NSA Wiretap Program ruled Unconstitutional

[bsnyder]

True according to Drumheller - read it

I read it. You said the intel community never got to assess him. Yet, according to Drumheller, he knew when Powell made the speech in January of 03. Yet he did nothing, and said nothing, until 3 1/2 years later.

Liar or coward?

 

[Charade]

I read it. You said the intel community never got to assess him. Yet, according to Drumheller, he knew when Powell made the speech in January of 03. Yet he did nothing, and said nothing, until 3 1/2 years later.

Liar or coward?

Both?

 

[sodaseller]

I read it. You said the intel community never got to assess him. Yet, according to Drumheller, he knew when Powell made the speech in January of 03. Yet he did nothing, and said nothing, until 3 1/2 years later.

Liar or coward?

Quote the part where the CIA interviewed Curveball. And you're probably a bit of both

 

[bsnyder]

Quote the part where the CIA interviewed Curveball. And you're probably a bit of both

Gee, you're being generous this morning. How very liberal of you.

I won't bother to quote. It's in black and white on this very page. You're being deliberately obtuse because you can't defend the cowards/liars in your party. I don't blame you. I wouldn't attempt to defend it either. Their, and your, agenda is perfectly clear.

Hell hath no fury like an impotent, frustrated out-of-power political party.

 

[LuvDuke]

Gee, you're being generous this morning. How very liberal of you.

I won't bother to quote. It's in black and white on this very page. You're being deliberately obtuse because you can't defend the cowards/liars in your party. I don't blame you. I wouldn't attempt to defend it either. Their, and your, agenda is perfectly clear.

Hell hath no fury like an impotent, frustrated out-of-power political party.

I'll give this, Bet. You're a real card.

You're more hysterical over someone not blowing the whistle on a lying and corrupt administration than you are about the lying and corrupt administration. Your "stop me before I kill again" attitude really is ludicrous. Your selective outrage and sense of responsibility is second to none and really is the basis for many a satirical political comedy. Keep up the good work. As a true representative of the current Republican party, you're doing just fine.

 

[bsnyder]

I'll give this, Bet. You're a real card.

You're more hysterical over someone not blowing the whistle on a lying and corrupt administration than you are about the lying and corrupt administration. Your "stop me before I kill again" attitude really is ludicrous. Your selective outrage and sense of responsibility is second to none and really is the basis for many a satirical political comedy. Keep up the good work. As a true representative of the current Republican party, you're doing just fine.

On the contrary, I'm not the hysterical one. Your party's cornered the market already.

I've basically been in read-only mode on the DIS (if that) for a while now, due to time constraints, and only had the opportunity for a sustained amount of posting recently because I've been somewhat housebound with an illness (not serious, thankful) I provide that information only to correct your misimpression that my abundance of recent posting indicates some sort of "hysteria" about this particular subject. It just happened to be the one that caught and sustained my attention and diverted me from some painful, sleepless days and nights.

Hope you have a great day!

 

[LuvDuke]

On the contrary, I'm not the hysterical one. Your party's cornered the market already.

I've basically been in read-only mode on the DIS (if that) for a while now, due to time constraints, and only had the opportunity for a sustained amount of posting recently because I've been somewhat housebound with an illness (not serious, thankful) I provide that information only to correct your misimpression that my abundance of recent posting indicates some sort of "hysteria" about this particular subject. It just happened to be the one that caught and sustained my attention and diverted me from some painful, sleepless days and nights.

Hope you have a great day!

I mean this in a good way: If the verbal sparring takes your mind off your troubles, go for it. Sometimes a little diversion is the best medicine of all.

 

[sodaseller]

Gee, you're being generous this morning. How very liberal of you.

I won't bother to quote. It's in black and white on this very page. You're being deliberately obtuse because you can't defend the cowards/liars in your party. I don't blame you. I wouldn't attempt to defend it either. Their, and your, agenda is perfectly clear.

Hell hath no fury like an impotent, frustrated out-of-power political party.

Of course you won't quote, just like Cheney wouldn't discuss the evidence that supported him. Very convenient

Let's see, bold proclamations of victory, moral superiority and cowardice from opponents. This sounds familiar

"We are today before a strategic, historic victory, without exaggeration" -- Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah

The Hizbullah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, taunted Israeli soldiers as "cowards" and claimed a "strategic and historic victory" as a truce took hold last night after 32 days of intense bombing that has brought Lebanon to its knees.

