NSA Wiretap Program ruled Unconstitutional

[Moustermind]

Alright JimFitz, I agree with you in spirit, but not on several specific points.

1. We can't have the Patriot Act.

The "Patriot Act", or HR3126 allows a federal agent to accuse a person of even peripheral involvment with someone who MIGHT be a terrorist, and then authorizes the government to take actions against them including arrest, seizure of property, wiretapping, and detaining and inteviewing their friends and associates. It is a terribly heavy handed and sloppily executed piece of legislation. It grants far too little recourse to citizens who are wrongly accused, and sets the stage to violate the constitutional rights of citizens. We don't need that. We need well made legislation, with the right kind of accountability and safeguards.

2. We can't profile people.

I don't have a problem with the practice, though I think we should be very vigilant with how it is applied.

3. We can't wiretap.

The whole issue here is that Bush just plain was in the wrong. He violated First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights of every citizen they listened in on unnecessarily. Constitutional law is very clear here and there was simply no justification whatsoever for doing it this way. The FISA courts have been around to accomplish the same purpose legally since the 1970's. Feds can actually wiretap people for 72 hours legally before getting a FISA warrant to make the information collected official. Why in the world would the President ignore the law in this manner. Think of the stink that would have arisen if a Democratic president had done that, yeesh!

4. We can't monitor and watch suspicous fund transfers.

Don't have a problem with that, again as long as the right, and already established channels are used. See above.

5. We can't blockade our borders.

Yeah, I feel your pain here, and think more should certainly be done.

6. We can't go after illegal immigrants.

Federally the governmnet should do more. At the least several states, and towns are making it more difficult for illegal immigrants to be able to live here.

7. We have to offer the same due process to enemy combatants.

The same due process as who? If the combatants are regular army then the Geneva Convention should apply. If they are insurgents captured during acts of terrorism I have no problem with the way they are being handled in Guantanamo.

What can we do to protect ourselves?

Follow the law. It is there for a reason. There are established procedures, but a lot of people are very upset because the current president ignores them.

 

[TheDoctor]

And what's the OP comments about our President trying to be "king." Nonsense.

Our President is working hard to protect America, and most leftist and the so-called "ACLU" are doing their usual "hard work" on the other side.

As a card carrying member of the ACLU, I am happy with this decision.

Joe, bush and cheney have pushed the concept of the unitary executive which holds that the president is more important than the other branches. This is the basis for some of the signing statements where bush states that he does not have to enforce laws that he does not feel like enforcing. Bush also takes the position that he can ignore the constitution and FISA and wiretap anyone he wants without a warrant. This is the same authority that bush used to say that he can hold people without a trial and not allow these people access to a lawyer. Bush was trying to expand his power so that he would be in effect king.

The JAG officer who argued the Guantanamo detainee case argued that bush was not George III in oral arguments and there was a mention that the president is not a king by the US Supreme Court in one of the concurring opinion. The judge in this case was answering the arguments made by bush where he was taking the position that the president was above the law.

The opinion is well written and is backed by good authority. Again, given the Supreme Court recent ruling, do not count on this case standing up if it goes to the Supreme Court.

 

[TheDoctor]

3. We can't wiretap.....
7. We have to offer the same due process to enemy combatants.

First you are wrong. We can wiretap if you get a warrant. Under FISA there is a workable method for warrants to be issued including warrants issued after the fact.

As for due process, we are parties to the Geneva Convention. If we want other countries to refrain from torturing our troops then we have to also comply with the treaty. The Supreme Court merely held that we can not torture detainees and must give them a fair trial.

One of the key things that I am proud of is that our JAG officers fought with the bushies on the Geneva Convention and that it was a JAG officer who argued the Geneva Convention case before the US Supreme Court. Our military officers know what is needed to protect our troops and they support the Geneva Convention and fought to overturn the bush position.

 

[TheDoctor]

Jack Cafferty on CNN was on fire today on this issue. http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/08/17/cafferty-on-the-nsa-ruling-bush-is-breaking-the-law/

Cafferty: You know Wolf, it seems like were having this discussion about this judge’s ruling sort of in the abstract, as if there’s no precedent for what the judge decided. The judge in effect upheld the ruling of the FISA court which says that ‘if you want to wiretap phones you need a warrant to do so’. The court was created by Congress in 1978 I think it was and the law of the land says, "Get a warrant". The actions of the administration have ignored the law of the land in that regard. So it’s not a discussion in the abstract. It’s not hypothetical. There are laws on the books against what the administration is doing and it’s about time someone said it out loud.

This Federal district judge ruled today President Bush is breaking the law by spying on people, in this country, without a warrant. The judge said the President is violating the First Amendment to the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act FISA, passed by Congress 1978, specifically to prevent this kind of abuse of power. It was being done before. That’s why the FISA court was created in the first place.

So what does this mean? It means President Bush violated his oath of office, among other things, when he swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. It means he’s been lying to us about the program since it started, when tells us there’s nothing illegal about what he’s doing. A court has ruled it is illegal. And it means a 75 year old black female judge in Michigan has finally stepped in and done the job that Congress is supposed to do, namely oversight of the executive branch of government. But the gov…but the Congress is controlled by Republicans. They are controlled by the President, and they have done nothing in the way of oversight.

Again, the case is well reasoned. Bush broke the law and violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. You need a warrant to get a wiretap. This is not controversial.

 

[catherine]

Which is looking more and more dubious. Not so sure anything threatening was actually uncovered

Police probing an alleged plot to bring down flights have found a suitcase containing items which could be used to construct a bomb, the BBC has learned.
Officers have been searching a piece of land called King's Wood in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire.

A police source told the BBC the case contained "everything you would need to make an improvised device".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5261086.stm

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Hmmm some people are telling us to vote republican, and by the way I am a registered Republican, and then tells us that our government is not "allowed" to secure its borders. Last I checked, the republicans are in power and if they wanted to they could do more with the border and illegal immigration. That is an issue you need to take up with your own party. And while we are talking about the republican party, I should probably say that each of you needs to go back and study what the republican party is SUPPOSED to stand for. You all have bought into the fearmongering. It's really sad. This is what is WRONG with the republican party and many of its members.

 

[cardaway]

Hmmm some people are telling us to vote republican, and by the way I am a registered Republican, and then tells us that our government is not "allowed" to secure its borders. Last I checked, the republicans are in power and if they wanted to they could do more with the border and illegal immigration. That is an issue you need to take up with your own party. And while we are talking about the republican party, I should probably say that each of you needs to go back and study what the republican party is SUPPOSED to stand for. You all have bought into the fearmongering. It's really sad. This is what is WRONG with the republican party and many of its members.

Cheers from another former Republican

 

[CathrynRose]

What can we do to protect ourselves?.

Apparently just cross our fingers and hope for the best.

Please vote republican.

I do.

 

[CathrynRose]

Probably O'Reilly or someone else on Fox News. Cathryn Rose cites them quite a bit.

Awww - how sweet! You follow my posts and claim to know who I quote! That's so cute! Im so flattered.

.

There's a reason this President's approval ratings have gone from 90% to the mid 30's.

And who do you quote? Where do you get those numbers??? Good greif....

 

[ChrisFL]

you can vote Republican all you want, just dont for anyone that supports the Bush administration

 

[Geoff_M]

Again, the case is well reasoned.

I must confess that's the first time I've heard that comment applied to this ruling. While the "Hate Bush" crowd is running around high-fiving each other, the judge's legal analysis has received pretty harsh treatment, even from conservatives that have questions about the program's legality and even some from the Angry Left that are certain of it. (I can't believe I'm actually linking to KOS):

Today's NSA ruling: poorly reasoned and totally unhelpful
by Categorically Imperative
Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 10:09:50 PM PDT
As everyone knows, today District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the Eastern District of Michigan declared Bush's NSA surveillance program unconstitutional in a variety of different respects and issued a permanent injunction barring the President from conducting further warrantless surveillance pursuant to the program. While I wholeheartedly agree with the general result, the court's opinion and reasoning are weak in a variety of ways, and given the magnitude of the opinion and the efforts that will be made to undermine it, I fear that Judge Diggs Taylor has, in the long run, undermined those of us who have believed the NSA program is illegal since its existence was revealed several months ago.

...

Given that today's decision is certain to be appealed to the Sixth Circuit (and then the Supreme Court, though the latter may decline to review the case), today's opinion should not be of much comfort to opponents of the NSA's program. Its conclusory nature and its failure to address in detail the arguments for and against the program will simply lead to confusion and perhaps even full-scale relitigation of the issues on appeal. More damagingly, today's opinion has left ample room for attack by supporters of the NSA program, if and when they move beyond character assassination of Judge Taylor.

