Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal Judge rules NSA surveillance unconstitutional!
ABC Radio News | 8/17/2006 | ABC Radio News

Posted on 08/17/2006 9:06:43 AM PDT by sinkspur

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


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: aclu; aclulist; activistcourts; activistjudge; annadiggstaylor; carterappointee; carterlegacy; counterterrorism; dumbassdonkruling; goodgrief; goodruling; govwatch; gramsci; impeach; itsoverjohnny; judgislators; judicialjihad; judicialtyranny; judiciary; libertarians; mysharia; nationalsecurity; nsa; ruling; spying; thankyoujimmycarter; tyrantsinblackrobes; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 581-586 next last
To: Republican Wildcat

It should be done under the oversight of the courts, as FISA dictates.


461 posted on 08/17/2006 3:54:01 PM PDT by Fjord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the 6th Circuit already rule on this? I know there are four Federal Circuit Courts that have already affirmed the authority of the President to conduct warrantless searches for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence. Wasn't the 6th one of these four? I think the other three are the 4th, 9th, and 11th.

If this is the case, then this judge cannot overturn a higher ruling of her own court.


462 posted on 08/17/2006 3:55:24 PM PDT by Hoodat ( ETERNITY - Smoking, or Non-smoking?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the 6th Circuit already rule on this?

I don't think the 6th has ruled on the TSP. Jonathan Turley said on FOXNEWS that other judges will also rule this to be unconstitutional, and it will put the Bush White House into "crisis mode."

I think the more judges rule against surveilling terrorist phone calls, the more the GOP can use thes rulings as evidence that the GOP needs to be in place to ride herd on these quislings.

463 posted on 08/17/2006 3:59:30 PM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 462 | View Replies]

To: Fjord

Be sure to finish your pitcher of kool aid.


464 posted on 08/17/2006 4:07:56 PM PDT by conservative blonde (Conservative Blonde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

ignore this ruling and ban the ACLU


465 posted on 08/17/2006 4:29:16 PM PDT by LeoWindhorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Truth-The Anti Spin

Did you mind that Clinton's Eschelon program spied on Americans? Without benefit of a warrant and not during wartime.


466 posted on 08/17/2006 4:41:41 PM PDT by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: Fjord

Not in all cases - especially those relating to National Security. Otherwise it would be unconstitutional. The Attorney General took that position at the time.


467 posted on 08/17/2006 4:43:59 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 461 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith

I'm sure little Jimmy Carter is very proud of this nomination!


468 posted on 08/17/2006 4:53:51 PM PDT by Alissa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Henchster

The ACLU shopped around until they found a judge to take the case. The first five courts turned them down. She's a
liberal democrap appointed by Carter. She'll be overturned.
I really don't think she understands that we are at war.


469 posted on 08/17/2006 4:54:17 PM PDT by tornado2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: tornado2

This is actually a BOON for us.

1) It has been stayed until heard on appeal, and it WILL be overturned. FISA has already ruled that what the NSA did was Constitutional.

2) It puts the WOT at the top of the news pages again, and again, the liberals look like terrorist sympathizers.

3) ACTIVIST JUDGES. Republicans can again use the foot-dragging of Dems in the Judiciary cmmtt in not getting judges appointed as an issue that brings out a lot of voters.


470 posted on 08/17/2006 5:03:48 PM PDT by Henchster (Free Republic - the BEST site on the web!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 469 | View Replies]

To: Fjord
I don't care HOW long you've been here, It's obvious that you haven't learned anything, in all that time! Why don't you know that this exceeded the judges powers?

It makes a LOT of difference, who placed this judge on the bench where she now sits and just how incompetently. Even Dems are saying that her ruling is without substance.

Last time I looked, President Bush wasn't being sued by someone who had accused him of sexual assault, he never committed perjury in court, and so, your pathetic, benighted analogy is not only silly beyond words, but ill educated in the extreme.

Fine....we're not at war and haven't been at war once, since WW II; however, we HAVE engaged in war. Heck, call it PEA SOUP for all I care.

471 posted on 08/17/2006 5:18:04 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]

To: Fjord
-We have been in grave danger from terrorists since 1979. Period. You are saying that because we don't have a war declaration that fits your definition (nevermind the fact that COngress authorized the use of force) that we are not in danger.

Pfui. Go over to DU. I do not have time for talking to ignoramuses who parrot the leftist line.

472 posted on 08/17/2006 5:43:13 PM PDT by Miss Marple (Lord, please look after Mozart Lover's and Jemian's sons and keep them strong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative
I disagree.

A victory for the terrorists, but a loss for the liberals. The timing of this couldn't be worse for the Dems. Just after the London plot and a month and a half before the mid-terms.

