemn duty, and we believe the program is lawful and protects civil liberties."

The ruling won't take immediate effect so Taylor can hear a Justice request for a stay pending its appeal. For its part, the White House issued a statement saying the Bush administration couldn't disagree more with the decision.

"The terrorist surveillance program is firmly grounded in law and regularly reviewed to make sure steps are taken to protect civil liberties. The terrorist surveillance program has proven to be one of our most critical and effective tools in the war against terrorism, and we look forward to demonstrating on appeal the validity of this vital program," reads a statement released by Press Secretary Tony Snow.

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 wiretapping conversations between people in the U.S. and those 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.

"At its core, today's ruling addresses the abuse of presidential power and reaffirms the system of checks and balances that's necessary to our democracy," ACLU executive director Anthony Romero told reporters after the ruling.

He called the opinion "another nail in the coffin in the Bush administration's legal strategy in the war on terror."

While siding with the ACLU on the wiretapping issue, Taylor dismissed a separate claim by the group over NSA data-mining of phone records. She said not enough had been publicly revealed about that program to support the claim and further litigation would jeopardize state secrets.

The lawsuit alleged that the NSA "uses artificial intelligence aids to search for keywords and analyze patterns in millions of communications at any given time." Multiple lawsuits have been filed related to data-mining against phone companies, accusing them of improperly turning over records to the NSA.

However, the data-mining was only a small part of the Detroit suit, said Ann Beeson, the ACLU's associate legal director and the lead attorney on the case.

Beeson predicted the government would appeal the wiretapping ruling and request that the order to halt the program be postponed while the case makes its way through the system. She said the ACLU had not yet decided whether it would oppose such a postponement.

[Markus Asraelius]

Why coulden't Bush and his boys go to court and get those warrants. People should be questioning that all by itself...

I have a fear that people (not all people, but a lot of people) in this country and on this messageboard just aren't getting how corrupt this Bush administration is. When are you guys going to wake up?

[Surfrider]

Let's see, last week the UK thwarted plans to destroy ten planes over, or on America. Yeah, we probably shouldn't be trying to track their plans. What were we thinking?

The only thing that has been asked is that surveillance of USA citizens by the government be reviewed in a court and then to have a warrant issued. None of this applies to individuals that are not citizens of the USA. .

This is incorrect. ?The Fourth Amendment's application is not limited to citizens.

In regards to my post above::

"Implicit in the term 'national defense' is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this nation apart ... It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of ... those liberties ... which make the defense of the nation worthwhile."

From the judge. You guys are either a) Muddying up the argument on purpose, or b) Don?t really understand the issue. Based on what you are saying, I?m going to go with option B.

I am not sure that you understand it either. ?First, this case should have been nonjusticeable. ?Second, the plaintiffs do not have standing to bring the suit. ?In my opinion the judge's analysis is incorrect and this case will be reversed on standing. ?It's the easiest way for the courts to dodge the issue.

[The Dog]

Why coulden't Bush and his boys go to court and get those warrants. People should be questioning that all by itself...

Agreed - This to me is the biggest red flag.  Bush and his cronies feel they are above the law/constitution and can do anything they want in the name of "fighting terrorism and keeping America safe!"

I'm not opposed to the surveillance, just the means by which Bush thinks he can go about and do so...

To me, this sums it up:

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor was the first to find the National Security Agency surveillance program unconstitutional, and she took the Bush administration to task for its arguments, saying it appeared to be saying the president had the "inherent power" to violate laws of Congress.

"There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

"The public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," she wrote.

[Guns N RockMusic]

Why coulden't Bush and his boys go to court and get those warrants. People should be questioning that all by itself...

Agreed - This to me is the biggest red flag.? Bush and his cronies feel they are above the law/constitution and can do anything they want in the name of "fighting terrorism and keeping America safe!"

I'm not opposed to the surveillance, just the means by which Bush thinks he can go about and do so...

To me, this sums it up:

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor was the first to find the National Security Agency surveillance program unconstitutional, and she took the Bush administration to task for its arguments, saying it appeared to be saying the president had the "inherent power" to violate laws of Congress.

"There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

"The public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," she wrote.

Another genius who got her quotes and facts from the opinion of another person.  Do yourself a favor and read the decision for yourself.  We have alot of third person intellectuals around here.

[The Dog]

Why coulden't Bush and his boys go to court and get those warrants. People should be questioning that all by itself...

Agreed - This to me is the biggest red flag.  Bush and his cronies feel they are above the law/constitution and can do anything they want in the name of "fighting terrorism and keeping America safe!"

I'm not opposed to the surveillance, just the means by which Bush thinks he can go about and do so...

To me, this sums it up:

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor was the first to find the National Security Agency surveillance program unconstitutional, and she took the Bush administration to task for its arguments, saying it appeared to be saying the president had the "inherent power" to violate laws of Congress.

"There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

"The public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," she wrote.

Another genius who got her quotes and facts from the opinion of another person.  Do yourself a favor and read the decision for yourself.  We have alot of third person intellectuals around here.

First off, I'm a "he" not a "her"

Secondly, did I claim this was a "fact" no, i said this sums it up for me.  I agree with her assesment and her opinion.  I am allowed to have my own opinion aren't I? Or do you want to start surveillance of those as well?

hahaha just kidding on the last part, I'm not that far to the left   but seriously, chill out dude - no need to get an attitude b/c somebody disagrees with you.

[Surfrider]

"There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

I am sorry, but for a liberal judge to make that statement is just ridiculous.  Also, the first part of this quote begs the question. 

[SLCPUNK]

Again, the system has been ruled legal.  There is suspicion of criminal activity and they seek a warrant and/or justification after the fact. 

You are wrong. The entire case is about Bush NOT obtaining a warrant. It is about Bush overstepping the LAW.

Bush was doing this before 9-11 anyway.

What am I giving up?  My right to conduct terrorist activity?  Nay, I'm not giving up anything.  We're not talking about Big Brother no matter how much you try to make it look that way.

I already told you what you are giving up. I'm not talking about Big Brother. Again, I am talking about Bush not following the law. Stop with the strawman antics.

Warrants are such a PITA aren't they? That is what the British though also back in the 18th century. This is the primary reasons (See John Adams, and various members of the supreme court) that the colonists erupted into a revolution.

What do you have to lose? What are you giving up? Warrants are necessary to ensure that checks exist for protections for the individuals civil rights.  Otherwise it only invites the risk of abuse which we are seeing now.

[SLCPUNK]

This is incorrect.  The Fourth Amendment's application is not limited to citizens.

The fourth Amendment does not extend to protect foreign nationals; why the need to spy on American citizens without a warrant?

FISA already gives them 72 hours to work without one, so you can not argue that it limits their investigation. Why does the president feel that he can violate the Bill of Rights as he sees fit?