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.

[RustMartialis]

Depending on the mood of the Circuit judges involved, I suspect it will be reversed on the Article III standing issue alone.

Overturned on 'no injury = no standing' I guess? Cleaner that way, if it is overturned. Stevens handles the Sixth Circuit, so I could see him taking the appeal, no? --R.

[jrooney]

Jeff by the way nice to meet because my name is Jeff. I responded to him because I disagreed with him when we were on the thread at the same time. Just like you disagreed with my responses to him. I responded to him and you responded to me in disagreement. It is that simple.

[JeffAtlanta]

Nice to meet you Jeff. I'm sure that we agree on most things since we both like this site so much. :-)

My point was just this ruling is not really what it seems - especially from the headline.

NSA survielance was ruled unconstitutional - only the wiretapping of Amercian citizens without a warrant was.

If the administration and congress really care about this program, then all they have to do is change the law - they don't even have to change the constitution.

In one day congress and the administration could make this program perfectly legal and constitutional.

[Miss Marple]

President Hillary will do what she damn pleases, regardless of whether this is overturned or not. We have the track record of her husband's administration to demonstrate this. They will do as they please, ignore Congress and the courts, and the media will applaud them as "thinking outside the box."

To deny the President this program, IN A TIME OF WAR WHEN THE NATION IS IN GRAVE DANGER, in order to foolishly think that it will keep Hillary from doing anything, is just plain stupid. Liberals only go with court decisions when it favors them.

Personally, I would like to know who this judge has been in contact with, I would like her bank account audited, and hopefully I would like a bill of impeachment brought before the House.

[JeffAtlanta]

NSA survielance was ruled unconstitutional - only the wiretapping of Amercian citizens without a warrant was.

Oops, meant to write "NSA survielance was NOT ruled unconstitutional - only the wiretapping of Amercian citizens without a warrant was.

[SuziQ]

I guess this is going to the Supremes.

[Just A Nobody]

THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1802 Prev | § 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General

Bush was denied wiretaps, bypassed them (FISA Court denied them in unprecedented numbers)

FISA JUDGES SAY BUSH WITHIN THE LAW (Why Has the MSM Ignored This Story?)

[San Jacinto]

Oh, I get it. Judge Diggs (or whatever) was just protecting us from a potential Hillary Clinton presidency. Is that your point?

[sinkspur]

Furthermore, the FISA court has approved over 99% of the warrants brought to it.

Except that it has turned down a disproportionate number of those referred to it by the Bush administration.

The administration has had years and years to go to congress and get the law changed. Any wiretapping done outside the framework of FISA is de facto extralegal.

That is not true, and there is a plethora of legal opinion stating such. There are even official judicial opinions stating such.

Where FISA can be used, it should be. In no case should a FISA refusal or lack of one be an excuse for ignoring possible terrorist chatter. We simply cannot afford it.

[antiRepublicrat]

Is that your point?

No, in general we have to carefully watch how much power we give our government and how much power it tries to take for itself. Given our government's history, it is inevitable that the power will be abused.

[NormsRevenge]

Ann Beeson, the American Civil Liberties Union's associate legal director and the lead attorney for the plaintiffs challenging the government's wiretapping policy, addresses the media in Detroit, in this June 12, 2006, file photo. A federal judge ruled Thursday, Aug. 17, 2006 that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio, File)

[atlaw]

One perplexing aspect of the case (I've admittedly given it only a preliminary reading) is the conclusion that warrantless wiretaps uniquely chill the plaintiffs' communications:

"[I]t is likely that the injury will be redressed by the requested relief. A determination by this court that the TSP is unconstitutional and a further determination which enjoins Defendants from continued warrantless wiretapping in contravention of FISA would assure Plaintiffs and others that they could freely engage in conversations and correspond via email without concern, at least without notice, that such communications were being monitored. The requested relief would thus redress the injury to Plaintiffs caused by the TSP.

Since the acquisition of a wiretap warrant does not, to my knowledge, involve notification to the individual whose communications are being intercepted, the argument that warrantless wiretaps have a substantively different chilling effect from wiretaps otherwise conducted pursuant to warrant seems, well, unwarranted.

[jrooney]

I agree that congress should make the necessary changes in the law to make all sides happy. I disagree though with those here that say POTUS Bush violated the constitution and can be impeached for this.

The POTUS of the US has inherent authority during a time of war that no one, not even SCOTUS, can touch. The judiciary is not above Bush but an equal branch, yet can not intrude on his wartime powers.

[bwteim]

FWIW, here are the plaintiffs:

American Civil Liberties Union;
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation;
American Civil Liberties Union Of Michigan;
Council On American-Islamic Relations;
Council On American Islamic Relations Michigan;
Greenpeace, Inc.;
National Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers;
James Bamford;
Larry Diamond;
Christopher Hitchens;
Tara Mckelvey;
And Barnett R. Rubin

Here is the opinion:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20060817wiretap-opinion.pdf

[Clump]

Stevens wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. He knows he will get blasted out of the sky if he takes it to the full court. Besides, I don't think even he would rule that the Plaintiff here has a "personal and concrete injury", which is what the court has repeatedly said Art. III requires.

[jrooney]

Why are ACLU attorney's and their ilk, normally some of the most physically unappealling people I have ever seen. Maybe they are mad at the world for this and this is the way they lash out? Just kidding of course here folks.

[San Jacinto]

I haven't had time to read the opinion. Judge Moonbat ruled that a journalist, scholar, or lawyer has standing to challenge the act because they proved they need to contact foreign subversives in order to further their professions? The foreign subversives must not feel inhibited by the possibility of eavesdropping? And it would be too much trouble or expense to make all those overseas trips? Interesting concept of legal standing.

[Miss Marple]

How do you know that there hasn't been an impending attack, which the NSA program has stopped?

[bwteim]

From ruling:

"Plaintiffs here contend that the TSP has interfered with their ability to carry out their professional responsibilities in a variety of ways, including that the TSP has had a significant impact on their ability to talk with sources, locate witnesses, conduct scholarship, engage in advocacy and communicate with persons who are outside of the United States, including in the Middle East and Asia. Plaintiffs have submitted several declarations to that effect.

For example, scholars and journalists such as plaintiffs Tara McKelvey, Larry Diamond, and Barnett Rubin indicate that they must conduct extensive research in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, and must communicate with individuals abroad whom the United States government believes to be terrorist suspects or to be associated with terrorist organizations.12

In addition, attorneys Nancy Hollander, William Swor, Joshua Dratel, Mohammed Abdrabboh, and Nabih Ayad indicate that they must also communicate with individuals abroad whom the United States government believes to be terrorist suspects or to be associated with terrorist organizations,13 and must discuss confidential information over the phone and email with their international clients.14"

[Almondjoy]

I have always felt that since non-citizen are not part of WE the people. Anywhere here illegally or on a visa can be listened to no matter what.

Not that I'm saying Citizens can't hurt us.. and I'm defintely not saying that I agree with the judges ruling. Just commenting on the fact that I think we can do all the searches and seizures we want on non-citizens.