Skip to comments.
EDITORIAL: Warrantless loss of rights
San Francisco Chronicle ^
| 8/18/6
| Editor
Posted on 08/18/2006 12:29:23 PM PDT by SmithL
A FEDERAL judge Thursday reaffirmed one of the Constitution's most cherished principles: No one, even the president of the United States, is above the law.
In striking down the National Security Agency's warrantless-surveillance program, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor suggested it not only violated the rights of free speech and privacy -- it intruded on the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution.
"The public interest is clear in this matter," she wrote in her 43-page opinion. "It is the upholding of the Constitution."
Our government has the ability to pursue terrorists with all due aggressiveness without shredding the Constitution. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 set up a special court to provide streamlined -- and confidential -- consideration of requests to monitor e-mail and phone traffic between people in the United States and foreign countries when terrorism is suspected.
The FISA system provides an important check against the potential abuse of the government's surveillance capabilities.
Not surprisingly, the Bush administration signaled that it would appeal Taylor's ruling.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: judiciary; nsa; sfcomicle; terrorsupporters; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
Once again, the Comicle sides with the terrorists - just as long as they aren't Republicans.
1
posted on
08/18/2006 12:29:24 PM PDT
by
SmithL
To: SmithL
The SFO Chronicle clearly works for AlQaida.
Why hasn't "W" moved against some of these agents.
2
posted on
08/18/2006 12:31:32 PM PDT
by
muawiyah
To: SmithL
The Follicle is so far off base they don't deserve the First Amendment rights they so dearly cherish.
3
posted on
08/18/2006 12:33:20 PM PDT
by
xcamel
(Press to Test, Release to Detonate)
To: SmithL
This will pretty much prove, again, that liberals/Democrats can't be trusted with security and terrorism.
You may remember the polling data that shows huge public support the surveillance programs. The Democrats are way out of tune with this country and the voters.
4
posted on
08/18/2006 12:33:35 PM PDT
by
capt. norm
(Bumper Sticker: Honk if you've never seen an Uzi shoot from a car window.)
To: SmithL
"The public interest is clear in this matter," she wrote in her 43-page opinion. "It is the upholding of the Constitution."Maybe they should have somebody who knows something about law read the opinion. Even the Washington Post is saying the ruling was poorly written and will be overturned.
5
posted on
08/18/2006 12:34:06 PM PDT
by
USNBandit
(sarcasm engaged at all times)
To: SmithL
Instead of reporting the news, the SF Commie prints their version of it.
6
posted on
08/18/2006 12:34:29 PM PDT
by
jazusamo
(DIANA IREY for Congress, PA 12th District: Retire murtha.)
To: muawiyah
The SFO Chronicle clearly works for AlQaida. Why hasn't "W" moved against some of these agents.
So you advocate that our Government "move" against a constitutionally protected institution and it's employees?
7
posted on
08/18/2006 12:35:24 PM PDT
by
Abundy
To: SmithL; All
8
posted on
08/18/2006 12:36:35 PM PDT
by
avacado
To: SmithL
Judge Anna Diggs Terror is a loon of the left, and a very untalented loon at that.
Her "decision" reads like it was lifted from DU.
Impeach Judge Anna Diggs Terror.
9
posted on
08/18/2006 12:38:25 PM PDT
by
Semi Civil Servant
(Colorado: the original Red State.)
To: Abundy
AlQaida is not Constitutionally protected.
10
posted on
08/18/2006 12:39:10 PM PDT
by
muawiyah
Comment #11 Removed by Moderator
To: SmithL
All these pundits are making pronouncements like this is a done deal. The judges ruling in this case was so weak in citing applicable law that the next court won't be restrained by her ruling since it isn't based on anything other than her political views and feelings. I wonder if they will retract any of this when it's overturned? (rhetorical question)
12
posted on
08/18/2006 12:40:43 PM PDT
by
saganite
(Billions and billions and billions-------and that's just the NASA budget!)
To: SmithL
There should be a three-strikes rule for judges: Three decisions get overturned and you're back to being a regular lawyer.
13
posted on
08/18/2006 12:44:21 PM PDT
by
ZGuy
To: USNBandit
Even the Washington Post is saying the ruling was poorly written and will be overturned. The first clue was that it was written in crayon.
14
posted on
08/18/2006 12:46:30 PM PDT
by
gogeo
(The /sarc tag is a form of training wheels for those unable to discern intellectual subtlety.)
To: Abundy
I believe that they are babblers of the first order. The public will grow tired of their being so wrong most of the time and will stop subscribing to this fish-wrap.
15
posted on
08/18/2006 12:48:01 PM PDT
by
Edgerunner
(The greatest impediment to world peace is the UN and the Peaceniks)
To: ZGuy
Sounds reasonable. Might make them research the law more rigorously.
16
posted on
08/18/2006 12:49:50 PM PDT
by
Edgerunner
(The greatest impediment to world peace is the UN and the Peaceniks)
To: jazusamo
Not to put to fine a point but I think that is what Editorials are for.
To: SmithL
The Chronicle simply reflects the place where it is located. If anything, it is more conservative than the Bay Area. Sometimes I wonder how much longer America can stay together as a single country. Clearly, the Kaliforniacs will not give up til the rest of us are like them.
To: SmithL
A FEDERAL judge Thursday reaffirmed one of the Constitution's most cherished principles: Everyone one, even a federal judge has the right to make comments that make themselves look like a fool, and that right is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
19
posted on
08/18/2006 12:56:14 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(Bring your press credentials to Qana, for the world's most convincing terrorist street theater.)
To: SmithL
A FEDERAL judge Thursday reaffirmed one of the Constitution's most cherished principles: No one, even the president of the United States, is above the law.(Except Bill Clinton, of course.)
20
posted on
08/18/2006 12:58:28 PM PDT
by
Obadiah
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson