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.
Based on the historical precedent and the precedent of In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001 http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html I am absolutely certain that the program will be upheld as constitutional.
What has been dismaying about this is very existence of and the nature of the arguement (such as www.namethedictatorship.com). These are dishonest and villainous arguements. They are made:
As if there aren't military officers and lawyers who love the constitution (defending it is in their commissioning oath) at the NSA. As if there weren't safeguards. As if senior members of Congress weren't briefed. As if there weren't islamofascists who want to blow up airliners. As if there weren't clear guidelines for resolving questions about program details secretly and internally in cooperation with Congress rather than telling our ENEMIES what we are doing.
The revelation of this secret program and the duplicitous and treasonous arguements made about it are what upset me. We all know that the Democrats planned and executed this effort to use intelligence against the administration. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102206,00.html.
So for political power, the democrats weaken our national security and endanger me and my kids. "Hey Al-queda we are weak and fighting with our selves. The liberals here hate America and George Bush so much that they would like you to blow up part of New York! This is not the united America of World War II! We are vulnerable and have willing traitors!!!!"
Sure, the almighty and all knowing judges will be able to clean up the mess of two branches arguing about what Article 2 section 2 of the the Constitution means and whether the overreaction of Congress to Richard Nixon can overrule it.
But they won't be able to take away blood thirsty, murderous, al-queda's knowledge of how to better avoid being detected as they plan the next way to kill you, me and my kids.
"I'm not even arguing I'm saying let it be judged by the courts. |
Britains Lord of the Admiralty Jackie Fisher said it best in WWI:
The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility. Hit first! Hit hard! Hit anywhere!
Its a military axiom that to win a war, you must attack. Contrary to those who want to wage this conflict as a law enforcement matter, the best outcome you can hope for by staying home and adopting a bunker mentality is simply not to be defeated. Winning with such a mindset is out of the question.
The true American way of war has always held in contempt the ideas of soft power, gradualism or proportionality. Our forebears understood that the way to win - and to bring the boys home as soon as possible - was to bring full power to bear upon the enemy and crush them.
You can be magnanimous after youve won.
Gradualism and proportionatity werent what Sherman had in mind in 1864 when he burnt a swath across Georgia and the Carolinas; nor what Grant was thinking when he ground Lees army to powder in 1865.
Those foolish words werent what motivated Curtis LeMay when he outfitted the B-29s with napalm and magnesium bombs and sent them in swarms, at night and at low altitude, over Tokyo, Nagoya and Osaka. And they sure as hell werent on the Marines lips when they were blasting and incinerating Imperial Japanese Army dead-enders on Iwo, Peleliu or Okinawa. And BTW, the MSM WAS NOT embeded on those missions!
On the other hand, those terms were plain to see in our conduct in Korea and Vietnam. Korea was a standoff, and shamefully, a loss in Vietnam, not by our military, but by dumb Democrat politicians!
Anybody detect a couple of patterns there?
Never give counsel to your fears. The enemy is more afraid than you are. Dont worry about what hes going to do to you; think about what youre going to do to him!
- Gen. George S. Patton
Thanks Dave.
"Your argument is overwhelmingly senseless"
All I'm stating is that are no issues if GEB actions are judged constitutional.
It would not be in anyones best interest to leave it up to the POTUS to interpret the Constitution as he (or she) may see fit.
I think that's where we differ. The president swears to uphold the constitution not interpret it.
I'm just not prepared to accept that this President (GWB my mistake earlier) or future presidents can state that they believe something to be constitutional so it must be.
There lies a slippery slope.
I'm not arguing that what he has done is unconstitutional only that I see nothing wrong with the courts confirming this.
How could we know if any rights have been violated if the whole thing is hidden behind the cloak of National Security.
That's a non-starter.
For one thing, we know that ever since every Tom, Dick and Harry with a secret to tell has been running to the press, we haven't heard a single word about abuses of the Terrorist Surveillance Program.
That means that there are either
(A) No principled government employees willing to expose injustice (knowing that Congress would bail them out from any legal trouble they wound up in).
(B) No greedy government employees willing to sell out, in order to bask in fame and book deals.
(C) No partisan government employees in the U.S. government who would leak abuse stories to damage the opposition.
or
(D) No abuses to report, just a secret program that sounds kinda scary, but is actually just doing it's job.
I guess I don't understand your question. Amid all the insults I assume that you favour ultimate power in the hands of the executive. I don't.
This isn't to say that I don't support the WOT, I do. What worries me is that the republican will not hold both houses and the presidency forever.
Will you be so gung ho when the DEMS start to strip away our rights while asserting that (because we are at war) they alone can interpret the constitution.
Wait a minute you ask me if anyones rights have been violated by the wiretapping.
I state that you can't tell because it hidden behind National Security.
You then state that if one wanted to find out this would be giving secrets to the enemy.
So I assume that you have no idea, and or don't care if your / mine or anyone elses rights have been violated?
You're confusing me.
You make no sense.
Now that makes sense. I agree that the program IMHO is correct and is needed. I just feel that it must stay within the confines of the constitution.
If an American feels that it does not it is their right to take it to court . If the court finds in favour of the President then O.K.
I really don't see the big deal.
O.K. You need to calm down. Questioning our leaders at any time is our right and responsibility.
Name one American citizen that was injured by, or have
lost a civil liberty over the data mining wiretaps?
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.