NSA Wiretap Program ruled Unconstitutional

[sodaseller]

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

Could fix the inherent power issue under Youngstown Steel analysis, which was also part of the opinion

 

[bsnyder]

Trial courts cannot "affirm" anything, Hassan

Let's try that again, then, defender of cowardly Democrats in Congress.

Judge Taylor granted the administration's motion to dismiss the part of the case challenging the constitutionality of the data-mining program, on the grounds that litigation would require disclosure of state secrets.

It appears to me that the San Francisco court rejected the state secrets defense on the same data mining program.

 

[bsnyder]

Could fix the inherent power issue under Youngstown Steel analysis, which was also part of the opinion

But what if they don't reverse (is that the correct terminology? ) on the constitutionality issue? The program gets shut down?

 

[sodaseller]

But what if they don't reverse (is that the correct terminology? ) on the constitutionality issue? The program gets shut down?

Reverse is the correct terminology. Presuming the Sixth Circuit does not reverse, and that can be for a multitude of reasons so it is difficult to address all the permutations, then there are at least two other gambits in the judicial system, an appeal to the complete Sixth Circuit sitting en banc, i.e., all 12 (usually, could be a bit more or less) judges of the circuit instead of the three judge panel you randomly pull. You do that if you thiink you pulled an aberrant 2-3 judges that are different from the other 9-10 on the Court, or you go to the Supreme Court. If that fails, you can always defy the courst - happened many times before

 

[bsnyder]

If that fails, you can always defy the courst - happened many times before

Yes, I understand there are basically three more "at bats" for the Government, but ultimately, if the SCOTUS didn't reverse Judge Taylor's constitutionality issues, then the program would be "terminated" (I'm SURE that's not the correct legal terminology) at that point?

Defy the courts how? By continuing the TPS program? Could you be more specific, please.

 

[TheDoctor]

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

They can address the situations and try to make it easier for warrants to be issued by the FISA Court. Again, the bushies have never said why they can not use FISA Court and so it is impossible to address their concern. For example, the law could be amended to allow for broader warrants subject to further judicial review. The bushies have been unwilling to discuss what is needed because they want to ignore congress and the courts (i.e. act like an Unitary Executive or King).

 

[TheDoctor]

Here is a nice editoral that raises the same question that I have raised. Why can not the bushies get a warrant from the FISA Court?http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/couriernews/opinions/3_4_EL24_EDITFISA_S10824.htm

We respectfully believe that the White House is just fundamentally wrong on that score. The Constitution makes it pretty darn clear that "commander in chief" does not mean "king." The U.S. Supreme Court has said that very same thing, repeatedly and recently. And now federal Judge Anna Diggs Taylor has said so, too, ruling recently that the National Security Agency's eavesdropping program on U.S. citizens violates the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Constitution's separation of powers provisions and the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

What is the president now doing that he could not if he had to seek the permission of the FISA court first? Even with FISA, the administration can act immediately, discreetly. The court operates behind closed doors. The president has 72 hours to seek a judge's retroactive OK. In practice, the FISA court hardly ever says no. So how is national security endangered?

The White House won't say, suggesting that even having to argue its position would compromise citizen safety. If we thought for one second that the FISA law — fashioned in response to the civil liberties abuses of the Nixon administration — was so burdensome it might precipitate another 9/11, we'd never defend it. Indeed, the Bush administration is reported to have used the FISA court extensively for its part in the London bombers investigation. So why not all the time?

Again, the bushies can get changes to FISA that would make this program more legal if they simply got warrants or submitted to some form of judicial review. However under the Unitary Executive theory, the bushies believe that the President is King and therefore does not need the supervision of the Courts or Congress.

 

[TheDoctor]

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

Joe does his usual cut and run when confronted with facts.

Here is a link to today's Doonesbury.
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html It looks like this week's theme is going to be this decision and bush is not going to like these cartoons.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Joe does his usual cut and run when confronted with facts.

Here is a link to today's Doonesbury.
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html It looks like this week's theme is going to be this decision and bush is not going to like these cartoons.

Fact: The libs and ACLU went judge shopping until they found one who ruled in favor of the terrorists.

Now you're grasping at straws with Doonsbury cartoons. The cartoonist is about as unbiased as Judge Taylor.

See you around the conspiracy cooler.

 

[TheDoctor]

Fact: The libs and ACLU went judge shopping until they found one who ruled in favor of the terrorists.

Wrong. 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. Justice Taylor's opinion relied heavily on the opinion of Judge Vaughn Walker

 

[LuvDuke]

Wrong. 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. Justice Taylor's opinion relied heavily on the opinion of Judge Vaughn Walker

You've got to forgive Joe. He declared Bush right waay back in February.

http://disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1038428

So here we are, 6 months later, and still no confirmation from the WH.

 

[Charade]

Wrong. The judge in San Francisco who rejected the State Secrets defense is a republican.

You mean a Republican like Spector or Chaffey?

 

[LuvDuke]

You mean a Republican like Spector or Chaffey?

Remember this the next time you hear a Republican say: "We're a big tent" or "There's no litmus test".

 

[Charade]

Remember this the next time you hear a Republican say: "We're a big tent" or "There's no litmus test".

And don't you forget what Dean said. That the Republicans couldn't get more than a few people of color into a room unless they brought in the wait staff.

 

[LuvDuke]

And don't you forget what Dean said. That the Republicans couldn't get more than a few people of color into a room unless they brought in the wait staff.

If there's a point, please make it.

However, I don't know about a wait staff, but this is how Republicans treat black voters who happen to be serving their country:

http://www.gregpalast.com/massacre-of-the-buffalo-soldiers

 

[TheDoctor]

Back to the topic. Doonesbury is great today. http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html The heredity king thread for this week's strip is great.

 

[Charade]

If there's a point, please make it.

I don't have a point. I just make stuff up.

However, I don't know about a wait staff, but this is how Republicans treat black voters who happen to be serving their country:

http://www.gregpalast.com/massacre-of-the-buffalo-soldiers

Our Democratic Governor had a hand in nixing military absentee ballots in the 2004 election because the ballots were not sent out in time. Wonder why?

 

[TheDoctor]

Now that the States Secret defense was rejected in the case in San Francisco, the plaintiffs have issued a subponea to bush on the NSA wire tap program. http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/BREAKING__Bush_White_House_subpoenaed_0829.html

Two attorneys representing claimants in a lawsuit over wiretapping by the National Security Agency claim that they have sent subpoenas to the White House today....

...the subpoenaes, directed to President George Bush, the Office of Legal Counsel, the Department of Justice, and the Chief Legal Counsel for Verizon, have already been sent, and should reach their targets tomorrow.

The subpoenas come on the heels of two federal court decisions that were seen as blows to the Bush Administration warrantless spying program.

Earlier this month, federal judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled the entire program unconstitutional and illegal; another federal judge in San Francisco rejected the Bush Administration's attempt to dismiss these lawsuits by claiming they breach national security.

Mayer explained that the subpoena seeks to learn "whether the Bush administration has unlawfully targeted journalists, peace activists, libertarians, members of congress or generated an 'enemies list.'"

I know that bush regrets not being a king right now. That pesky Clinton v. Jones case means that he as to answer subponeas just like he was a regular person.

 

[Judge Smails]

Good grief! This ruling a week after the plot to blow up planes was uncovered.

According to the respected and irreverent British technology publication The Register, the plot--if it existed--was a joke. Smuggling the component parts of triacetone triperoxide (TATP)--the liquid explosive we've been told was the object of the wannabe jihadis' vengeance fantasies--and successfully mixing them into a brew powerful enough to bring down a plane would require skills far beyond the capabilities of, well, anyone.

"First," wrote The Register, "you've got to get adequately concentrated hydrogen peroxide. This is hard to come by, so a large quantity of the three per cent solution sold in pharmacies might have to be concentrated by boiling off the water...Take your hydrogen peroxide, acetone, and sulfuric acid, measure them very carefully, and put them into drink bottles for convenient smuggling onto a plane. It's all right to mix the peroxide and acetone in one container, so long as it remains cool. Don't forget to bring several frozen gel-packs (preferably in a Styrofoam chiller deceptively marked "perishable foods"), a thermometer, a large beaker, a stirring rod, and a medicine dropper. You're going to need them.

"It's best to fly first class and order champagne. The bucket full of ice water, which the airline ought to supply, might possibly be adequate...Once the plane is over the ocean, very discreetly bring all of your gear into the toilet. You might need to make several trips to avoid drawing attention. Once your kit is in place, put a beaker containing the peroxide/acetone mixture into the ice water bath (champagne bucket), and start adding the acid, drop by drop, while stirring constantly. Watch the reaction temperature carefully. The mixture will heat, and if it gets too hot, you'll end up with a weak explosive. In fact, if it gets really hot, you'll get a premature explosion possibly sufficient to kill you, but probably no one else.

"After a few hours--assuming, by some miracle, that the fumes haven't overcome you or alerted passengers or the flight crew to your activities--you'll have a quantity of TATP with which to carry out your mission. Now all you need to do is dry it for an hour or two."

 

[Charade]

According to the respected and irreverent British technology publication The Register, the plot--if it existed--was a joke. Smuggling the component parts of triacetone triperoxide (TATP)--the liquid explosive we've been told was the object of the wannabe jihadis' vengeance fantasies--and successfully mixing them into a brew powerful enough to bring down a plane would require skills far beyond the capabilities of, well, anyone.

"First," wrote The Register, "you've got to get adequately concentrated hydrogen peroxide. This is hard to come by, so a large quantity of the three per cent solution sold in pharmacies might have to be concentrated by boiling off the water...Take your hydrogen peroxide, acetone, and sulfuric acid, measure them very carefully, and put them into drink bottles for convenient smuggling onto a plane. It's all right to mix the peroxide and acetone in one container, so long as it remains cool. Don't forget to bring several frozen gel-packs (preferably in a Styrofoam chiller deceptively marked "perishable foods"), a thermometer, a large beaker, a stirring rod, and a medicine dropper. You're going to need them.

"It's best to fly first class and order champagne. The bucket full of ice water, which the airline ought to supply, might possibly be adequate...Once the plane is over the ocean, very discreetly bring all of your gear into the toilet. You might need to make several trips to avoid drawing attention. Once your kit is in place, put a beaker containing the peroxide/acetone mixture into the ice water bath (champagne bucket), and start adding the acid, drop by drop, while stirring constantly. Watch the reaction temperature carefully. The mixture will heat, and if it gets too hot, you'll end up with a weak explosive. In fact, if it gets really hot, you'll get a premature explosion possibly sufficient to kill you, but probably no one else.

"After a few hours--assuming, by some miracle, that the fumes haven't overcome you or alerted passengers or the flight crew to your activities--you'll have a quantity of TATP with which to carry out your mission. Now all you need to do is dry it for an hour or two."

Oh now that's comforting.