NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional

[Antilles]

. . . and ordered to cease immediately.

Coming to a Circuit Court of Appeals near you.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/...uit/index.html

the Judge is a Carter appointee, FWIW

[Antilles]

For those looking for fodder, here's the Judge's life story in a nutshell:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...0381/1001/NEWS

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Great news!!!!!!!
Reel in these arrogant bastards who are shi**ing all over Americans.

------------------------------------------------------
Judge nixes warrantless surveillance
By SARAH KARUSH, Associated Press Writer 26 minutes ago

DETROIT - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.


Ann Beeson, the American Civil Liberties Union's associate legal director and the lead attorney for the plaintiffs challenging the government's wiretapping policy, addresses the media in Detroit, in this June 12, 2006, file photo. A federal judge ruled Thursday, Aug. 17, 2006 that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio, File)


U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

"Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly listening to conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.

The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.

The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration had already publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule on the case.

"By holding that even the president is not above the law, the court has done its duty," said Ann Beeson, the ACLU's associate legal director and the lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

CONT

[loborugger]

Interesting. This was bound to happen, as will the appeal. I would be kinda surprised if this didnt end up in the Supreme Court.

I wonder why this ended up in Detroit? I wonder if they judge shopped a circuit til they thought they had a chance to get a favorable judge. On the other hand, the ninth circuit is the one that enjoys putting the stick in Bush's eye.

Lets see what happens. My guess is this is just starting. And while the judiciary branch is responsible for deciding the law, the executive is responsible for enforcing it. I seem to remember from history a judge ordering a prez to do something and the prez basically ignoring because the judge had no enforcement ability.

[Rohirrim]

I still don't get what the beef about all this is from Bush/Cheney. It just must be an ego thing with them. The FISA courts have turned down 5 warrants out of 4,000 requests. You can start the taps and you have days to get the warrant. So, Gonzalez says the law is invalid because it caused too much paperwork for the executive? WTF! And because of this, everybody on the Left is a coward and a traitor? Man, this neocon cabal has their heads in a warm, dark place. This isn't even worth the print it takes to report it, let alone the wasted time in the courtroom. Follow FISA, jerkoffs.

[Antilles]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Follow FISA, jerkoffs.

Or amend it.

[TailgateNut]

Or continue to ignore it until we show you the f-ing door!

[defenseman]

Originally Posted by Antilles

Or amend it.

Yeah maybe that. Makes no difference, once appealed and onto the supreme court. The ruling will be overturned. Simple as that...dman

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by defenseman

Yeah maybe that. Makes no difference, once appealed and onto the supreme court. The ruling will be overturned. Simple as that...dman

That's BS, it may go to the appeal, and may make it to the Supreme court, but I still believe MOST of our countrymen and women still believe in laws, including the Justices!

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by defenseman

Yeah maybe that. Makes no difference, once appealed and onto the supreme court. The ruling will be overturned. Simple as that...dman

Overturned where, the SC? Why?

[defenseman]

We'll see guys. This ruling, as long as it does not hinder our abilities to gather information on suspected terrorists "when" we need to, will stand. IF , it impacts the previous, adjustments to the ruling in one way, shape or form will occur (OR FISA gets an adjustment, take your pick).....dman

*Don't get mad, I'm just sharing with ya what I believe will occur given today's posture with respect to terrorists and their collective danger to america.

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Overturned where, the SC? Why?

Well, the Government will ask and receive an order enjoining enforcement of this ruiling pending appeal. That means the program "rolls on" indefinitely - at least for the foreseeable future.

And since this ruling was just the District Court - the "trial level" - an appeal could require TWO STAGES - the Federal Appellate level and THEN the Supreme Court. All tolled, that would be 4 to 8 years.

The Supreme Court CAN elect to grant certiori - reach over the Appelate level and grab the case - accelerating its final determination. But they can also decline to do so, which would have the effect of permitting the program to "roll on" while both appeals languish.

The decision to grant certiori (often called the quietest exercise of massive power anywhere in our nation) requires I think just FOUR justices' votes. Maybe SoCal knows. Or maybe the decision to JUMP the Appellate level requires a different number. We'll see.

But make no mistake - this is a BIG win for Democrats.

Especially just 84 days from election day. Insteresting that the Judge found FOUR grounds to invalidate it. She cited "separation of powers" clase, and the Firth, Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Lots of busy work for U.S. Attorneys.

[BroncoBuff]

Long story short .... this means very little, other than helping Dems win election.

Bush will have cleared ACRES of brush as an ex-president before this one's finished.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by defenseman

We'll see guys. This ruling, as long as it does not hinder our abilities to gather information on suspected terrorists "when" we need to, will stand. IF , it impacts the previous, adjustments to the ruling in one way, shape or form will occur (OR FISA gets an adjustment, take your pick).....dman

*Don't get mad, I'm just sharing with ya what I believe will occur given today's posture with respect to terrorists and their collective danger to america.

That’s one of the things that gets me about all of this. IMO, terrorism isn’t a tenth of the threat that the Japanese or the Nazis, or certainly the Soviets were, and yet, our leaders have us running scared from them ten times more that we did from any of those former enemies. Every single time this administration wants to push through some agenda they start flailing around about how afraid we’re supposed to be. Whatever happened to “We have nothing to fear but fear itself?” Now, Bush seems to jump out of his skin every time he sees his shadow. Yeah, let’s flush the Constitution because we’re a bunch of chicken ****s led by a bunch of chicken hawks. Good plan. Ignore the Constitution. What this country needs is a little leadership.

[Crushaholic]

damn...

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

That’s one of the things that gets me about all of this. IMO, terrorism isn’t a tenth of the threat that the Japanese or the Nazis, or certainly the Soviets were, and yet, our leaders have us running scared from them ten times more that we did from any of those former enemies. Every single time this administration wants to push through some agenda they start flailing around about how afraid we’re supposed to be. Whatever happened to “We have nothing to fear but fear itself?” Now, Bush seems to jump out of his skin every time he sees his shadow. Yeah, let’s flush the Constitution because we’re a bunch of chicken ****s led by a bunch of chicken hawks. Good plan. Ignore the Constitution. What this country needs is a little leadership.

You can say that with a straight face after what happened last week?

How naive are you?

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

You can say that with a straight face after what happened last week?

How naive are you?

Hopefully, you’re kidding. You know how people like to say that 9/11 was worse than Pearl Harbor simply based on the numbers? It wasn’t even close. You know why? Because 9/11, and any terrorist attack no matter how bad, has no backup to it. On 9/11, 19 pieces of **** with box knives got lucky and caught us with our pants down. They got even luckier because the buildings fell, which is something they could not expect. But when the attack was over, we knew it was over. Until the next time. Finally, 9/11 didn’t affect any of our critical, military assets. Pearl Harbor took out half the Pacific fleet. Fortunately, Halsey had the carriers at sea or we’d have been in much deeper do do.

When the Japanese hit Pearl Harbor, we had no such idea if the attack was over. The Japanese had a massive, well trained and well supplied navy and a veteran, battle hardened army that had taken over half of China, Manchuria and SE Asia and could just as easily have been on their way steaming toward California. Nazi Germany had one of the best armies and air forces on earth at the time. We were in the midst of a depression. There was no guarantee that we could defeat either of those foes. But FDR led us to ignore our fear, to sacrifice everything we had at home and abroad, and fight. And we won.

I’m not even going to stoop to argue that the Soviets weren’t a greater threat than Al Queda. That’s a complete joke. Like comparing fleas to tigers. The Soviets had the capacity to wipe the U.S. off the face of the map. We defeated them too.

What we need to ask ourselves is: Why did FDR urge us all, regardless of political affiliation, to go beyond our fear and fight for our country, and why does George Bush keep telling us to be very afraid while questioning the courage and patriotism of any who oppose him?

[sisterhellfyre]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

You can say that with a straight face after what happened last week?

How naive are you?

Let's compare a few things and see...

* Last week: a "terrorist plot" against somewhere between 10 and 20 civilian aircraft. Oddly enough, the UK and US authorities can't seem to get their facts straight about how many planes, how many "terrorists" are involved, how long the investigation has run, or much of anything else. Word of the plot, however, is enough for the TSA (Thousands Standing Around) to institute regulations leading to the confiscation of maple syrup from American high-school girls on vacation. Yeah, that makes me feel a whole lot better.

* In this corner: the Soviet Union. During its heyday, the USSR had over 1,000 ICBMs with thermonuclear warheads pointed at us day and night. Plus a large standing army, an array of catspaw subversives & revolutionaries, and a proven history of rolling tanks thru the capitol cities of countries who rebelled against imperial domination (see Czechoslovakia & Hungary).

