Nailed it. Thank you. Praise be to Allah.
Posted on 08/18/2006 5:20:12 PM PDT by Dubya
DETROIT — The first — but surely not the last — legal ruling over the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program was unequivocal: According to the Constitution, it should not exist. ADVERTISEMENT
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled Thursday that the National Security Agency program violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers, and said the administration appeared to argue that the president has the "inherent power" to violate laws.
"We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution," Taylor wrote.
"There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution, she added."
Administration officials strongly disagreed with the ruling and said they would seek a reversal by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. They say the program is a key tool for fighting terrorism.
"We're going to do everything we can do in the courts to allow this program to continue," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at a news conference in Washington.
White House press secretary Tony Snow said the Bush administration "couldn't disagree more with this ruling."
He said the program carefully targets communications of suspected terrorists and "has helped stop terrorist attacks and saved American lives."
Taylor ordered an immediate halt to the program, but the government said it would ask for a stay of that order pending appeal. The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the suit, said it would oppose a stay but agreed to delay enforcement of the injunction until Taylor hears arguments Sept. 7.
The ACLU filed the lawsuit in January 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 monitors international phone calls and e-mails to or from the U.S. involving people the government suspects have terrorist links.
The ACLU says the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which set up a secret court to grant warrants for such surveillance, gave the government enough tools to monitor suspected terrorists.
The government argued that the NSA 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. The adminstration has decried leaks that led to a New York Times report about the existence of the program last year.
Taylor, a Carter appointee, agreed, writing that "Plaintiffs need no additional facts" to establish their claims.
"It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights," she wrote. "The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another."
Administration officials said the program is essential to national security. The Justice Department said it "is lawful and protects civil liberties."
In Washington, Republicans expressed hope that the decision would be overturned, while Democrats praised the ruling.
ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero called Taylor's opinion "another nail in the coffin in the Bush administration's legal strategy in the war on terror."
"At its core, today's ruling addresses the abuse of presidential power and reaffirms the system of checks and balances that's necessary to our democracy," he told reporters.
White House, insisting program is key to fighting terror, will appeal.
Our pres a judge?
Terrorists and their supporters appreciate Taylor's idiocy.
At its core, today's ruling reasserts the abuse of judicial power and attacks the system of checks and balances that's necessary to our democracy.
I think if these so-called "judges" want to get involved in the War on Terror, we need to put their asses in combat boots, give them an M-16 and get them out there on the front lines. Otherwise, they need to abide by the separation of powers gig and stay the hell out of the business of the Executive Branch. It's not the job of the Judicial Branch to take on the enemies of America. If it was, there wouldn't be so many girlymen in the Judicial Branch.
I don't think a judge should be able to stop this. What is best for the American people is what we should do
Some people have their priorities backwards. People get killed so these jerks can "do their jobs?" The jobs they do are mostly lying and spreading rumors, and giving away national secrets.
Insane! Carter and Clinton judges, like AIDS, the 'gift' that keeps on giving. Get rid of these damn Judges!
The ACLU filed the lawsuit in January on behalf of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and other Islamic fanatics who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs.
I wouldn't argue with them. I'd order the Secret Service to send them to Gitmo...
Our pres a judge?
We, the People............
And "We The People" voted.
Yes, for President, not for Consul.
If Bush doesn't like the FISA Act, he should work to have it repealed. Until then, he should abide by it.
Neither...and both are bound by the Constitution. IMO, the FISA Court is an unconstitutional entity in and of itself. Secret courts are the province of communism with it's Gulags. To those who would say that not allowing Government to secretly spy on it's on people and conduct warrantless "sneak and peek" searchs with impunity invites disaster, I say the pourus borders and the government's refusal to recognise Islam as the enemy while hand holding the oil producing ME countries who bankroll terrorism is a greater threat to our security.
The government argued that the NSA program is well within the president's authority but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.
Now that's just lame.
"In 1979, Anna Diggs Taylor became the first black woman judge to be appointed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Nineteen years later, she became the first black woman Chief Judge for that circuit as well."
What can I say. Google it.
memo: we are at war.
memo: we are at war.
Nailed it. Thank you. Praise be to Allah.
If the whole thing is so legal then what's the problem with the Courts judging it constitutional or not. I'm sure that this will reach the supreme court at some point and then we'll see.
I for one applaud the judge. As long as the DEMS keep holding that "Bush broke the law" meme, I for one tire of defending it.
What's so wrong with it going through the courts?
Of course if you feel that it is un-constitutional then you may have issues.
I wonder what other powers the Executive Branch believes that it has that it won't divulge because such powers are a "State Secret"?
Must be powers that 'We The People' won't know about until the Government chooses to exercise them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.