NSA Wiretap Program ruled Unconstitutional

[LuvDuke]

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

Finally, something we agree on.

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?

Maybe the point here is that the whole damned system is broken.

 

[TheDoctor]

Unlike Joe, I find the Doonesbury cartoons this week to be some of the author's best work in a while. Here is today's cartoon. http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html The reason that Judge Taylor's statement in the opinion that America does not have kings upsets the conservatives is that they know how close to the truth it is. If Judge Taylor is overturned, then we can look forward to "Princess Jenna" taking over for bush.

 

[TheDoctor]

Today's Doonesbury is simply wonderful http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html

 

[TheDoctor]

The bushies are keeping with the same claims that bush is king and therefore is above the constitution and FISA in yet another case on the NSA wiretap program. http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--domesticspying-la0905sep05,0,6614709.story

NEW YORK -- A government lawyer argued in the strongest language to date Tuesday in defense of President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program to stop terrorists, raising a hypothetical scenario of a nuclear attack on Washington to illustrate his point....

Coppolino's arguments grew ever more dramatic as he was challenged by the judge over the limits of presidential authority and whether Bush could eavesdrop on the phone conversations of Americans without Congressional and judicial approval.

He said the surveillance program was essential in the war against terrorism in finding the enemy and was "as close to a modern battlefield as you can get: Where is al-Qaida? Where do they want to hit us?"

Lynch cited complaints that the surveillance program intrudes on Americans and was operating in the face of a Constitution that generally permits Congress to overrule the president with a two-thirds majority.

"This is serious stuff you're suggesting. ... Even Julius Caesar didn't get to bring his armies back into Rome," Lynch told Coppolino.

Lynch also questioned the limits of Bush's authority as commander in chief.

"So he can build a B-1 bomber whether Congress thinks so or not because he thinks its necessary to fight a particular war?" the judge asked.

He then questioned whether the president could order that a psychiatrist be interrogated about a suspected terrorist to try to stop a terrorist attack or that a U.S. citizen be assaulted.

When the law is on your side, you pound the law. When the facts are your side, you pound the facts. When neither are on your side, you pound the table. It certainly sounded like the bushie lawyer was pounding the table here.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Unlike Joe, I find the Doonesbury cartoons this week to be some of the author's best work in a while. Here is today's cartoon. http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html The reason that Judge Taylor's statement in the opinion that America does not have kings upsets the conservatives is that they know how close to the truth it is. If Judge Taylor is overturned, then we can look forward to "Princess Jenna" taking over for bush.

Maybe you could be the court jester.

 

[TheDoctor]

Maybe you could be the court jester.

You have that job locked up. Your ability to ignore the truth and the facts make you well qualified for the position

 

[Judge Smails]

Joe forgot his new hat.

 

[Mugg Mann]

Maybe you could be the court jester.

Hmmm....an insult from the guy who's always complaining about "insults" from the left. It's not surprising that you participate in the same behaviors that you profess to disdain.

Yet another example of why there's absolutely no reason to take you seriously, Joe.

 

[TheDoctor]

Yet another federal judge has rejected the State Secrets defense being urged by the bushies. http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash...ews-16/1157657364256550.xml&storylist=orlocal

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday rejected a plea by the Bush administration to dismiss a lawsuit against the government's warrantless wiretap program, saying he is not yet convinced going ahead with the case would harm national security.

U.S. District Judge Garr King said he recognizes that "disclosing information regarding the al Qaeda threat" or revealing secret details of the government's eavesdropping program "may harm national security."

But he also said "I am not yet convinced" such information would need to be revealed by proceeding with the lawsuit, which was filed by the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, which had a chapter in Ashland that went out of business after the U.S. government labeled it a terrorist organization.

The foundation charged that two of its lawyers and at least one official were under electronic surveillance in March and April 2004. The suit asked King to rule the surveillance a violation of a federal law that requires a special court to approve intelligence-related wiretapping.

The U.S. Justice Department in June filed a motion for dismissal of the lawsuit, arguing that proceeding with it would jeopardize national security because state secrets would be revealed.

King said his decision is subject to immediate appeal, and it adds to the variety of rulings from federal trial judges on the domestic spying.

This is yet another court who has adopted a similar position to Judge Taylor on the State Secrets doctrine. In this case, it is clear that the plaintiffs have standing in that there is a document showing that they were the subject of an illegal wiretap. As more rulings like this come down, it will be more difficult to dismiss Judge Taylor's ruling.

 

[TheDoctor]

Arlen Spector has a bill that would make the illegal NSA wire tap program legal and grant some form of amensty to bushies who broke the law. The Spector wiretap bill is apparently dead. http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/sen-reid-specter-bill-will-not-be.html

Sen. Reid stated flatly and unequivocally -- and I'm paraphrasing -- that the Specter bill was not going anywhere, that it would not be enacted. I then asked him how he could be so certain about that -- specifically, I asked where the 51 votes against the Specter bill would come from in light of the support it enjoys from both the White House and at least some of the ostensibly "independent" Republicans, exacerbated by the fact that all 10 Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voted in favor of it yesterday (at least they voted in favor of sending it to the Senate floor).

In response, Sen. Reid explained that our system does not allow every bill to be enacted simply because a majority supports it, that Senate rules allow minority rights to be protected, clearly alluding to a filibuster. Indeed, as part of that vow, Sen. Reid specifically referenced the fact that in the Senate, one does not need 50%, but only 40%, to block the enactment of a bill. He explained that rule existed to protect minority rights. When I asked him expressly whether the Democrats are committed to filibustering the Specter bill if doing so is necessary to defeat it, he said he thought that would not be necessary, but repeated that they would make sure the Specter bill did not become law. He was unequivocal about that a second time.

 

[TheDoctor]

The bush administration have not succeeded in getting the Court of Appeals to stay Judge Taylor's ruling and now are shocked that she is not going to stay this ruling herself. http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060928/NEWS99/60928032

The Justice Department wanted Taylor to delay enforcement of her order until the appeals court decides whether to uphold or overturn her August decision. The ACLU asked Taylor to reject the governments request.

 

[Charade]

 

[LiLIrishChick63]

whoo hoo!!!!!

 

[TheDoctor]

The bill that was suppose to legalize the NSA wiretap program is dead and will have no chance of passing in the new congress http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/061119/27surveillance.htm

Republicans who limped back to Washington for a lame duck congressional session last week found a host of marching orders from President Bush, but perhaps none more urgent than this: Before Democrats take control of Congress in January, they must pass legislation authorizing the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program.

His plea for a legislative stamp of approval on the controversial spy effort is an "important priority in the war on terror," Bush said. The response: deafening silence. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist quickly dispatched aides to put out the word on Bush's request: Not gonna happen.

Outgoing Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter introduced yet another bill last week that he says would ease the concerns of privacy advocates while allowing the spying program to continue, but the odds of getting any last-ditch legislation through his committee, the House, and a Senate vote before Republicans cede control are formidable.

This means that the appeal of the opinion of Judge Taylor will be heard.

The most-watched court case is in Detroit, where U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor has ruled that the program violates U.S. citizens' privacy and free-speech rights and illegally skirts review by the special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court. "There are no hereditary kings in America, and no powers not created by the Constitution," Taylor wrote. Administration lawyers won a stay to keep the program running and are appealing Taylor's ruling.

Oral arguments could be heard as soon as early next year. And Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which has sued to obtain information about the spy program, said the case will set a benchmark for how other cases may proceed.

Another closely watched case is being heard in San Francisco, where AT&T has been sued for allegedly providing customer call records to the NSA. A federal judge there rejected the government's request that the case be dismissed because it might reveal state secrets. That decision has also been appealed.

On Capitol Hill, some conservatives say they'd be happy if the eavesdropping bills remain dormant-that the issue can be left to the courts to resolve

 

[TheDoctor]

bush has agreed to comply with the law and submit the NSA program to the jurisdiction of the FISA court as required by law.