* Nazi Germany: Architects of a death camp system that killed at least 10 million people who didn't match the Aryan ideal. Instigators of a land war in Europe that killed at least 2 million in combat (including casualties on all sides and all fronts, from France thru North Africa to Russia).

* Imperial Japan: From starting their version of World War II in China (1933), also caused millions of casualties across Asia and the Pacific as the Rising Sun rolled over the imperial domains of France, Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium and the US. Just the end chapters of this war, in Hiroshima & Nagasaki, took the lives of roughy 120,000 Japanese civilians.

Yup, I know which one I'd be more worried about.

Regards,
m.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

You can say that with a straight face after what happened last week?
How naive are you?

What year did your history books start, 1999?

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by sisterhellfyre

Let's compare a few things and see...

* Last week: a "terrorist plot" against somewhere between 10 and 20 civilian aircraft. Oddly enough, the UK and US authorities can't seem to get their facts straight about how many planes, how many "terrorists" are involved, how long the investigation has run, or much of anything else. Word of the plot, however, is enough for the TSA (Thousands Standing Around) to institute regulations leading to the confiscation of maple syrup from American high-school girls on vacation. Yeah, that makes me feel a whole lot better.

* In this corner: the Soviet Union. During its heyday, the USSR had over 1,000 ICBMs with thermonuclear warheads pointed at us day and night. Plus a large standing army, an array of catspaw subversives & revolutionaries, and a proven history of rolling tanks thru the capitol cities of countries who rebelled against imperial domination (see Czechoslovakia & Hungary).

* Nazi Germany: Architects of a death camp system that killed at least 10 million people who didn't match the Aryan ideal. Instigators of a land war in Europe that killed at least 2 million in combat (including casualties on all sides and all fronts, from France thru North Africa to Russia).

* Imperial Japan: From starting their version of World War II in China (1933), also caused millions of casualties across Asia and the Pacific as the Rising Sun rolled over the imperial domains of France, Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium and the US. Just the end chapters of this war, in Hiroshima & Nagasaki, took the lives of roughy 120,000 Japanese civilians.

Yup, I know which one I'd be more worried about.

Regards,
m.

It's the Maple syrup, isn't it?

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

What year did your history books start, 1999?

Just look at his age. He's ripe for military duty, but opts to follow the Dubya road. (be afraid, skirt your duty, and god has spoken to him)

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

What year did your history books start, 1999?

My point is: We cant sit around and consider these terrorists to not be as great a threat as we think. Considering that they will stop at nothing to kill us, I think we need to deal with them, and regard them as a grea threat. I'm in no way saying that the threats we faced in WWII are any less than terrorism, but the fact is that we cant sit idly by, and not take this seriously.

Especially when we have terrorists being funded by the likes of Iran in the billions each year, and these countries who support terrorism are helping them obtain WMD's of any sort to make a wide scale attack.

Since there was going to be an attack, and it was spoiled, just goes to show you that there is still a threat out there to our safety. I think it would be foolish to not take them seriously, or not regard them as that great a threat.

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

Just look at his age. He's ripe for military duty, but opts to follow the Dubya road. (be afraid, skirt your duty, and god has spoken to him)

Whats the dubya road? Sort of like Clintons? Wait no, he was in school. So it's cool.

My brother is joining the military after hs, no need for me to. If it isnt my calling in life, then why should I do it? I'm making a difference in other ways.

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

My point is: We cant sit around and consider these terrorists to not be as great a threat as we think. Considering that they will stop at nothing to kill us, I think we need to deal with them, and regard them as a grea threat. I'm in no way saying that the threats we faced in WWII are any less than terrorism, but the fact is that we cant sit idly by, and not take this seriously.

Especially when we have terrorists being funded by the likes of Iran in the billions each year, and these countries who support terrorism are helping them obtain WMD's of any sort to make a wide scale attack.

Since there was going to be an attack, and it was spoiled, just goes to show you that there is still a threat out there to our safety. I think it would be foolish to not take them seriously, or not regard them as that great a threat.

Dubya hasn't even hooked up the horses, but you are already sitting on the Iran Bandwagon. Now THAT'S WHAT I CALL DEDICATION!

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

Dubya hasn't even hooked up the horses, but you are already sitting on the Iran Bandwagon. Now THAT'S WHAT I CALL DEDICATION!

Huh? I didnt say attack them.