Federal judge orders end to wiretap program

R

rick_reno

Moderator
It's about time. Anyone think they'll stop?

DETROIT - A federal judge ruled Thursday 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.

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.

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 already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule.
 
My guess is they will continue the program in further violation of the law and Constitution and remind everybody involved that whistleblowing is now a Federal offense.
 
The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.
Click to expand...
Let me get this straight.

The President of the United States asserts that he has "Secret Powers"?!!!!!!!!
Secret Authority that cannot be revealed to Federal Courts, let alone to the people he serves?

If this is an accurate quote, I'm the first in line to demand impeachment of the man I voted for....twice. Plus any Member of Congress that voted (in secret?) for such Secret Authority. This is really getting out of hand.
Rich
 
Woo hoo - about time, baby! Now the SCOTUS can take it up and overrule them with Roberts and the other plants. But at least justice can temporarily prevail in the meantime. Actually the scotus COULD side with this judge, and this side of the issue - apparently most legal scholars agree the potus has usurped power from congress uncontitutionally with this power grab. It will be close, probably 5-4.
 
Blah, Blah, Blah! Wire Tap Blah Blah! Who gives a rat's rectum. The way I see it they should keep it up if it'll save one person from a terrorist attack. We've got here a lefty judge that wants some attention she knows good and well it won't hold up. Clinton got away with it, why shouldn't Bush? Maybe because he's on the RIGHT side?:cool:
 
No, . . . I don't think they will stop.

No, . . . I hope they don't stop.

Yes, . . . I hope the judge has some kind of remorse over her obviously stupid, arrogant, ignorant, and politically pointed decision, . . . but I ain't betting on it. The ACLU and it's sister Hezbollah have obviously shopped around to find the judge they wanted and the decision they paid good money for.

Oh, . . . yeah, . . . and yes, . . . they can tap my phone anytime they like to hear me talk to my parishoners, . . . tape it if they like, . . . play it on the 6 o'clock news, . . .

If taping and listening to each and every conversation made will result in putting the islamofascists in the slammer, . . . put me down for $10 bucks worth of tape.

May God bless,
Dwight
 
The law, according to the judge:

"violates

-the separation of powers doctrine,
-the Administrative Procedures Act,
-the First
-and Fourth amendments to the United States Constitution,
-the FISA and
-Title III."

LMAO. Usually judges will hang their hat on one provision of law or another to strike a law - it only takes one violation to strike a law. But this judge found this to violate SIX seperate provisions of law and the Constitution, each supported with some odd pages of cogent reasoning. Have fun appealing, Alberto! :)

The entire opinion:

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/08/17/nsa.lawsuit.pdf

Yes, they judge-shopped, but ultimately the scotus will rule, with how many of 9 appointees by Reagan/Bush1/Bush2 ? Seven I believe. So they'll get a fair shake at trying to overcome this, to say the least. We know how dittohead/scaliathesequel/roberts will rule, don't we?
 
Last edited:
The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.
Click to expand...

I'm with Rich here.

If you can't cite the law and its application in open court that gives you power, then you are a despot.
 
Hey guys, it's time to celebrate! Celebrate another case of a left wing radical judge tying the hands of our government in it's efforts to defeat terrorists. I don't know what these people do that they are so terrified of the government finding out, but as for me they are welcome to listen in any time they want. Heck if it will help I'll make only conference calls. Come the next terror attack, I just don't want to hear any complaining or talk of the government not doing enough to root out terrorists.
That was really laughable the way Rich turned the statement around and changed it from, revealing state secrets, to, the President has secret powers. I wish I had that vivid of an imagination.
Don
 
Rich,
It's because we, as firearms owners, are our own "protectors".

Well, *most* of us, anyway....

In honor of "Big Blue":
"Give me safety at any cost"....
 
You are so RightOn, Big Blue.....let's take it one tiny step forward:
Terrorists kill far more people with guns every year than with planes and bombs......certainly more than they kill with their phone conversations.

So, if we can walk all over the Fourth Amendment because we're at Perpetual War.....can't we just nibble on the Second? I mean, really....we could be more safe if we cede this minor freedom to the Government. Shouldn't our Protectors be armed with the knowledge of who's buying dangerous weapons in this country? Especially those, ummmm what do you call 'em?...that's right- Assault Weapons. Guns made only for murder; guns intentionally designed to cut thru police armor.

I have no problem with this, personally. I'm law abiding and would gladly allow .Gov to review, record and regulate my collection of firearms....so long as they assure me that it's not My Turn to be a target.

Time to think out of the box....perhaps the Bill of Rights really was meant for a different civilization. (Like one with Real Men in their midst?). For my part....I'm totally helpless and just want my Government to tell me what will make me safe.

:rolleyes:
 
Rich++

I am with Rich fully on this one (and even I gave enough money to GWB to buy a very nice rifle!).

I am not personally worried about being "spied" but I would be worried by a secret court by the next Klinton. The law is the law and it applies regardless of good or bad intentions. If this President expands his powers and circumvents the Constitution the next President might decide to do the same and we may like her decisions a lot less.

Lots of things would be easier without some pesky laws. Think about how easy it would be to get confessions from criminals if one could "work" on them without a lawyer...it wouldn't matter as they are criminals, aren't they?
The Inquisition was pretty good in this and they generally got the confessions they needed.

When I was still living in Italy we lost a lot of freedom during the Red Brigades era because "we had to fight terrorism". Now terrorism is gone but those freedoms are gone too and the new generations don't even know what previous generations had.
 
Big Blue, I asked you some specific questions twice - the first time you rambled on with an 'answer' which was not responsive to the questions. The 2nd time, (thus far), you have ignored them. Do you intend to answer even one of them?

Thank you Rufus for injecting some truth and insight into this.
 
If you want to give the government more or unlimited power, be my guest. There are plenty of other countries out there set up just like that. Excellent article by John Silveira at backwoodhome. http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/silveira99lw.html

It?s the only country in all of history based on the individual and individual rights. It?s the only one not founded on ?the greatest good for the greatest number,? ?experts know best and will run your life for you,? ?I am royalty and you are here to serve me,? or some other BS like that. There?s no other place like this land of Jefferson, Adams, Mason, Monroe, and their kind, in the world or in time, and I?m trying to keep it the way it is, or at least the way it?s supposed to be.

Even Canada?s so-called Bill of Rights specifically says a Canadian?s rights are at the discretion of Parliament. Those aren?t rights; those are privileges. And people like you are trying to change this country into one of those countries. So, it?s you who should move, not me. And there are plenty of places you can go. But there?s nowhere for people like me, except...here.
Click to expand...
 
I can't seem to form an opinion without data.

How many terrorists have we caught so far using wire taps? I don;'t mean "potential" terrorists, I mean actual terrorists.

How many innocent people have been harrassed or have had their privacy infringed upon?

I doubt anyone will ever see any factual data on the subject, so I can't really say one thing or another.
 
One of my military friends is of German descent. His mother grew up in Nazi Germany. She told some very frightening tales when I sat and talked with her. She told me of a man called Adolf Hitler who promised to take care of the German people. All they had to do was give up a few things, then a few more things. Till there was nothing left to give. Finally they had this organization they called the Gestapo that collected information on all the good German citizens. They even had neighbors and friends spying on each other. Then when someone said something that was considered unpatriotic they usually had folks come get them and some were never seen again.

She has passed away now, but I can tell you what she would say about trading rights for safety....not no but Hell no!

So if you feel that giving up any right guarenteed under the Constitution and the BOR is good for your safety, you might as well buy copies to use in the bathroom because it doesnt mean much to you.
 
Eghad said:
So if you feel that giving up any right guarenteed under the Constitution and the BOR is good for your safety, you might as well buy copies to use in the bathroom because it doesnt mean much to you.
Click to expand...

Which political party are you referencing in this parable?:eek: :D
I think I'd rather have my guns and worry about whether someone is listening to my phone conversation!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top