Judge orders the Bush administration to stop a domestic wiretap

[GaryC 7]

Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on August 17, 2006 ordered the National Security Agency (NSA) and "its agents, employees, representatives and any other persons or entities in active concert or participation" with the agency to halt the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program.

And so it begins.

The program allowed the NSA to monitor communications between U.S. residents and people in other countries who have suspected ties to terrorist group al Qaeda, without getting court-ordered warrants.

Taylor wrote in her order that the program, authorized by U.S. President George Bush in 2002, violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of freedom of speech and association and its prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures. She feels that the NSA program also violates the separation of powers clause in the Constitution, as well as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which set courts to issue warrants for wiretaps focused on counterintelligence.

This decision is so extreme left that one wonders how much law -- as opposed to politics -- is actually included in this ruling. Hasn't Judge Taylor ever heard that it's illegal to yell "Fire!" in a public place without cause? That too is a violation of the constitutional right to "free speech." Yet we have all accepted that in some cases, the need to protect the public (the greater good) takes precedence over the individual rights entrenched in the constitution.

This program was not about "spying on American people" as the liberal left has painted it in the media. This program authorized wiretapping of calls that originated from outside the USA to someone inside this country when either the caller or the receiver of the call was under suspicion of terrorist activity. This program very likely played a key role in the ability of American, Canadian and British governments to intercept the terrorist plots of the past few months before they could be carried out.

The ultra-liberals are so bent on screaming "foul" over every little privacy concern that they have forgotten we are at war. Instead of protecting those who voted them into office, people like ####### Dubin and Pat "Leaky" Leahy seem intent on spilling the beans about as many anti-terrorist programs as possible and crafting some soft of "al Qaeda Bill of Rights."

Does this mean that all constitutional rights are thrown out the window just because we are engaged in a war? Of course not. When the American Constitution was drafted, it was meant to protect the people of the nation from oppressive government. But there's a vast chasm between oppressive government and listening in on phone calls between suspected enemy combatants. Naturally, there are activities that must be protected at all times. Freedom of religion, for example, means that even in a state of war with extremist Muslims, we must protect the right of Muslims to practice their faith in peace. But those rights do not extend to those bent on our destruction. That's where Judge Taylor and her supporters are getting confused. I don't want to stand over the mutilated bodies of my friends or family because some non-elected extremist judge wants to take over the legislative branch of the United States of America.

http://www.pytlik.com/martini/judgetaylor.html

This is just an opinion piece but I wholeheartetly share this opinion. The program only targets calls made to or from suspected terrorists outside the country. It in no way infringes on someone's privacy, unless of course your a terrorist.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on August 17, 2006 ordered the National Security Agency (NSA) and "its agents, employees, representatives and any other persons or entities in active concert or participation" with the agency to halt the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program.

And so it begins.

The program allowed the NSA to monitor communications between U.S. residents and people in other countries who have suspected ties to terrorist group al Qaeda, without getting court-ordered warrants.

Taylor wrote in her order that the program, authorized by U.S. President George Bush in 2002, violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of freedom of speech and association and its prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures. She feels that the NSA program also violates the separation of powers clause in the Constitution, as well as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which set courts to issue warrants for wiretaps focused on counterintelligence.

This decision is so extreme left that one wonders how much law -- as opposed to politics -- is actually included in this ruling. Hasn't Judge Taylor ever heard that it's illegal to yell "Fire!" in a public place without cause? That too is a violation of the constitutional right to "free speech." Yet we have all accepted that in some cases, the need to protect the public (the greater good) takes precedence over the individual rights entrenched in the constitution.

This program was not about "spying on American people" as the liberal left has painted it in the media. This program authorized wiretapping of calls that originated from outside the USA to someone inside this country when either the caller or the receiver of the call was under suspicion of terrorist activity. This program very likely played a key role in the ability of American, Canadian and British governments to intercept the terrorist plots of the past few months before they could be carried out.

