Posted on 08/17/2006 9:17:49 AM PDT by Enchante
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. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly taping 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 already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Pathetic little twerp judge that will get overruled faster than you can say 'speeding bullet'.
What unmitigated BS.
But it was okay that Clinton ran the Eschelon program which listened to phone calls and read e-mails.
I have two short words for her and her master from georgia F.U.
Read my Tag Line
How would the NSA come under her jurisdiction?
But the scrotum check at the airport is.?????
I thought the program was about matching phone numbers/calling patterns and only went to actual listening after warrants to do so were authorized under usual laws.
In fact I read somewhere that the numbers being compared by NSA were themselves coded and that it took a warrant to get the actual phone numbers from the phone companies. Did I get it all wrong ?
(Oh, and let's not forget it was intercepted comms that led to the discovery of the UK bomb plots last week.)
Which circuit will hear the appeal?
Thanks, Jimmah, by the way, for keeping us safe.
Putz.
Just doing the job most Americans won't do? Like spilling intelligence secrets to Bash Bush? Like giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of War?
Exactly what "public interest" is served by protecting leakers and disclosing secret intelligence info?
Said it before-- lousy liberals say WOT is "law-enforcement" problem, but don't want to give law-enforcement the most basic tools to do the job.
They're hopeless.
Yes they can. Lawyers forum-shop and judge-shop all the time. They try to file cases in courts (and before judges) that they think will be most receptive to their case. This is one reason why we have appellate courts. They are much less susceptible to this sort of thing.
 |
| "How would the NSA come under her jurisdiction?" It's a freedom of speech and privacy case and can be filed in any federal court. I'm sure the ACLU filed it in this course hoping for the results they got. It really doesn't matter where this case started, regardless of the decision it's going to be appealed up the line to the USSC someday. |
I was thinking Clinton appointee, but Carter appointee may be even worse.
Prior to her appointment to the Federal Court in 1979, Judge Taylor was a private practitioner, a legislative assistant, an Assistant Wayne County Prosecutor, an Assistant United States Attorney, an Adjunct Professor of Law at Wayne State Law School, and an Assistant Corporation Counselor, City of Detroit. She is a 1950 Graduate of the Northfield School for Girls, East Northfield, Massachusetts, and received her B.A. from Barnard College in 1954 and L.L.B. from Yale Law School in 1957. Judge Taylor was appointed to the bench on November 2, 1979.
She is a Trustee of the Detroit Institute of Arts, the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan and the Henry Ford Health System.
She is a member of the State Bar (Committees on Character and Fitness and on U.S. Courts), Federal Bar, Wolverine Bar, Black Judges Association and Women Judges Association.
Yes, ever since the Iran hostage incident, which taught the terrorists that they could do what they wanted without worrying too much about repercussions. That is, until the current President kicked their b*tts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Yes, of course it is unconstitutional to spy on the terrorists. We violated their freedom to blow up planes over the Atlantic and kill a couple of thousand people. Whatever was Bush thinking?
Democrats and their appointees do everything they can to enable Muslim terrorists to kill as many Americans as possible.
The Republicans need to make a sharp point of the fact that the vast majority of judges who make these type of dangerous and destructive rulings are appointed by Democrats. Just whining about 'liberal, activist' judges is not getting through to the electorate...remind the voters that these judges must be nominated by someone they are responsible for electing.
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.