Nasrallah said.

He then accused Israel of weak military tactics because Lebanon has suffered a higher number of civilian casualties than Israel.

"We are waiting for you in the battle field. ... You are cowards. You kill our women, our children, our buildings. But we kill your officers and your tanks

The similarities in rhetoric and moral stature are just too close - can anyone confirm for certain that bsnyder is not a nom de guerre for Nasrallah?

 

[bsnyder]

I mean this in a good way: If the verbal sparring takes your mind off your troubles, go for it. Sometimes a little diversion is the best medicine of all.

Taken in a good way, and yes, it certain is. Thanks very much!

 

[TheDoctor]

A republican calling anyone a coward is truly silly. The party of cowards and chickenhawks calling someone else a coward is silly. Remember Cheney had to get Jack Murtha to vouch for him at the Pentagon when cheney was first appointed Sec. of Defense because everyone knew that cheney had taken five deferrments and was considered a coward. Yet that act of bipartisanship by Rep. Murtha did not go unrewarded when Jean Schmidt as part of the GOP smear campaign attacked a war hero like Jack Murtha. The GOP has no credibility calling any one coward.

Again, the reporting issue is a red herring. The topic is the fact that a court has ruled that Bush is not a king and that the NSA wiretap program is illegal. This comment is right on.

You're more hysterical over someone not blowing the whistle on a lying and corrupt administration than you are about the lying and corrupt administration. Your "stop me before I kill again" attitude really is ludicrous.

Again, the issue that the democrats are to blame for bush's violation of the law is just a red herring and wrong. I understand that the conservatives do not want to talk about bush being a lawbreaker and the fact that the courts are rejecting the concept of an unitary president with unlimited power but those issues are relevant to the topic of this thread.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

A republican calling anyone a coward is truly silly. The party of cowards and chickenhawks calling someone else a coward is silly. Remember Cheney had to get Jack Murtha to vouch for him at the Pentagon when cheney was first appointed Sec. of Defense because everyone knew that cheney had taken five deferrments and was considered a coward. Yet that act of bipartisanship by Rep. Murtha did not go unrewarded when Jean Schmidt as part of the GOP smear campaign attacked a war hero like Jack Murtha. The GOP has no credibility calling any one coward.

Again, the reporting issue is a red herring. The topic is the fact that a court has ruled that Bush is not a king and that the NSA wiretap program is illegal. This comment is right on. Again, the issue that the democrats are to blame for bush's violation of the law is just a red herring and wrong. I understand that the conservatives do not want to talk about bush being a lawbreaker and the fact that the courts are rejecting the concept of an unitary president with unlimited power but those issues are relevant to the topic of this thread.

Your first paragraph is a red herring.

As for the second, we already know our President is not king, as does he. He does not want unlimited power; he wants to protect the country from terrorism.

One judge ruled the NSA is illegal. Most believe the ruling will be overturned on appeal.

Your arguments have already been shot down; you just refuse to accept it.

 

[Thizz]

Your first paragraph is a red herring.

As for the second, we already know our President is not king, as does he. He does not want unlimited power; he wants to protect the country from terrorism.

One judge ruled the NSA is illegal. Most believe the ruling will be overturned on appeal.

Your arguments have already been shot down; you just refuse to accept it.

Die hard christian, and a Bushie. Who'da thought???

 

[TheDoctor]

Your first paragraph is a red herring.

Joe you are wrong again. My arguement was not a red herring (try looking up the term before you use it) but was a direct and relevant response to the silly concept that a republican has any right to call anyone a coward. Again, remember the the GOP is the party of chickenhawks. I noticed that you did not respond to what poor form it was for the GOP to attack Rep. Jack Murtha after Rep. Murtha had to go to bat for Cheney when Cheney was first appointed as Sec. of Defense. Given Cheney's well known record as a coward and draft dodger, Cheney needed Rep. Murtha's support and this act of non-partisan was rewarded by various Rove affiliates now swiftboating Rep. Murtha. The only thing that was a red herring was Bet's and Charade's attempt to side track this threrad with attacks on Rep. Jane Harman and others for not breaching their confidentiality obligations and going to the press about bush's illegal wire tap program. If Rep. Harman had leaked the details of this program, you and others would be calling her a traitor.

