NSA Wiretap Program ruled Unconstitutional

[dcentity2000]

Thought Police.



Rich::

 

[reeeoga]

My turn to

A person buys a TracFone, activates it and calls a number overseas. They talk for 15 minutes. They then hang up and throw the phone away.

When does the Government have time to get a warrent?

 

[LuvDuke]

Come on, listen to yourself, we are not talking about robbing the Post Office, we are talking about blowing up planes full of innocent people. You have to arrest them for the intent, not in the act.

ford family

You're misunderstanding completely. Conspiracy is an act and a crime. BS'ing over a beer is not a conspiracy, but would be reason to keep an eye on someone.

Conspiracy is the kind of "crime" I was talking about. I might be a foul-mouthed leftist crank, but I'm not stupid.

 

[DancingBear]

...thank God that our president does not operate by studying polls like another president that put us in this position.

You mean George H. W. Bush, because he didn't go into Baghdad?

Or maybe you mean Reagan, who sold arms to an axis of evil, as a means of negotiating with Hezbollah. And whose high-tailing it out of Lebanon put ideas in Osama's head?

 

[LuvDuke]

My turn to

A person buys a TracFone, activates it and calls a number overseas. They talk for 15 minutes. They then hang up and throw the phone away.

When does the Government have time to get a warrent?

They don't have time to get a warrant, and my guess is that they'll never need one because they'll never find the person given those circumstances.

 

[ford family]

You're misunderstanding completely. Conspiracy is an act and a crime. BS'ing over a beer is not a conspiracy, but would be reason to keep an eye on someone.

Conspiracy is the kind of "crime" I was talking about. I might be a foul-mouthed leftist crank, but I'm not stupid.

Hey, I've never found you foul mouthed!

ford family

 

[LuvDuke]

You mean George H. W. Bush, because he didn't go into Baghdad?

Or maybe you mean Reagan, who sold arms to an axis of evil, as a means of negotiating with Hezbollah. And whose high-tailing it out of Lebanon put ideas in Osama's head?

No joke. Tony Snow(job) actually did blame Bush 41 for 9/11.

Press Briefing by Tony Snow
Crawford Middle School
Crawford, Texas
August 9,2006

"Now, when the United States walked away, in the opinion of Osama bin Laden in 1991, bin Laden drew from that the conclusion that Americans were weak and wouldn't stay the course, and that led to September 11th."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060809-1.html

How'd you like to be a fly on the wall at the Bush family Thanksgiving dinner this year?

 

[LuvDuke]

Hey, I've never found you foul mouthed!

ford family

This made me laugh.

 

[DancingBear]

My turn to

A person buys a TracFone, activates it and calls a number overseas. They talk for 15 minutes. They then hang up and throw the phone away.

When does the Government have time to get a warrent?

Under FISA, they have 72 hours after the fact to get one. If they have some reason to do so, they might also have obtained a warrant in advance to surveil the caller.

 

[bsnyder]

The judge's decision is certainly getting panned, from all sides of the political spectrum. Here's just a small sample:

Friday, August 18, 2006
A LEGAL ATROCITY

I’ve been really busy at work, and I haven’t had that much time to look over the NSA opinion, so what I’m about to say may be subject to change when I get a better grasp of the procedural history. But based on my initial reading, this opinion is an atrocity. I hate to say it because I’m sympathetic to the result, but from a legally technical standpoint, this opinion is premature, unsupported, and in violation of elementary civil procedure....



...You know, I really hate to be this harsh, particularly given that the Malkin/Limbaugh hyenas are going to attack the judge. But this is not how you do this. I think the NSA program is illegal too, and my sympathies for the administration are fairly well known. But this sort of opinion plays right into the hands of conservative critics who say liberal judges play politics. I don’t think “liberal judges” do, but this one did.

OUCH!

http://lawandpolitics.blogspot.com/

 

[TheDoctor]

I was just discussing the one NSA ruling as was your post that I was responding to. So, no, I'm not wrong.


BTW, your paragraph says may (emphasis mine). The White House has legal counsel, too. Lawyers and judges disagree all the time. Once a definitive ruling was made, then the White House adjusted accordingly. It makes sense to me. I'm glad the White House is being aggressive against terrorists and terrorism.

Joe, the thing that is so right about you is that you are always wrong. Again, you can ignore the fact that there is a clear pattern of bush and cheney breaking the law but other legal scholars are not. One legal writer has responded to a Washington Post attack on the decision. Please note that this legal author is not totally impressed with all of the ruling but is still defending it. http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/post-editorial-board-tell-us-how.html

For the last four years, the Bush administration has deliberately violated multiple laws because it has adopted radical theories which vest law-breaking powers in the President.....

