Federal Judge rules NSA surveillance unconstitutional!

ABC Radio News | 8/17/2006 | ABC Radio News

[sinkspur]

A federal district judge in Detroit has ruled that the Bush administration's NSA surveillance of phone conversations is unconstitutional.

[Knute]

May God help us if the traitorous members of the left make ANY gains in the elections this November.
We can expect actions like today in spades!

(no, this is not a racist statement. It refers to the bidding/scoring system of the game of bridge...
Hmmmm... bridge.... Michigan judge...)

[tobyhill]

You're right on your 2 quotes but you're wrong on assessment. There's contradictory statements all throughout the 44 page ruling which has been confirmed by CNN legal analyst. Now STFU dweeb and don't address me again.

[sinkspur]

Some of us prefer to agree with Patrick Henry on the tradeoff of liberty for personal safety.

What personal liberties have YOU had to sacrifice?

I'd bet NONE!!

[Akeirook]

Here come the LIBERAL-tarians

[ikez78]

These libs are gonna get us killed.

[Fjord]

I find it utterly amazing how quickly the Right has gone from being the last bastion of liberty and limited government to what it is now... a bunch of Big Government yes-men. Another poster warned about what would happen if/when someone like Hillary gets elected with these powers. Well, I think I can tell you. People on the right would scream bloody murder about limiting government power. It would be like Waco and Ruby Ridge everyday. You're going to see thread after thread on this forum exploding with rage about how the Left is abusing government power and trampling on the Constitution. Just remember how we on the Right handled the power while we had it. We gave away liberty like it was so much fluff, all in the name of security versus a foe that is more a method of fighting than a real enemy in the flesh. Bush has revoked many of our rights in the name of perpetual war. We on the Right are to blame.

[hipaatwo]

So here's how it went down:

1. Plaintiffs allege that the government is listening in on their calls. They offer no evidence - aside from media leaks of vague information about an anti-terror program being run by the NSA - that any one of the plaintiffs have had their phone conversations monitored. Despite this, they demand that the government prove they aren't monitoring phone calls.

2. The government responds that the NSA anti-terror efforts are classified and that revealing the details of the program in open court to prove that the plaintiffs didn't have their phone conversations monitored would be a breach in national security.

3. Despite the fact that the plaintiffs can't prove their case - not to mention the fact that the government shouldn't have to make their case for them by immolating a valuable anti-terror program - the judge rules an immediate halt to the program.

http://sayanythingblog.com/2006/08/17/aclu_wins_won_for_the_terrorists/

[Pyro7480]

You know, I'm going to use that sugestion anyway. It's the accurate Latin. ;-)

[conservative blonde]

A great many Muslims live there.

[Clump]

I don't recall ever being afraid that my library records were being examined, or that my phone calls were being listened to. I understand that we are at war with barbarians who want to hide behind our "liberties", and then attack us while we are none the wiser.

There are enough enemies of this nation to keep the feds busy for many years to come. I highly doubt they are using precious resources following me around, and snooping through my stuff.

Besides, I don't make international calls. If I did, I would have nothing to say that would be of any interest to the authorities.

If we don't get serious, and take the threat for what it really is, we will soon have no liberties to "trade". The measures used by the administration are non-intrusive, and very reasonable under the circumstances.

Either you are extremely naive, or you have an agenda that is so warped that it is more important than our safety.

I for one am willing to let the feds listen in on foreign calls if it prevents the kind of attacks that were foiled last week. A very small sacrifice to pay, since there really is no sacrifice to pay. I love my family too much to allow it to be harmed in the name of privacy.

[Amanda75]

THIS ruling will not stand, it will go to the federal court in the DC area now and they will rule that it is legal, lets hope someone in this country has some sense.

[letsgonova19087]

If you cannot comprehend the difference between listening to a call from a terrorist to the US and the "trampling of the Constitution" that you're refering to, you're just stupid.

Do tell us: What rights did you have on 9/10/01 that you do not have today? You clearly feel secure coming on to a public forum and denouncing our president. What are you no longer able to do?

[RustMartialis]

"You're right on your 2 quotes but you're wrong on assessment. There's contradictory statements all throughout the 44 page ruling which has been confirmed by CNN legal analyst. Now STFU dweeb and don't address me again."

If you don't know what you're talking about, and someone points it out, you blame THEM for it?

Somehow your ignorance is *my* fault?

Brainpower like that belongs in Congress... for the Dems.

--R.

[atlaw]

Lets pretend this judge would have ruled this way a year ago. The plot in Britain would have went forward because we wouldn't have been listening in on them.

I don't recall any warrantless wiretaps by the NSA being involved in the British investigation. Do you have a cite for that?

And, assuming for the moment that an NSA wiretap existed in the British investigation, why do you say "we wouldn't have been listening in on them?" Was there something about that investigation that would have prevented acquisition of a wiretap warrant?

[jrooney]

Middle America, independents and conservative donks have been watching and listening to the lunacy of the left for some time. The donks, the party of jackasses, think they are all stupid though and can protect them better from terrorism than republicans. Yet, they leak top secrets, applaud at our losses, whine about when we are victorious (such as stopping the UK terror plane plot) and disarm us or attempt to of the tools we need to keep Americans safe.

This will be another reminder to middle America, independents and conservative democrats why to vote republican in November, and they will in large numbers. I am calling it here, look for republicans to maintain both senate and the house and possibly picking up seats in one or both.

This is to the trolls that read this thread, you are all ignorant and fools and just like Lamont is going to get his a** handed to him by Lieberman in November, your party is going to get a beat down. The morning after the vote, you all have NO TO BLAME BUT YOURSELVES.

[jrooney]

Yes we picked up chatter internationally and gave the Brits heads up in July 2005.

[Mo1]

WOW ..... cool .. I figured out how to copy and paste from a adobe doc

Though .. I'm not sure if I'll remember what I did to get it *L*



Alternatively, Plaintiffs argue, that even if the
court finds that the privilege was appropriately asserted, the court should use creativity and care to
devise methods which would protect the privilege but allow the case to proceed

[RustMartialis]

"Some of us prefer to agree with Patrick Henry on the tradeoff of liberty for personal safety.

What personal liberties have YOU had to sacrifice?

I'd bet NONE!!"

So you'd be all okay with President Hillary invoking executive powers to take your guns away, since she'd be C-in-C.

I mean, if the GOVUSA can ignore the 1st and 4th Amendments, what's the 2nd in addition?

Ignoring *anyone's* Constitutional rights impacts *everyone's* rights. But evidently you're "ok" with giving up your rights when the Govermnent asks.

--R.

[xeno]

I just read the opinion. Here are the key parts:

"Plaintiffs here contend that the TSP has interfered with their ability to carry out their professional responsibilities...For example scholars and journalists...must communicate with individuals abroad whom the United States government believes to be terrorist suspects or to be associated with terrorist organizations." (page 17)

"The injury to the Plaintiffs stems directrly from the TSP and their injuries can unequivocally be traced to the TSP." (page 23)

The judge has ruled that the government cannot interfere in communications with known terrorist organizations.

[hipaatwo]

What does that mean?

BBS..I must shower..p.u. me..LOL