EDITORIAL: Warrantless loss of rights

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 8/18/6 | Editor

[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.

[SmithL]

Once again, the Comicle sides with the terrorists - just as long as they aren't Republicans.

[muawiyah]

The SFO Chronicle clearly works for AlQaida.

Why hasn't "W" moved against some of these agents.

[xcamel]

The Follicle is so far off base they don't deserve the First Amendment rights they so dearly cherish.

[capt. norm]

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.

[USNBandit]

"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.

[jazusamo]

Instead of reporting the news, the SF Commie prints their version of it.

[Abundy]

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?

[avacado]

"FISA judges say Bush within law"

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060329-120346-1901r.htm

[Semi Civil Servant]

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.

[muawiyah]

AlQaida is not Constitutionally protected.

[saganite]

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)

[ZGuy]

There should be a three-strikes rule for judges: Three decisions get overturned and you're back to being a regular lawyer.

[gogeo]

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.

[Edgerunner]

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.

[Edgerunner]

Sounds reasonable. Might make them research the law more rigorously.

[SF Republican]

Not to put to fine a point but I think that is what Editorials are for.

[madprof98]

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.

[DoughtyOne]

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.

[Obadiah]

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.)