Link

As allued to, this ruling from Judge Taylor was whole expected from those who knew her track record. A true Carter appointed liberal who was last in the news when it was discovered that she was attempting to get the landmark University of Michigan Law School affirmative action case into a courtroom that would be favorable to the university.

 

[ChrisFL]

And who do you quote? Where do you get those numbers??? Good greif....

those figures are pretty much everywhere if you actually pay attention to news

 

[CathrynRose]

those figures are pretty much everywhere if you actually pay attention to news

"Pretty much", aye?

 

[Maleficent13]

Wall Street Journal link of approval ratings:

http://online.wsj.com/public/articl..._oM7fXMITSkTO2yCR8ZiM_20060824.html?mod=blogs

eta: that only goes through 8/05...here are more recent #s as well:

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

 

[Microcell]

I am so glad that some fool in Dearborn Michigan has free reign to call his buddies in Lebanon and plan attacks on us from right here on our soil.

How do liberals even go about defending this? There are no valid points to any argument you might pose.

"We are free to make any calls we choose" There is no right to privacy in the consitiution. I am fine with anyone listening to any call I make because I am living in a lawful way. Hmmm are liberals not living in a law abiding way perhaps?"

What they did weakened our country. We will be vulnerable to many more attacks folks and someday nuclear, mark my words. In our lifetime. What will the liberals have to jabber about when we no longer exist, and our land is unlivable? Al Quaeda has been publically seeking out nuclear weapons, and they have one goal in mind, to destroy us. What is so fearmongering about that? Do you have proof that they are not interested in that? It is not fear instilling, it is statement of fact. Hide all you want, we will be in peril if it is allowed to happen, plain and simple.

 

[TheDoctor]

And who do you quote? Where do you get those numbers??? Good greif....

* Zogby: the president's job approval rating dropped from 36% to 34%.

* Gallup: his approval rating fell from 40% to 37%.

* CBS News: the president's support remained flat at 36%.

* Newsweek: Bush's approval rating improved to 38% from 35%.

* Fox News: the president's support remained flat at 36%.

* AP/Ipsos: his approval rating fell from 36% to 33%.

* Harris: the president's support remained flat at 34%.

In six of the seven national polls, the president's support dropped or remained the same since Americans heard about the alleged terrorist plot. In other words, the story that would obviously help Bush's standing isn't helping him at all.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

I guess Bill O'Reilly doesn't cover this stuff.

 

[Microcell]

What is your point? Truman was not popular either during his presidency. I don't want the winner of the most popular contest leading our country right now, I want the one who will work to keep me safe and not listen to poll numbers, thank God that our president does not operate by studying polls like another president that put us in this position.

 

[CathrynRose]

I guess Bill O'Reilly doesn't cover this stuff.

Does that make you feel good?

This is why I really try and avoid these "discussions".

Someone watching BIll O'Reilly is just hysterical.

Carry on - have fun folks.

 

[Chicago526]

I am so glad that some fool in Dearborn Michigan has free reign to call his buddies in Lebanon and plan attacks on us from right here on our soil.

How do liberals even go about defending this? There are no valid points to any argument you might pose.

"We are free to make any calls we choose" There is no right to privacy in the consitiution. I am fine with anyone listening to any call I make because I am living in a lawful way. Hmmm are liberals not living in a law abiding way perhaps?"

What they did weakened our country. We will be vulnerable to many more attacks folks and someday nuclear, mark my words. In our lifetime. What will the liberals have to jabber about when we no longer exist, and our land is unlivable? Al Quaeda has been publically seeking out nuclear weapons, and they have one goal in mind, to destroy us. What is so fearmongering about that? Do you have proof that they are not interested in that? It is not fear instilling, it is statement of fact. Hide all you want, we will be in peril if it is allowed to happen, plain and simple.

Ummm, if the government wants to wire tap a phone, all they need is a warrent. How does this make America weaker?

Government: Judge, we suspect person A may be plotting something. We'd like to tap his phone. Here's why we think he's plotting something.

Judge: Okay. Here's your warrent.

What's so hard about that? I remember hearing something that since FISA came into being, only one application for a warent has ever been denied.

I just don't understand why the Bush administration just doesn't ask for a warrent. It doesn't take long, and if it is truely an emergency they can ask for a warrent AFTER they've already begun the wire tap.

If you want to give up your Constitutional right to no search and seizure without a warrent, knock yourself out. The rest of us would like the government to follow the law, thanks.