The ultra-liberals are so bent on screaming "foul" over every little privacy concern that they have forgotten we are at war. Instead of protecting those who voted them into office, people like ####### Dubin and Pat "Leaky" Leahy seem intent on spilling the beans about as many anti-terrorist programs as possible and crafting some soft of "al Qaeda Bill of Rights."

Does this mean that all constitutional rights are thrown out the window just because we are engaged in a war? Of course not. When the American Constitution was drafted, it was meant to protect the people of the nation from oppressive government. But there's a vast chasm between oppressive government and listening in on phone calls between suspected enemy combatants. Naturally, there are activities that must be protected at all times. Freedom of religion, for example, means that even in a state of war with extremist Muslims, we must protect the right of Muslims to practice their faith in peace. But those rights do not extend to those bent on our destruction. That's where Judge Taylor and her supporters are getting confused. I don't want to stand over the mutilated bodies of my friends or family because some non-elected extremist judge wants to take over the legislative branch of the United States of America.

http://www.pytlik.com/martini/judgetaylor.html

This is just an opinion piece but I wholeheartetly share this opinion. The program only targets calls made to or from suspected terrorists outside the country. It in no way infringes on someone's privacy, unless of course your a terrorist.

No mention of our increasingly imperialistic government, and the systematic gathering of executive power. All for our protection of course

Unfortunately this again appears to the usual state of play when it comes to criticising government policy - Do so and you are subjected to (baseless) accusations of "lefist" bias, and otherwise have your character smeared and dragged through the mud. Unfortunately no-one seemed to realise they have been doing this consistently since 9/11, and when military veterans with 30+ year service records are ridiculed by the government for criticising the war in Iraq, something is very definitely wrong.

Don't you worry that Bush et al will leave this country constitutionally weaker at the end of his term of office?

The questions here are really quite reasonable IMO - how does someone becomes a "suspected" terrorist? and what constitutes reasonable suspicion?

There really is no middle ground anymore it seems - you can't make a comment about any aspect of government policy without your politics and motivations being called into question. Rather sad really.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But there's a vast chasm between oppressive government and listening in on phone calls between suspected enemy combatants. Naturally, there are activities that must be protected at all times. Freedom of religion, for example, means that even in a state of war with extremist Muslims, we must protect the right of Muslims to practice their faith in peace. But those rights do not extend to those bent on our destruction. That's where Judge Taylor and her supporters are getting confused. I don't want to stand over the mutilated bodies of my friends or family because some non-elected extremist judge wants to take over the legislative branch of the United States of America.

This is not about an extremist judge taking over the legislative branch of government. Tired old talking point of the Bushies. The issue is also not, nor has ever been, that there is some targeted surveillance of suspected terrorists or whatever. That has been done for many years and during many administrations pre "King George's". The issue is that there is a process in place for such surveillance (FISA) that this administration unilaterally and secretly decided doesn't apply to it's dealings. The issue is that the administration feels it is above the law and can infringe on your privacy and mine, on your rights and mine without due process. The issue is that the administration feels that processes put in place by the legilative branch of the government need not be respected by the executive branch. It is the executive branch's very attempt to marginalize the role of the other branches of government that is at issue. And it is the very duty of the other branches of government to put the executive in it's place. Obviously, the Republican dominated "do nothing" Congress doesn't take that duty very seriously. I'm glad that at least the judiciary does. Otherwise, we'd be seriously fcuked.

Edited August 23, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But there's a vast chasm between oppressive government and listening in on phone calls between suspected enemy combatants. Naturally, there are activities that must be protected at all times. Freedom of religion, for example, means that even in a state of war with extremist Muslims, we must protect the right of Muslims to practice their faith in peace. But those rights do not extend to those bent on our destruction. That's where Judge Taylor and her supporters are getting confused. I don't want to stand over the mutilated bodies of my friends or family because some non-elected extremist judge wants to take over the legislative branch of the United States of America.

This is not about an extremist judge taking over the legislative branch of government. Tired old talking point of the Bushies. The issue is also not, nor has ever been, that there is some targeted surveillance of suspected terrorists or whatever. That has been done for many years and during many administrations pre "King George's". The issue is that there is a process in place for such surveillance (FISA) that this administration unilaterally and secretly decided doesn't apply to it's dealings. The issue is that the administration feels it is above the law and can infringe on your privacy and mine, on your rights and mine without due process. The issue is that the administration feels that processes put in place by the legilative branch of the government need not be respected by the executive branch. It is the executive branch's very attempt to marginalize the role of the other branches of government that is at issue. And it is the very duty of the other branches of government to put the executive in it's place. Obviously, the Republican dominated "do nothing" Congress doesn't take that duty very seriously. I'm glad that at least the judiciary does. Otherwise, we'd be seriously fcuked.

And once again it becomes - put party first, everything else a distant second.

[pedroh 21]

owned

[Dean iWait 0]

Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on August 17, 2006 ordered the National Security Agency (NSA) and "its agents, employees, representatives and any other persons or entities in active concert or participation" with the agency to halt the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program.

And so it begins.

The program allowed the NSA to monitor communications between U.S. residents and people in other countries who have suspected ties to terrorist group al Qaeda, without getting court-ordered warrants.

Taylor wrote in her order that the program, authorized by U.S. President George Bush in 2002, violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of freedom of speech and association and its prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures. She feels that the NSA program also violates the separation of powers clause in the Constitution, as well as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which set courts to issue warrants for wiretaps focused on counterintelligence.

This decision is so extreme left that one wonders how much law -- as opposed to politics -- is actually included in this ruling. Hasn't Judge Taylor ever heard that it's illegal to yell "Fire!" in a public place without cause? That too is a violation of the constitutional right to "free speech." Yet we have all accepted that in some cases, the need to protect the public (the greater good) takes precedence over the individual rights entrenched in the constitution.

This program was not about "spying on American people" as the liberal left has painted it in the media. This program authorized wiretapping of calls that originated from outside the USA to someone inside this country when either the caller or the receiver of the call was under suspicion of terrorist activity. This program very likely played a key role in the ability of American, Canadian and British governments to intercept the terrorist plots of the past few months before they could be carried out.

The ultra-liberals are so bent on screaming "foul" over every little privacy concern that they have forgotten we are at war. Instead of protecting those who voted them into office, people like ####### Dubin and Pat "Leaky" Leahy seem intent on spilling the beans about as many anti-terrorist programs as possible and crafting some soft of "al Qaeda Bill of Rights."

Does this mean that all constitutional rights are thrown out the window just because we are engaged in a war? Of course not. When the American Constitution was drafted, it was meant to protect the people of the nation from oppressive government. But there's a vast chasm between oppressive government and listening in on phone calls between suspected enemy combatants. Naturally, there are activities that must be protected at all times. Freedom of religion, for example, means that even in a state of war with extremist Muslims, we must protect the right of Muslims to practice their faith in peace. But those rights do not extend to those bent on our destruction. That's where Judge Taylor and her supporters are getting confused. I don't want to stand over the mutilated bodies of my friends or family because some non-elected extremist judge wants to take over the legislative branch of the United States of America.

http://www.pytlik.com/martini/judgetaylor.html

This is just an opinion piece but I wholeheartetly share this opinion. The program only targets calls made to or from suspected terrorists outside the country. It in no way infringes on someone's privacy, unless of course your a terrorist.

Ditto!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This judge is some left wing nut job and her decision will be overturned by a higher court.

Left wing nut job...yes, let the cliche's fly... she must be a liberal and all liberals of course are nutty.... that's rich.

[pedroh 21]

yea the main thing is the way to do it, not the purpose of doing it.. while probably a wiretapping program would help searching for terrorists.. they way they are trying to do it -not issuing warrants, not having a legal procedure, etc- is the main problem.. hell i wouldn't mind the wiretapping if they send me a warrant with legal explanation and well founded.. and thats a lot different that King George just saying 'im above the law and i can do what i want' with that chopfukc of alberto gonzalez backing up

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This judge is some left wing nut job and her decision will be overturned by a higher court.

Left wing nut job...yes, let the cliche's fly... she must be a liberal and all liberals of course are nutty.... that's rich.

No $hit. Much of the support for this policy seems as mindless to me as "Duck and Cover" was in the 1950's.

[PsychoKat 0]

I think people have become confused over the terms of liberal and conservative.

Conservative used be about caution and slow to accept drastic change and above all protecting and adherance to the constitution and what this country was founded on

Liberal used to be more willing and open to change and even challenging some parts of the constitution such as the womens rights to vote, racism etc.

NOW it appers those being tagged as liberal are trying to protect and enforce adherance to the constitution and what this country was founded on, and questioning when our government is not upholding these things.

and those who consider themselves as conservative are willling to accept drastic change and allow the government to ignore the constitution and what this country was founded on, and instead consider anyone who questions the possibility of our government breaking down and tearing apart the constitution as liberal..whacked.

How did that happen.

The Declaration of Independance states

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

What our country was founded on, would by all accounts be snidely refered to as liberal left sided thinking. by conservatives who think that the government is not to be questioned. But this way of thinking, this blind faith that what they are doing is above question and absolute truth would be in effect opening the door very wide for our country to be reduced to Despotism...Hmm??

If the president is taking action that goes against the constitution he is breaking a very legal and binding oath

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Most conservatives aren't very compassionate towards those who break the law...?

Bill of rights

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If the reasoning behind the wire taps are valid then there should be no problem obtaining a warrent for probable cause so logically there should be no reason for this to be happening. Justify what persons you are tracking to the judicial system, get the warrants and monitor the communications. Unless the feel they couldn't provide sufficent justification maybe.....then..hmmm

Our country was founded by people who questioned the actions of those in power and fought to obtain their freedom and rights. So these days liberals are patriotic and it appears many who consider themselves as conservatives are not.

[Jenn! 918]

Liberals are Race-card playing, craven parasites who hate America.

This just cracks me up!

http://www.strauss.za.com/sla/leftie.html

[Alex+R 0]

Minority-exploiting, bigoted heretics who live with their mothers

[PsychoKat 0]

I tried it and this one seems to fit what is considered conservative these days

Racist, liberty-hating half-wits who love government intervention

Because those who are questioning the government these days are called liberal, and in the wire tapping issue the ones being called liberal are those concerned about the destruction of liberty by the government.....

See as I was saying the terms have been flipped somehow

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I tried it and this one seems to fit what is considered conservative these days

Racist, liberty-hating half-wits who love government intervention

Because those who are questioning the government these days are called liberal, and in the wire tapping issue the ones being called liberal are those concerned about the destruction of liberty by the government.....

See as I was saying the terms have been flipped somehow

Topsy turvy times. And people consider repealing certain of our civil rights to be "progressive". Crackers...

[Dean iWait 0]

I tried it and this one seems to fit what is considered conservative these days

Racist, liberty-hating half-wits who love government intervention

Because those who are questioning the government these days are called liberal, and in the wire tapping issue the ones being called liberal are those concerned about the destruction of liberty by the government.....

See as I was saying the terms have been flipped somehow

Give me a break! Would you please wake up. The only reason liberals pretend to be concerned is that we have a Republican in the whitehouse. They will do anything to to thumb their nose at him. If a Democrat was in the office you wouldn't here a peep out of them on the same friggin program. Oh and by the way can you name one Democrat lawmaker who has come out publicly and said we should end this program? Oh wait you can't name one because none of them have. They all just spout off about how we have to make sure the program is legal, and lets make sure the president isn't overstepping his powers and we've got to make sure we protect americans civil liberties. They don't give a shite, it's just politics and all they care about is getting winning the next election and a lot of Republicans sadly are the same way in that regard. Unfortunately for reasonable liberals the far laft wing is taking over the Democrat party. Take back your party and make it respectable again for god's sake ( if assuming that's your party lol).