BTW, you may want to read up and understand a term before you use it. In this case, you were wrong in your claim. It is also a bad idea to make a relevance argument because it gives you opponent the opportunity to dump on you.

One judge ruled the NSA is illegal. Most believe the ruling will be overturned on appeal..

You never tire of being wrong do you. Read this thread. The DOJ only argued standing and the State Secret doctrine. One other Federal Judge in San Francisco has dismissed the State Secret doctrine as a defense in a case against AT&T. Without the State Secret defense, it is clear that bush's program is illegal.

If you have read this thread you would have also seen that many experts expect this ruling to be upheld. The so called defects in this opinion are mainly due to the fact that the DOJ did not argue the merits of the case and so the judge was free to accept all of the ACLU's positions as being undisputed.

 

[TheDoctor]

Again, the conservatives are falling down on their job. There was a weak attack on this opinion by a professor from the Univ. of Wisconsin in the NYT today. The trouble is that the op ed was written before the professor learned that the DOJ refused to advanced any arguments as to the legality of the NSA wiretap program. Under the rules of civil procedure, if you do contest and issue, then the court is free to consider that issue undisputed which is what happen in this case.

Another legal expert has responded to this editoral and let me share part of his reasoning. http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/ann-althouse-nyt-legal-expert-on-case.html

This Op-Ed in today's New York Times by Ann Althouse purports to criticize Judge Taylor's ruling in the NSA case on the ground that Taylor "didn’t bother to come up with the verbiage that normally cushions us" from suspicions that a court is motivated by the result, not the law, and because what Althouse calls "immensely difficult matters" surrounding Bush's violations of FISA were "disposed of in short sections that jump from assorted quotations of old cases to conclusory assertions of illegality."

The fact that something is "immensely difficult" for Ann Althouse to figure out does not mean that it is, in fact, "immensely difficult." Most actual legal experts, across the ideological spectrum, have found nothing challenging -- let alone "immensely difficult" -- about concluding that the President of the United States does not have the power to break the law by engaging in the very conduct which the law criminalizes.

Althouse thinks that the President's claim that neither courts nor Congress can interfere in his conduct with regard to national security "is a serious argument, and judges need to take it seriously," but she never says why that argument is "serious" or what the court failed to consider in rejecting the administration's theories of presidential omnipotence. Althouse apparently thinks that repeating the words "serious" and "difficult" enough times will bestow on her little platitudes the scholarly weight which her analysis so plainly, so embarrassingly lacks.....

That Althouse's "critique" of Judge Taylor's opinion is so free of substance is not merely ironic but also entirely unsurprising. As I documented yesterday (based on Althouse's forced admissions), she actually had no idea what even happened in this case until Monday night. The Bush Department of Justice made the decision not to address the merits and substance of the ACLU's constitutional claims despite being ordered to do so by the court -- twice. Althouse has spent the last week attacking the court for its failure to address arguments that the DoJ never raised -- and now makes the same inane, patently misinformed criticisms of Taylor in The New York Times.

But it is nothing short of humiliating that Althouse had no idea that any of that happened in this case. She hasn't followed this case at all. She has no idea what took place. Just as is the case for her good friend and colleague, Orin Kerr, whom she cites for support in her Op-Ed, Althouse is criticizing Judge Taylor for an "incomplete" opinion because Althouse is entirely ignorant of the fact that the DoJ chose not to advance any substantive arguments on the merits of these claims. She quotes Kerr to accuse Taylor of issuing an "incomplete" opinion, but Kerr -- like Althouse -- simply did not know that the DoJ made no substantive arguments that went to the merits of this lawsuit (a failure which arose from the fact that the DoJ, reflecting the Bush administration's belief that it is above judicial review, argued only that the court had no right to decide these issues).

Although these critical events in this lawsuit were all public and reported by major newspapers, Althouse learned of them for the first time -- as she reluctantly admitted -- by reading the Comment section at Volokh on Monday, after which she had to correct a completely false factual claim she made about the case. Her ignorance about these matters was not concerning some obscure legalisitc point. Rather, she was just blissfully and inexcusably unaware of the most important fact necessary for understanding Judge Taylor's decision -- that the DoJ failed to raise any of the issues which she and her good friend, Professor Kerr, find so "immensely difficult."

Georgetown Law Professor Marty Lederman -- who took the time to read the DoJ's Brief (.pdf) -- explained that the DoJ "did not quite advance or support in any detail that argument -- or any other merits argument, for that matter." Therefore, criticizing Judge Taylor for failing to address those "immensely difficult" arguments which were never raised in this case reveals a complete misunderstanding of this lawsuit and the legal principles governing Judge Taylor's decision.

Althouse did not follow this case and had no idea what happened in it. She formed her views about the court's ruling and then proceeded to express them loudly and publicly without bothering to do the smallest amount of work which would be necessary for forming a responsible opinion -- including even reviewing what the DoJ argued here or finding out what happened previously in this case (she even aggressively criticized the court's opinion while admitting that she only had time to "skim it"). Even after that, it is clear that she just read the opinion and then spat up some trite political slogans attacking the court, exhibiting precisely the intellectual sloth and undisciplined approach of which she thinks she is qualified to accuse Judge Taylor.

The attacks on this opinion are for the most part baseless if you understand that the DOJ refused to brief the merits of the case. The fact that the DOJ decided not to argue the merits of the wire tap program and instead tried to hide behind procedural tricks shows how weak their positions are.

 

[TheDoctor]

As for the second, we already know our President is not king, as does he. He does not want unlimited power;

Again, you are wrong. The bushies have been pushing something called the unitary executive theory for some time. http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/CanExecutive_Branch_Decide_0923.html

The Bush administration has been using an extreme version of an obscure doctrine called the Unitary Executive Theory to justify executive actions that far exceed past presidents' power...

The doctrine assumes, in its extreme form, nearly absolute deference to the Executive branch from Congress and the Judiciary.

According to Dr. Christopher Kelley, a professor in the Department of Political Sciences at Miami University, as of April 2005, President Bush had used the doctrine 95 times when signing legislation into law, issuing an executive order, or responding to a congressional resolution.

The President announced in these signings that he would construe provisions in a manner consistent with his “constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch.” While the President clearly has the authority to supervise the executive branch, it is unclear how far he might construe this authority under the unitary executive theory.

In fact, according to professors Steven J. Calabresi and Christopher S. Yoo, “a veritable all-star list of constitutional scholars” has rejected judicial supremacy, considering it inconsistent with the idea of checks and balances among the three branches of the federal government.

The President announced in these signings that he would construe provisions in a manner consistent with his "constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch." While the President clearly has the authority to supervise the executive branch, it is unclear how far he might construe this authority under the unitary executive theory.

We are so lucky that Judge Taylor has shot down the unitary executive concept. http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/katrina_vanden_heuvel/2006/08/no_hereditary_kings_here.html

"There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the constitution." So wrote Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the US district court in Detroit, declaring the Bush administration's warrantless domestic spying "illegal and unconstitutional".

It was a resounding rejection of executive unilateralism - and a scathing condemnation of President Bush's contempt for the rule of law.

As a New York Times editorial noted the day after the decision: "The ruling eviscerated the absurd notion on which the administration's arguments have been based: that Congress authorised Mr Bush to do whatever he thinks is necessary when it authorised the invasion of Afghanistan."

This decision comes just two months after the supreme court's decision in Hamdan v Rumsfeld striking down the Bush administration's plans to try prisoners at Guantánamo as war criminals. Hamdan was widely interpreted as a rebuke to Bush and co's wildly expansive conception of executive power.

Will this ruling close the chapter on this administration's wanton, reckless assault on our system of checks and balances? Of course not.

The White House quickly appealed the decision, and administration loyalists in Congress are already seeking ways to give legal cover to an illegal spying programme.

In the meantime, however, Judge Taylor's ruling marks a moment of sanity. And such moments in America in 2006 have been too few and far between. As one potential 2008 presidential candidate, Senator Russell Feingold wrote in an email to supporters last Friday: "I'm pleased to see that the court came to the same conclusion I did when I learned the truth about this programme: it is a breach of our rights and freedoms, and needs to be brought within the law."

The separation of powers has been reasserted, and an administration that feels it is above two centuries of precedent has been put in its place. For now.

Bush was using the unitary executive theory to claim near king like powers and the courts have responded correctly.

 

[TheDoctor]

As for the second, we already know our President is not king, as does he. He does not want unlimited power...

Just for Joe from one of his favorite reporters. http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=127&Itemid=35

"There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created in the Constitution."

That eloquent putdown of an imperial presidency was the essence of a recent ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit who declared that President Bush's warrantless wiretap program was unconstitutional......

Taylor said the government's surveillance program run by the National Security Agency violates privacy and free speech rights under the Bill of Rights. She also found that the telephone taps violate the 1978 Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which requires court approval before the government can wiretap within the United States.

"It was never the intent of the framers (of the U.S. Constitution) to give the president such unfettered control, particularly when such actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights," Taylor said.

The administration argued that the 2001 congressional resolution authorizing the use of force -- passed in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks -- gave Bush the right to create the program. But Taylor noted that the congressional resolution "says nothing whatsoever of intelligence or surveillance."....

Is this administration so arrogant that it believes there are no limits to presidential power?

Taylor's arguments have been trashed by some law school professors. Even some who agreed with her bottom-line ruling took issue with her reasoning and rhetoric.

But to an average American, the ruling's beauty rests in its simplicity and the inspiration that the Constitution still prevails in our society.

Anthony Romero, the executive director of the ACLU, said the ruling vindicates the notion that there are limits on the scope of executive authority.

"Ultimately," Romero added, "any doubts about the decision will be taken on appeal by sitting federal judges rather than pundits or commentators."

Last February, the American Bar Association adopted a resolution calling on the president "to abide by the limitations which the Constitution imposes on a president under our system of checks and balances and respect the essential roles of the Congress and the judicial branch in ensuring that our national security is protected in a manner consistent with constitutional guarantees."

The ABA urged the president to seek appropriate legislation, rather than act outside the law, if he feels the existing legal framework is somehow lacking.

The ABA also noted that the Watergate scandal in the Nixon administration revealed abuses of government wiretapping. This led a Senate committee chaired by Sen. Frank Church, D-Idaho, to recommend legislation to provide the government with needed authority to conduct surveillance to protect national security but also to protect against abuses of that authority.

The result was the 1978 law creating the FISA court.

The Taylor decision is expected to face tough going before the conservative U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Let's hope the higher courts do not allow the president to break the law.

 

[bsnyder]

Just for Joe from one of his favorite reporters. http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=127&Itemid=35

The ABA urged the president to seek appropriate legislation, rather than act outside the law, if he feels the existing legal framework is somehow lacking.

How can the Congress pass legislation that will fix this problem? The program violates the Bill of Rights, according to Judge Taylor's opinon.

 

[TheDoctor]

This is interesting. The judge in San Francisco who rejected the State Secrets defense is a republican. http://www.motherjones.com/news_analysis/2006/08/state_secrets.html

Yet there are signs that the courts’ habit of accepting state secret claims without question may be coming to an end. Judge Vaughn Walker, who will be hearing the 30 surveillance cases consolidated in San Francisco, has already turned down the government’s state secrets request to dismiss one of the cases out of hand; enough information about the wiretap programs is publicly available, he noted, for the case to move forward. (Although the judge who ruled on similar grounds against the NSA in Detroit has been accused of judicial activism, Walker is a widely respected Republican appointee.) Whether or not the plaintiffs ultimately succeed at building a case solely with public information, the public will have an opportunity at least to watch them try.

Justice Taylor was not the first or only judge to reject the state secret defense with respect the NSA wiretap program. Again without the State Secrets defense, the DOJ has nothing to argue.

 

[bsnyder]

This is interesting. The judge in San Francisco who rejected the State Secrets defense is a republican. http://www.motherjones.com/news_analysis/2006/08/state_secrets.html Justice Taylor was not the first or only judge to reject the state secret defense with respect the NSA wiretap program. Again without the State Secrets defense, the DOJ has nothing to argue.

But didn't Judge Taylor affirm the state secret defense with regard to data mining, which is what this San Francisco case is litigating?

 

[sodaseller]

But didn't Judge Taylor affirm the state secret defense with regard to data mining, which is what this San Francisco case is litigating?

Trial courts cannot "affirm" anything, Hassan