Suddenly, talking about national security is relevant again and won't be panned for being political in nature.
473 posted on 08/17/2006 5:44:03 PM PDT by Carling (It's Danny, Sir)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat

The president has absolutely ZERO authority to wiretap anybody without a warrant. He doesn't have it from the Consttution, and he doesn't have it through the AUMF.


474 posted on 08/17/2006 5:45:36 PM PDT by Fjord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 467 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Here is some more info on the case (from yahoo news-emphasis mine):

One of the plaintiffs in the case, Detroit immigration attorney Noel Saleh, said the NSA program had made it difficult to represent his clients, some of whom the government accuses of terrorist connections.

Saleh, a leader in Michigan's large Arab-American community, also said he believes many conversations between people in the community and relatives in Lebanon were monitored in recent weeks as people here sought news of their families amid the violence in the Middle East.

"People have the right to be concerned about their family, to check on the welfare of their family and not be spied on by the government," he said.

Finally for those who may not know all the facts about the NSA program: They are NOT bypassing the FISA courts - NSA only get leads - no criminal investigation. And I'll quote from AJ Strata:

The NSA was going through FISA since 9-11. Prior to 9-11 no intelligence information could be used to gain a surveillance warrant through FISA (the Wall). In fact, the NSA would not pass any leads to the FBI-FISA regarding potential terrorists they uncovered in the US because of this restriction. The change after 9-11 was allow the FBI to get the leads and investigate. The NSA still monitors just the terrorists and anyone talking to them until a FISA warrant is passed which provides for complete surveillance of all communications on the person in the US.
475 posted on 08/17/2006 5:53:23 PM PDT by bobsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

"I don't care HOW long you've been here, It's obvious that you haven't learned anything, in all that time! Why don't you know that this exceeded the judges powers?"

I have learned that for some people the rule of law is arbitrary depending on party politics.

"It makes a LOT of difference, who placed this judge on the bench where she now sits and just how incompetently. Even Dems are saying that her ruling is without substance."

Her competence is not something I am going to argue one way or the other. I will say though, that the administration's warrantless wiretapping program is illegal. I don't care if the judge rides the short bus to her bench everyday, the ruling is correct.

"Last time I looked, President Bush wasn't being sued by someone who had accused him of sexual assault, he never committed perjury in court, and so, your pathetic, benighted analogy is not only silly beyond words, but ill educated in the extreme."

True. Bush's illegality is potentially much, much more severe.

"Fine....we're not at war and haven't been at war once, since WW II; however, we HAVE engaged in war. Heck, call it PEA SOUP for all I care."

Yes, we're fighting terrorism. I am in favor of that. I just want it conducted in a way that conforms to US law. If the Bush administration thinks the laws are not sufficient, then they should try and get Congress to change them, not toss the laws aside as though they are worthless.


476 posted on 08/17/2006 5:57:08 PM PDT by Fjord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 471 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

The president is the commander in chief and is charged with immediate response to immediate needs.

The judge is without understanding and wisdom.


477 posted on 08/17/2006 5:57:39 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Liberals are a National Security risk.
478 posted on 08/17/2006 6:01:51 PM PDT by do the dhue (If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem. Just say 'no' to demorats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mystery-ak
Why Detroit?

Dearborn, a sub of Detroit, has the highest population of arab-americans in the country and there are several cases pending in the court system where the sandmonkeys are being tried for ties to terrorist activities. The La Shish restaurant chain owner is currently under indictment but has successfully returned to Lebanon in order to "take care of family business" and its unlikely he will return ...."La Shish

Two Friday's ago I was downtown for a Tiger game and arrived not long after a pro Hizbolla, Pro lebanon, Pro Palestine, anti-Israel, anti_American rally was winding down in Grand Circus park in downtown Detroit........The hatred of Jews and America that remained with the people who were still there while the rally was ending was overwhelming and every American should take notice of what is going on in the Arab communities.............

479 posted on 08/17/2006 6:05:03 PM PDT by Hot Tabasco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple

Terrorists do pose a danger, no question. The serious matter at hand though is to what extent do we amend existing law to fight them. FISA dates back to the 1970's, so changes are in order (I think) to bring it current with technology. These matters are all things that should be debated and studied. The problem is, the Bush administration has taken it upon themselves to do whatever they want, with no authorization or oversight. That is unacceptable in a free society. I'm not even against monitoring calls between terrorists and nationals in the US... BUT, it is something that MUST BE CAREFULLY DONE WITH OVERSIGHT. It has to confine to the rule of law.


480 posted on 08/17/2006 6:05:36 PM PDT by Fjord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 581-586 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson