Federal Judge rules NSA surveillance unconstitutional!

ABC Radio News | 8/17/2006 | ABC Radio News

[sinkspur]

A federal district judge in Detroit has ruled that the Bush administration's NSA surveillance of phone conversations is unconstitutional.

[JeffAtlanta]

The president of the US has war time powers that can not be touched by anyone including the SCOTUS. These poweres go back since the inception of our union.

And when exactly will this war be over? Terrorism is going to be around for a very long time.

What you are saying that any future president will have unlimited power.

[letsgonova19087]

If you think that our military and intelligence assets are not actively pursuing these groups across the world, "international cooperation" or not, then you're simply naive.

[xeno]

Did she rule that interference was unconstitutional as long as there is no warrant?

I'm no legal scholar either, but that is my take. Note that this case is specifically about people that claim they need to communicate with known and suspected foreign terrorist organizations.

[JeffAtlanta]

I think we are all citizens and voters, hopefully, and high school or college civics does not classify you as knowledeable enough to spout legal interpretations.

Why don't you tell that same thing to everyone else in the thread? I'm reading a lot of legal opinions from non-lawyers and you've only had a problem with those that you disagree with.

[MNJohnnie]

I'm saying that if the president wants to wiretap international calls without warrants he needs to do so with the authority of Congress and under congressional oversight

Again, nice you have feelings. Too bad for you your feelings are completely and wholly WRONG. The Commander in Chief powers under Article 2 of the US Constitution are NOT subject to the authority of Congress. Once again your opinion here is blatantly WRONG.

Something the "Congress is King" types need to learn. Congress is a CO Equal branch of Government. IT is not the sovereign the Executive must come hat in hand to to ask permission of on each and every issue. CO EQUAL, not Congress is King. Try to remember that.

[jrooney]

President Bush is listening to international calls of terrorists or known assosciates of terrorists without a warrant. If a future donk president does that it is fine with me. A POTUS number one responsibility is to protect their citizens.

Now if anyone can here can cite PROOF of POTUS Bush listening to citizens or targeting his political enemies, like Clinton did, then I would say he was wrong. He is not.

Our number one civil liberty is the RIGHT TO LIFE.

[San Jacinto]

The suit says the program has hampered journalists, scholars, lawyers and others trying to speak to sources overseas.

Come to your senses, people!! What's a few airplanes full of people getting blown out of the sky compared to the ability of a 'journalist' being able to call foreign America haters on the telephone??? Don't you want the New York Times to be able to continue its fine work?

[jrooney]

Are you saying you agree with me then? If not, then why are you questioning posts you disagree with? The answer - I disagreed with his legal analysis BEFORE I found out he only played a constitutional attorney on televsion.

[JeffAtlanta]

Our number one civil liberty is the RIGHT TO LIFE

Fine, you wouldn't have any problem with Hilary using this RIGHT TO LIFE to ban all handguns would you? After all, if she is the president and we are at war with terrorism then the constitution doesn't matter.

The the framers really believed what you are writing then the Bill of Rights would contain a disclaimer of "all of the these protections are enjoyed at the pleasure of the president and can be eliminated at any time."

[atlaw]

jrooney seems to recall a Time article that mentioned it. He and I are trying to locate it. If you run across other cites or references to it, I'd appreciate it if you'd give me ping. Thanks --

[JeffAtlanta]

I disagreed with his legal analysis BEFORE I found out he only played a constitutional attorney on televsion.

Read post #1 though #100 - you will find 100 constitutional opinions in those posts, yet since they echo what you are in favor of then their qualifications don't matter.

Even now, most are still assuming that it applies to all wire taps and not just warrantless ones.

[MNJohnnie]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1685444/posts


Go here. Mark Levin does a MUCH better job of laying out all the flaws in this case then I can. I find it really odd that the Goverment whole rational for this program was NOT even considered by this Carter Appointee Judge.

[Truth-The Anti Spin]

Yes we picked up chatter internationally and gave the Brits heads up in July 2005.

Doesnt this ruling only apply to cases where both ends of the call are in the US?

[jrooney]

Your argument is laughable. The constitution clearly states we have the right to bear arms. It does not say you need a warrant to listen to overseas calls of known terrorists or their associates. Please spare me your apples to oranges argument. It has so many holes, it looks like it was hit by some Cheney buckshot.

[Akeirook]

That's wonderful. Hey, I hear Lincoln RINO Chafee is having a hard time in the Rhode Island primaries, why don't you send him a donation like a good little RINO?

[Legionary]

There is one major detail that I've noticed that people always miss when it comes to terrorism, but it's the key to how we discover a conspiracy to commit a crime. This detail is the very basic foundation of all police work. It's not super sophisticated, digitally processed wiretaps, or hooking someones nipples up to a car battery. No, this detail is not sexy enough to hear about on the news or to make into a modern TV drama. What is it? How do we find out about this stuff?

It's simple. Somebody tells us it's going to happen.

It's not Jack Bauer or James Bond that tells us. It's not some character from a Tom Clancy novel that had to hike by night through the mountains of Afghanistan to dowse out the specifics of the next terror attack from the arrangement of rocks or maybe radio waves. It's the friends, neighbors, or relatives of the future terrorist that decide to tip off our government about suspicious activity.

We must remember who are these people are and why they help us.

Have you ever watched reruns of that detective drama show, Dragnet, on Nick at Nite? Would you help Joe Friday out if you knew that he was going to possibly rendition you to an eastern European country where you were going to be water boarded? But maybe he wouldn't go that far, perhaps he would just put you on a list that makes it very difficult for you to travel on an airplane, and make sure his office regularly mines your phone records for the rest of your life. That wouldn't be so bad, compared to the water boarding. These are serious situations that these informants could deal with for making the government aware of potential terrorism. By shining the light on someone else they also draw unwanted attention to themselves.

When we neglect to realize the importance of informants we also neglect the fundamental way that our police and intelligence agencies work. Most of what our intelligence agencies know about the world comes from reading a newspaper, the same place you and I get our information. Very little intelligence information is generated within these organizations, and an even smaller amount of this internally generated information is actually useful. Of course, the intelligence agencies will deny this, but only to sustain their billion dollar budgets. In the end, they know as much as you or I do, neglecting the help of informants.

The rejection of mysticism should apply to everything, even to our intelligence apparatus.

It is only through focused informant based information gathering techniques that useful information is derived. We couldn't expect to thumb through a dictionary or phone book and select something at random and get any useful information. Widenet, warrantless surveillance simply doesn't work. To get good information we have to do our best to look like the good guys, and hope somebody lets us know. Just never forget, that without their help we will never find out.

[jrooney]

I am not sure. I have not read the entire ruling. Even if I did, I am sure there would be some lawyer speak that I would not understand completely.

[JeffAtlanta]

Hey, I hear Lincoln RINO Chafee is having a hard time in the Rhode Island primaries, why don't you send him a donation like a good little RINO?

Cythnia McKinney is have some problems too. Why don't you send her a donation since you both are in favor of following the law only when you want to.

[San Jacinto]

You mean what was the lawyers name?

Are you implying it was lack of good argument which caused this looney, moonbat, left-wing, Carter appointed federal judge to rule in favor of the ACLU?

[Truth-The Anti Spin]

The President doesn't make the laws, and he doesn't decide which he likes and dislikes. Does the phrase "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" ring a bell?

This is the bottom line right here. There's a law in place, FISA, that dictates how the government handles domestic eavesdropping. This law is actually pretty lenient, allowing ex-post-facto warrants. Furthermore, the FISA court has approved over 99% of the warrants brought to it.

The ONLY possible excuse for the president exceeding his authority would be in a time of extreme crisis, such as an actual pending attack or or an invasion of the US.

This is not the case. The administration has had years and years to go to congress and get the law changed. Any wiretapping done outside the framework of FISA is de facto extralegal.

The administration needs to comply with the law, or get the law changed. It's that simple.