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.
Then put forward legislation that streamlines the process while still enabling judicial review. Play as hard as you want, but make it legal and make it accountable.
And judges like the arrogant Royce Lamberth, who is currently the subject of an ethics complaint, likely denied warrants for the sheer exercise of his own power and authority.
Speculative, and a straw man.
Bush was elected to protect the country. If he doesn't protect the country, he's gone. In war time, a President cannot be obstructed by some judge on a power trip.
The President was elected to defend the Constitution, and the Constitution mandates judicial review, not secret courts and imaginary executive superpowers.
Congress obviously approves of what Bush is doing because it is in no hurry to stop him.
What Congressional majority is going to go against a president from their own party? This congress especially, since they seem to be a bunch of do-nothing swine.
No doubt the AP write enjoyed using the admittedly clever double entendre in the headline.
President Rodham doesn't need no judges.
Then fine let it go to court.
If the president (and I don't just mean GWB), claims to have the right to ignore a law and not attempt to repeal it, then let that be judged.
If the court finds that the FISA law does not apply so be it.
I don't see any issues. If the law was broken then just like "We the People" you will be judged.
A provision that has been abused by the current courts, including the Supreme Court.
What Congressional majority is going to go against a president from their own party? This congress especially, since they seem to be a bunch of do-nothing swine.
LOL!! So you must be one of those big-government conservatives who insists that Congress be constantly legislating and mucking up our lives.
A do-nothing Congress is just fine by me.
It was nine years between Terrorist attacks on the WTC. Do you credit Clinton with "keeping the terrorists out of your living room"
In between those two events many Americans were killed by terrorism.
Attempted Assassination of President Bush by Iraqi Agents, April 14, 1993: The Iraqi intelligence service attempted to assassinate former U.S. President George Bush during a visit to Kuwait.
Khobar Towers Bombing, June 25, 1996: A fuel truck carrying a bomb exploded outside the US military's Khobar Towers housing facility in Dhahran, killing 19 U.S. military personnel and wounding 515 persons, including 240 U.S. personnel. Several groups claimed responsibility for the attack.
Empire State Building Sniper Attack, February 23, 1997: A Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland, and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claimed this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine."
U.S. Embassy Bombings in East Africa, August 7, 1998: A bomb exploded at the rear entrance of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, killing 12 U.S. citizens, 32 Foreign Service Nationals (FSNs), and 247 Kenyan citizens. Approximately 5,000 Kenyans, 6 U.S. citizens, and 13 FSNs were injured. The U.S. Embassy building sustained extensive structural damage. Almost simultaneously, a bomb detonated outside the U.S. Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 7 FSNs and 3 Tanzanian citizens, and injuring 1 U.S. citizen and 76 Tanzanians. The explosion caused major structural damage to the U.S. Embassy facility. The U.S. Government held Usama Bin Laden responsible.
Attack on U.S.S. Cole, October 12, 2000: In Aden, Yemen, a small dingy carrying explosives rammed the destroyer U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39 others. Supporters of Usama Bin Laden were suspected.
We remember what Clinton did to keep us Americans safe during this time --- nothing. Not a thing.
"The President was elected to defend the Constitution, and the Constitution mandates judicial review,
A provision that has been abused by the current courts, including the Supreme Court."
So what have you, we banish the courts or the president?
"LOL!! So you must be one of those big-government conservatives who insists that Congress be constantly legislating and mucking up our lives."
I'd like to point out that as well as not mucking in my life they do not listen as well.
Whoa! That was brillianntttt! Who ever thought of bringing up the Constitution.
But then of course --- http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section2
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.
Foreign intelligence (I mean surveillance, I know how sensitive you liberals get when talking about intelligence) is a war making power.
but we could ignore this and provide arguements at the 3d grade level.
I'm not even arguing I'm saying let it be judged by the courts.
Are you against that?
The reality is that this case will be heard in early Sept. by the 6th District Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, which handles cases from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee.. The 6th Circuit tends to be sympathetic to government national-security concerns.
There are more judges on that court who come down on the national security end of the spectrum than the civil liberties end. The majority will probably reverse this decision.
Either way this case will finally be heard at the USSC.
My point exactly. I just do not see an issue with it going to that point. I'm not arguing against it I'm for it.
I fail to see why some would be.
The next President will not be George W. Bush.
That is a very cute post!! Appropriate!
You can't do that with WebTV.....
LOL, did I misspell what I meant??
YOU can do anything with WebTV.
Your spelling had much improved
But mine is getting worse
It must be the relish
You got sour instead of sweet, snicker!
Wow my thoughts exactly.
THE ABOVE MASS MURDER OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT AMERICANS WAS THE INHERITANCE OF 8 YEARS UNDER THE CLINTOONS. THIS POS, POSING AS A JUDGE, WANTS REPLAYS OF THIS SERIAL KILLING ACROSS AMERICA.
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.