Judge nixes warrantless surveillance

[Buckdodgers]

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
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 had already publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule on the case.

"By holding that even the president is not above the law, the court has done its duty," said Ann Beeson, the ACLU's associate legal director and the lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

The NSA had no immediate comment on the ruling.

Taylor dismissed a separate claim by the ACLU over data-mining of phone records by the NSA. She said not enough had been publicly revealed about that program to support the claim and further litigation could jeopardize state secrets.

Beeson predicted the government would appeal the 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.

Judge nixes warrantless surveillance - Yahoo! News

This is another case of Liberals dont wanna protect america.I Say george bush should now warn if terrorist strike again its time to start using Nukes.Its time to make arabs think about their family before they attack america.So if your dont wanna see your brothers or sisters die you better not pull off another 9-11 again

 

[ismi]

So we fight for freedom by ... giving it up? We protect this country by denying the ideals on which it was founded? "Those that give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary security deserve neither."

 

[Buckdodgers]

Again this judge was apointed by no other than former president
BILL CLINTON! Bill Clinton was soft on terror he allowed the WTC get attacked He allowed an U.S EMBASSY To get bombed! and He allowed a Navy Ship to get attacked and Mr Clinton didnt do anything about it.
Liberals rather stand in front of the street and allow an 18 wheeler to run over him rather than get out of the street.

 

[Teresh]

This is another case of Liberals dont wanna protect america.

That's an awfully loaded statement. Enforcing the Constitution isn't protecting America? I don't think you realise how misinformed that statement is.

There are two foundations on which a government can be formed, two concepts which can allow people to lead and be led.

The first is by consent of the governed, by manipulating the hopes of the people. The people of a country willingly choose to form a government in accordance with a set list of principles for how that government is to operate. In the United States, this is the model we use. The authority for the government derives from the consent of the governed. This consent is given in the form of the Constitution of the United States of America.

The other possibility is through physical power, rule by the manipulation of fear. In this case, the people do not choose to form a government according to any listed principles, rather, the government forms itself by means of military might.

A particular state can change from one type to the other in the course of its sovereign life. Nazi Germany made the change from the former to the latter. Russia is still in the transition from the latter to the former. East Germany made the transition from the latter to the former when it reunified with West Germany.

The Constitution of the United States of America was written in order for America to be a nation which operated under the principles of the former theme. Rule by the people, not by a monarchy or by the rich as was common in Europe. Therefore, to enforce the Constitution is to protect America's very existence and the ideals on which it was founded. To forgo the Constitution is to destroy the United States of America.

The NSA wiretapping system without warrant by its very nature forgoes the Constitution. The reason the Bill of Rights contains a provision against unlawful searches and seizures is that the British, suspecting anyone of trying to evade taxes or conspiring with the revolutionaries (who, you might know, the British at the time considered to be terrorists) could freely enter a person's house for any or no reason, and then not report it. If the soldier stole all of your belongings, you had no recourse.

I'm not ready to give up my rights in order to make the United States a nation ruled by fear and military power. I'm not ready to give up my rights so that the United States will become just like the Great Britain we fought for its freedom against.

You might hate America, you might hate what America stands for. You might hate the Constitution, the Founding Fathers (and Mothers), our Revolutionary War. You might hate every patriotic American who loves his or her freedom and the Constitution that guarantees it. That's nice. It's your life. Just get out of America and stop trying to steal our freedom from us because you want more power for yourself or a power-mad politician.

 

[Reba]

Interesting:

Plaintiffs in the ACLU lawsuit included CAIR (America's largest Islamic civil liberties group), the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the environmental advocacy group Greenpeace, author James Bamford, Larry Diamond of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, author Christopher Hitchens, American Prospect Senior Editor Tara McKelvey, and Barnett Rubin, a senior fellow at the New York University Center on International Cooperation.

 

[Buckdodgers]

Look at England..Its So Strict over there.There Cameras everywhere in public the ACLU wont allow that here.The only thing the ACLU will allow cameras is in an intersection catching Red Light Volators,Speed Cameras to Catch Highway Speeders.And Cameras at K-MART and WAL-MART to catch shoplifters.But the ACLU will never allow cameras in Parking Garages Downtown Shopping areas.Or In your Neighborhood cause its a volation of privacy.What about arabs who are trying to pull off another attack? The ACLU wants you get a warrant and it will take 3 days to process and then 2 days later were attacked.You see if we had Wiretapping in August 2001 9-11 wouldnt happen.So its Liberal Democrats who dont wanna protect america.

 

[Teresh]

Look at England..Its So Strict over there.

That's nice. As I recall, we live in America.

What about arabs who are trying to pull off another attack? The ACLU wants you get a warrant and it will take 3 days to process and then 2 days later were attacked.You see if we had Wiretapping in August 2001 9-11 wouldnt happen.So its Liberal Democrats who dont wanna protect america.

A. They don't plan attacks that quickly.
B. 'Protecting America' is the mantra that has been used by social conservatives in order to justify *destroying* American and everything it stands for so they can turn it into a police state.

 

[sr171soars]

B. 'Protecting America' is the mantra that has been used by social conservatives in order to justify *destroying* American and everything it stands for so they can turn it into a police state.

While I don't agree with a lot of Buck's rantings, I have to give him the nod here with the "protecting America" bit. You forget they (Islamists) managed to do in 9/11 and in the future there will be other things just as bad. Give it time as our guys here cannot stop each and every one. It is the simple truth whether any of us like it or not. Freedoms not carefully guarded are easily lost. Freedoms don't exist in a vacuum. If it is worth preserving, it is worth dying for. Somewhere along the line this country has forgotten that lesson.

I agree with Buck that the Liberals as a whole prefer Chamberlain's "Peace in our Time" than Churchill's "We will fight to the end..." mantra. It reminds me of the European mentality of "Better Red then Dead". Here, it might as well be "Better Islamic than Dead" (it is going that way in Europe as they have the problem more acutely than us). At some point, somebody will get tired of the idiot politicians over there and start fighting...

I haven't seen anything by the liberals here that give me a warm fuzzy feeling about our future. They rather deal with other issues without watching the fox in the henhouse. Don't get me wrong, the conservatives have to answer for some things as well. I will give them credit for one thing...they are trying to do what it takes to protect the country. Believe me, when there are bombings and explosions left and right...nobody is going to worry about the US becoming a police state. I can see it now...the ACLU wanting to protect the right of bombers to bomb innocents simply because we are Americans...

 

[Your Mom]

Look at England..Its So Strict over there.There Cameras everywhere in public the ACLU wont allow that here.The only thing the ACLU will allow cameras is in an intersection catching Red Light Volators,Speed Cameras to Catch Highway Speeders.And Cameras at K-MART and WAL-MART to catch shoplifters.But the ACLU will never allow cameras in Parking Garages Downtown Shopping areas.Or In your Neighborhood cause its a volation of privacy.What about arabs who are trying to pull off another attack? The ACLU wants you get a warrant and it will take 3 days to process and then 2 days later were attacked.You see if we had Wiretapping in August 2001 9-11 wouldnt happen.So its Liberal Democrats who dont wanna protect america.

And you think that because england has cameras everywhere that they dont have attacks, I pretty vividly remember two rather recently.

 

[sr171soars]

And you think that because england has cameras everywhere that they dont have attacks, I pretty vividly remember two rather recently.

While that is true, how do you think they got the "picture" so rapidly?

 

[Reiko]

The whitehouse should ignore the judges ruling for two reasons.
1 wiretapping has nothing to do with the US constitution. and 2 its a matter of national security

 

[sillycat]

But how far should we go to protect ourselves from the terrorists?? Have a Big Brother everywhere?? Yes, we need security but how much is too much?? That is the question...

 

[Buckdodgers]

The whitehouse should ignore the judges ruling for two reasons.
1 wiretapping has nothing to do with the US constitution. and 2 its a matter of national security

I Blame the Idoits who voted for Bill Clinton in the first place.The Only reason Bill Clinton ended up in the white house cause the voters said
"""Its All George Bushs fault""" Bill Clinton Apointed these liberal judges to the courts Plus he Appointed Justice Bryer and Justice Ruth Ginsburg Which ruled in favor cities can take your home away from you.I Bet when the Wiretapping case goes to US Supreme Court Both Justices Ginsburg and Bryer will declare wiretapping unconsitutional.But Bill Clinton appointed
Anna Diggs to 9th circut court who told bush he overstepped his authority.

 

[ismi]

The whitehouse should ignore the judges ruling for two reasons.
1 wiretapping has nothing to do with the US constitution. and 2 its a matter of national security

The constitution grants positive rights to the American government. That is, it says what the government is allowed to do, not what it is not allowed to do. The 9th Amendment says: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The reason for this amendment was given by Madison: "It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure."

The 10th Amendment is also relevant: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Finally, there are many who would argue that the 1st Amendment carries an implicit right to privacy, as freedom of speech, the press, religion, and association, don't exist without that right.

 

[sr171soars]

But how far should we go to protect ourselves from the terrorists?? Have a Big Brother everywhere?? Yes, we need security but how much is too much?? That is the question...

Exactly...you hit the nail on the head!

I would say that it really depends on how secure people want to be at the expense of freedom. What are the tradeoffs? I would also suspect people prefer safety over everything else...

 

[Reiko]

The constitution grants positive rights to the American government. That is, it says what the government is allowed to do, not what it is not allowed to do. The 9th Amendment says: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The reason for this amendment was given by Madison: "It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure."

The 10th Amendment is also relevant: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Finally, there are many who would argue that the 1st Amendment carries an implicit right to privacy, as freedom of speech, the press, religion, and association, don't exist without that right.

Wire tapping foreign phonecalls on suspected organizations is a national security matter wich is the responsibility of the federal government.

There is no such thing as right to privacy in the US as demonstrated by the fact in almost every state it's the law for people 18 and older to have a valid ID on them at all times, the fact that government institutions can drug test people no matter if they are suspected or not. Every man woman and child has to have a social security number. Males under a certain age have to register with the selective service or be denied any kind of federal loans for the rest of their life.

 

[ismi]

Wire tapping foreign phonecalls on suspected organizations is a national security matter wich is the responsibility of the federal government.

Whether or not it's necessary is debateable; regardless, it's illegal. If our government considers it necessary, then they can obtain a warrant (through FISA, if it needs to be done quickly and quietly) or get the law changed, but they cannot legitimately operate outside the law.

There is no such thing as right to privacy in the US as demonstrated by the fact in almost every state it's the law for people 18 and older to have a valid ID on them at all times, the fact that government institutions can drug test people no matter if they are suspected or not. Every man woman and child has to have a social security number. Males under a certain age have to register with the selective service or be denied any kind of federal loans for the rest of their life.

Actually, there is a right to privacy with lots of precedent extending back to Griswold v. Connecticut; it's just considered an implicit rather than explicit right. Possibly further, I'm not sure. And in fact, it is not the case that adults have to carry ID; Hiibel (a 2005 Supreme Court case) established that states may pass laws stating that citizens must provide their names upon request to an officer (who must have reasonable suspicion, as in a Terry Stop), but they are not permitted to pass laws requiring citizens to provide identification. Americans are not required to carry ID unless they are driving a vehicle or otherwise engaging in certain activities that require a license (hunting or fishing, for instance).

Social security and the selective service are quite different from wiretapping, and the fact that privacy is a limited right does not abolish it all together.