Earlier on this thread, bet and others attacked Judge Taylor's ruling on some silly basis. It was pointed out that Judge Taylor's rulings was justified and proper given the fact that the bushies only argued standing and the state secrets defense. Well, some are speculating that this legal strategy failed and that is why bush has agreed to comply with the law. http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002356.php

Why the concession now? Two possible answers:

1. Fear of incipient oversight.
2. The appeals court is slated to start hearing oral arguments in ACLU v. NSA on Jan. 31 and they don't want to try to defend the program (in the first go round they only argued standing and state secrets, not substantively arguing the merits of their case despite the judge's demand that they do so). They've pulled this sort of trick before (e.g. to stop the Supreme Court from considering Hamdi).

I suspect #2 is the real issue here. They really don't have a case (especially since the Supremes' decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruled out the AUMF argument); see http://*******.com/ylspsd and http://*******.com/p66mv for details. Their least tenuous argument is that a law (FISA) passed by Congress in 1978 and amended as part of the Patriot Act in 2001 unconstitutionally restricts the President's powers despite the fact that literally no one publicly claimed this before it was revealed that the Bush administration was violating FISA.

Again, the decision by bush to comply with FISA is just further evidence that Judge Taylor's ruling was correct.

 

[LuvDuke]

bush has agreed to comply with the law and submit the NSA program to the jurisdiction of the FISA court as required by law.

Earlier on this thread, bet and others attacked Judge Taylor's ruling on some silly basis. It was pointed out that Judge Taylor's rulings was justified and proper given the fact that the bushies only argued standing and the state secrets defense. Well, some are speculating that this legal strategy failed and that is why bush has agreed to comply with the law. http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002356.phpAgain, the decision by bush to comply with FISA is just further evidence that Judge Taylor's ruling was correct.

Notice how Bush is screwing over all his water carriers.

 

[sewer]

While I do not recall the justices handing down a ruling that said, "Bush is not a king," I think this is very good news.

I'm old-fashioned. IMHO, they shouldn't be allowed to just listen to whomever they please. But, if they happen to catch bad guys, I'm not going to ask too many questions about how they did it. That way, innocent Americans are protected and guilty terrorists are caught.

Thank you I was beginning to think there was a MAJOR loss of common sense!

 

[TheDoctor]

Thank you I was beginning to think there was a MAJOR loss of common sense!

Bush jettison the program in part because he knew that it would not survive the courts. I call to your attention the following quote
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/washington/18assess.html

In others, the courts have weighed in, upholding some of the administration’s moves but setting firm limits to others. In the Hamdi case in 2004, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the Supreme Court’s majority, “We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation’s citizens.”

 

[TheDoctor]

bush is trying to pull the same trick that they tried on some other cases by claiming that the ACLU lawsuit on the NSA wiretap program is moot. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012501434.html

A lawsuit challenging the legality of the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program should be thrown out because the government is now conducting the wiretaps under the authority of a secret intelligence court, according to court papers filed by the Justice Department yesterday.

In a filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, in Cincinnati, Justice Department lawyers said the lawsuit of the American Civil Liberties Union and other plaintiffs -- which received a favorable ruling from a federal judge in Detroit -- should be considered moot because the case "no longer has any live significance."

The ACLU called the government's arguments implausible and said it plans to file its response today.

The brief is the latest volley in the legal battle over the controversial spying effort, dubbed by the administration as the "Terrorist Surveillance Program," or TSP. Under the program, the NSA monitored, without obtaining warrants, telephone calls and e-mails between the United States and overseas if the government determined that one of the parties was linked to al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups.....

Crucial to the Justice Department's argument is the contention that the government did not act voluntarily to stop the NSA program. "This is not an instance of 'voluntary cessation' of allegedly unlawful activity," the government lawyers wrote. "The government has not ceased surveillance -- instead, the facts and legal authorities have changed."

But Ann Beeson, the ACLU's associate legal director, said that argument is "not plausible." She added that previous court rulings made it clear that the government cannot escape a legal judgment merely by voluntarily halting its illegal activity.

"The FISA court didn't reach out on its own to do something; the government asked it to do something," Beeson said. "And absent a ruling, they are free to return to their illegal conduct again."

bush has tried this same trick in the Padilla case and the courts rejected this trick then. The bushies are still taking the position that they have the right to tap phones without a warrant and so the court needs to make a ruling.