But at long last, the Post Editorial Board has finally found something to be outraged about -- the fact that the judicial opinion issued by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor yesterday isn't scholarly and "complex" enough for the intellectual tastes of Fred Hiatt. What really matters, says the Post in its unbelievably petty editorial, is not the profound constitutional crisis we face by virtue of a President who believes he has the power to act outside of the law and has been exercising that power aggressively and enthusiastically in numerous ways over five years. No, that is merely a fascinating intellectual puzzle, something for super-smart experts to resolve with great civility and high-minded, complex discussions as they ponder what the Post calls the "complicated, difficult issues" raised by the administration's lawlessness.

To the Post, what really matters here is how impressed law professors are with the complexity and nuance in Judge Taylor's written decision. Condescendingly scoffing at the judicial quality of her opinion is of infinitely greater importance than objecting to the growing extremism and lawlessness to which our country has been subjected.

Complaints of that nature are the province of the lowly, emotional masses ....

One of the many ironies here is that while the Post editors parade their hunger for a complex, scholarly discussion, they actually have no idea what they are talking about with regard to several of the most critical issues before the court. The Post tells us, for instance, that the administration (oh-so-surprisingly) does not agree with the court's conclusions, "nor is its dispute frivolous," and to prove that, points to "a broad congressional authorization to use force against al-Qaeda" which "the administration argues permits the wiretapping notwithstanding existing federal surveillance." But particularly in the aftermath of Hamdan -- which decisively rejected the administration's view of the AUMF -- the AUMF claim is not even a serious argument. The fact that the Post thinks it is (along with the fact that the Post never even once mentions Hamdan) demonstrates that they are hardly in a position to decree which judicial opinions are "neither careful nor scholarly."....

But not everything has two or more sides. Some issues are complicated, but some are not. And some dangers are profound and grave enough that putting a stop to them is infinitely more important than engaging in fun, intellectual games designed to show how serious and studious and intellectually dexterous one is. Sometimes, the "destination" matters more than the soul-searching, intellectually impressive "journey." Yes, sure, it is true that the judicial opinion issued yesterday is very weak, in places borderline incoherent, in its reasoning with regard to some issues. Anyone can see that. Most everyone who commented on it, including me, pointed that out. But that does not undermine in any way the fact that this President has been systematically breaking the law for no reason other than he thinks that he can, and that judge's rejection of that belief is quite eloquent and powerful. Most importantly of all, it is indisputably correct.

In the scheme of the profound issues our country faces, obsessing about the inartfulness of this judicial opinion is not unlike those who use a laughably grave tone to write articles about fights between Daily Kos diarists or the latest blogger "scandal" while ignoring our national media's grotesque failure to scrutinize meaningfully our government's conduct and claims -- particularly on matters of war and peace or threats to constitutional liberties.

There is nothing commendable or impressive about always being restrained and muddled and ambivalent in one's tone and views. It is not a sign of intellectual prowess to be open-minded to frivolous claims or corrupt and dangerous behavior. And when the claims are particularly frivolous, and when the corruption and dangers reach a certain level of severity, self-important ambivalence -- hospitality to extremist ideas and systematic government law-breaking -- is actually irresponsible, reckless, and morally and intellectually bankrupt.

 

[TheDoctor]

The judge's decision is certainly getting panned, from all sides of the political spectrum.

Not everyone agrees with this view. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/18/opinion/18fri1.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Ever since President Bush was forced to admit that he was spying on Americans’ telephone calls and e-mail without warrants, his lawyers have fought to keep challenges to the program out of the courts. Yesterday, that plan failed. A federal judge in Detroit declared the eavesdropping program to be illegal and unconstitutional. She also offered a scathing condemnation of what lies behind the wiretapping — Mr. Bush’s attempt to expand his powers to the point that he can place himself beyond the reach of Congress, judges or the Constitution.

“There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution,” wrote Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the United States District Court in Detroit. Her decision was based on a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

She said Mr. Bush violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act when he ordered the National Security Agency to spy without a warrant on international phone calls and e-mail by Americans and foreign residents of the United States. She noted that the surveillance law was passed to prohibit just this sort of presidential abuse of power and provided ample flexibility for gathering vital intelligence. She also said that the program violated the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as the rights of free speech and association granted by the First Amendment.

The ruling eviscerated the absurd notion on which the administration’s arguments have been based: that Congress authorized Mr. Bush to do whatever he thinks is necessary when it authorized the invasion of Afghanistan. .....

But for now, with a careful, thoroughly grounded opinion, one judge in Michigan has done what 535 members of Congress have so abysmally failed to do. She has reasserted the rule of law over a lawless administration and shown why issues of this kind belong within the constitutional process created more than two centuries ago to handle them.

 

[Charade]

Yep, not everyone.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081701540.html?sub=new

A Judicial Misfire
The first federal court opinion on warrantless NSA surveillance is full of sound and fury.
Friday, August 18, 2006; Page A20


THE NATION would benefit from a serious, scholarly and hard-hitting judicial examination of the National Security Agency's program of warrantless surveillance. The program exists on ever-more uncertain legal ground; it is at least in considerable tension with federal law and the Bill of Rights. Careful judicial scrutiny could serve both to hold the administration accountable and to provide firmer legal footing for such surveillance as may be necessary for national security.

Unfortunately, the decision yesterday by a federal district court in Detroit, striking down the NSA's program, is neither careful nor scholarly, and it is hard-hitting only in the sense that a bludgeon is hard-hitting. The angry rhetoric of U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor will no doubt grab headlines. But as a piece of judicial work -- that is, as a guide to what the law requires and how it either restrains or permits the NSA's program -- her opinion will not be helpful.


Judge Taylor's opinion is certainly long on throat-clearing sound bites. "There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution," she thunders. She declares that "the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution." And she insists that Mr. Bush has "undisputedly" violated the First and Fourth Amendments, the constitutional separation of powers, and federal surveillance law.

But the administration does, in fact, vigorously dispute these conclusions. Nor is its dispute frivolous. The NSA's program, about which many facts are still undisclosed, exists at the nexus of inherent presidential powers, laws purporting to constrict those powers, the constitutional right of the people to be free from unreasonable surveillance, and a broad congressional authorization to use force against al-Qaeda. That authorization, the administration argues, permits the wiretapping notwithstanding existing federal surveillance law; inherent presidential powers, it suggests, allow it to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance on its own authority. You don't have to accept either contention to acknowledge that these are complicated, difficult issues. Judge Taylor devotes a scant few pages to dismissing them, without even discussing key precedents.

The judge may well be correct in her bottom line that the program exceeds presidential authority, even during wartime. We harbor grave doubt both that Congress authorized warrantless surveillance as part of the war and that Mr. Bush has the constitutional power to act outside of normal surveillance statutes that purport to be the exclusive legal authorities for domestic spying. But her opinion, which as the first court venture into this territory will garner much attention, is unhelpful either in evaluating or in ensuring the program's legality. Fortunately, as this case moves forward on appeal and as other cases progress in other courts, it won't be the last word.

 

[bsnyder]

Not everyone agrees with this view. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/18/opinion/18fri1.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Hmmm, so far, we have The Doctor and the NYTimes Editorial board who think this is a "careful, thoroughly grounded opinion".

Anyone else?

 

[Charade]

Anyone?

Bueller?

 

[bsnyder]

One legal writer has responded to a Washington Post attack on the decision. Please note that this legal author is not totally impressed with all of the ruling but is still defending it. http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/post-editorial-board-tell-us-how.html

Greenwald's logic on this is uninspiring. If it's "indisputable" that the President broke the law using the NSA program, how hard would it be for Judge Taylor to craft a solid opinion? Instead, he (Greenwald) had this to say about it: "Yes, sure, it is true that the judicial opinion issued yesterday is very weak, in places borderline incoherent, in its reasoning with regard to some issues. Anyone can see that. Most everyone who commented on it, including me, pointed that out."

 

[richiebaseball]

make sure you get updated information

A little more updated information to this not so important plot.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060818/ap_on_re_eu/britain_terror_plot_187

Several martyr videos were reportedly discovered on at least six laptops owned by some of the 23 suspects being questioned in the foiled terror plot to bomb as many as 10 jetliners bound for the United States.

For the conspiracy crowd out there this is also in the same article;

A police helicopter hovered over the area.....

The helicopters do them in everytime.

 

[TheDoctor]

According to Businessweek, the telecoms who assisted bush in the illegal wiretap program may be in some legal trouble. http://www.businessweek.com/technol...060818_382622.htm?campaign_id=bier_bier_tpnun

Telecommunications and Internet companies accused of working with the Bush Administration's domestic eavesdropping program could be in for more legal headaches, after a federal judge ruled Thursday that the warrantless wiretaps violated the constitution.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit dealt a major blow to the White House in a 43-page opinion that said President George W. Bush exceeded his authority and that the program violated the First and Fourth Amendments protecting free speech and privacy. She ordered the National Security Agency to immediately halt a secret program that monitors telephone calls and e-mails of Americans that are in contact with suspected terrorists. .....

Businesses accused of aiding the Bush administration in wiretapping could also be in for a legal bruising, say civil liberties groups that have sued telecom providers AT&T (T ), Verizon (VZ ), and BellSouth (BLS ) for allegedly helping the NSA. The ruling could set a precedent other courts can't ignore.

"Every phone company that is assisting the government in its illegal surveillance would want to think long and hard before it continues that agreement," says Ann Beeson, the ACLU's lead attorney in the case. "There are already lawsuits claiming that their cooperation for the past several years is illegal and now that the judge has declared it is illegal, their liability increases. The risk is much greater from a business perspective."

ACLU ADVANTAGE. AT&T spokesman Walt Sharp declined to comment on the litigation, saying, "We're fully committed to protecting our customer's privacy, and beyond that, we don't comment on matters of national security." Verizon spokesman Eric Rabe said, "We believe that everything we've done here has been within the law."

He added that it was too soon to say whether the court's ruling will attract more litigation. "There have been all kinds of opportunistic lawsuits since this story became public…I've read the decision. But how it plays out, we'll have to wait and see." Officials at BellSouth did not return calls for comment.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a nonprofit advocacy group for digital rights, said the ACLU's victory strengthens the EFF's own case against AT&T, which is taking place in the U.S District Court for the Northern District of California. The federal government and others have tried to get that case and related lawsuits dismissed, based largely on arguments that laws prohibiting the disclosure of state secrets override all other legal claims.

The rejection of the state secret defense means that the telecom companies are going to have to fight these cases and may lose.

 

[TheDoctor]

Greenwald's logic on this is uninspiring. If it's "indisputable" that the President broke the law using the NSA program, how hard would it be for Judge Taylor to craft a solid opinion? Instead, he (Greenwald) had this to say about it: "Yes, sure, it is true that the judicial opinion issued yesterday is very weak, in places borderline incoherent, in its reasoning with regard to some issues. Anyone can see that. Most everyone who commented on it, including me, pointed that out."

You are baising your conclusion on the premise that bush and AG Gonzales have declared that the prorgram is legal and therefore it must be legal. Well the same argument was made about the Guantanamo detainees and their right to a fair trial as opposed the military tribunals bush was pushing. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-nsa18aug18,0,584074.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail

Not surprisingly, the administration said it would appeal Thursday's ruling, insisting in a statement that "the Terrorist Surveillance Program is firmly grounded in law." It said the same thing about the military commissions Bush established to try accused enemy combatants at the Guantanamo Bay naval base. The Supreme Court disagreed. The justices may take a similarly skeptical view of administration assertions when it comes to warrantless wiretapping.

Remember one of the key elements of bush's legal justification for this program was ruled on by the US Supreme Court. The Authorization to Use Military Force did not authorize bush to ignore UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions and I doubt that any court is going to go against the US Supreme Court and rule that AUMF overrules FISA.

 

[TheDoctor]

I have to agree with you and Jim Fitz and I also thought the "Bush trying to be King" comment was cheap and uncalled for. It doesn't add anything to the debate that is helpfull to the main jist of the discussion. Just a typical cheap shot.

I disagree. Here is some more on this issue.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060817/cm_thenation/3113132

In ruling on Thursday that the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program is unconstitutional and must be halted, U.S. district Judge Anna Diggs Taylor slammed the White House on several critical fronts.

For months, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and other administration aides have been defending--even championing--what they call the "terrorist surveillance program," under which the National Security Agency can intercept communications that involve an American citizen or resident without a warrant if one party to the communication is overseas and suspected of being linked to anti-American terrorists). They have maintained that the president has the authority as commander in chief to authorize such surveillance. Though the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) generally forbids wiretapping without warrants, the White House has contended that Bush is not bound by the limitations of that law. This claim--arising from the Bush administration's view of expansive (even supreme) presidential power--set up a constitutional clash. And in the first round of the legal battle, Judge Taylor has knocked out the White House argument.....

Once again, a court has told Bush that he is not all-powerful. He cannot create military tribunals on his own. He cannot detain American citizens as enemy combatants without affording them some elements of due process. Taylor's decision will probably be appealed by the Bush administration, and the case will wind its way toward the Supreme Court. But this decision reaffirms--and puts into practice--the bedrock principle that a president's power does not trump the workings of a republican government, even when it comes to war. Weeks before he took office in 2001, Bush quipped, "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." Democracy, though, is not easy. And a commander in chief has to abide by the rules, as various courts have now ruled. The administration's King George approach to governance has taken another blow. But it's royally unlikely this president is going to accept the decision and give up his claim to the throne.