Federal Judge Orders Halt to NSA Wiretapping

[drone]

A federal judge has ruled the wiretapping unconstitutional. Next up, SCOTUS...

Justice Anna Diggs Taylor, why do you hate freedom?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...700650_pf.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/....ap/index.html

A federal judge in Detroit ordered a halt to the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program, ruling for the first time that the controversial effort ordered by President Bush was unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor wrote in a strongly-worded 43-page opinion that the NSA wiretapping program violates privacy and free-speech rights and the constitutional separation of powers between the three branches of government. She also found that it violates a 1978 law set up to oversee clandestine surveillance.

Ruling in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups, Taylor, 73, wrote that "public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of the Constitution. . . . "

"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. " . . . There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution."

For the more lawyerly minded, her opinion from FindLaw:
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw....sa81706opn.pdf

[Aenlic]

The backlash against the "unitary executive" is beginning. Most presidents have tried to some degree to increase the power of their branch. This president perhaps doing so more than most with the claim of being in a "war on terror" as an excuse. As more people grow out of their fear of being labelled traitors and unpatriotic for criticizing this "war president" the pendulum will start swinging back the other way. Some of the things this president has done are pretty blatant; such as declaring a "right" to ignore laws if he wants to do so, even while he's signing them, and, as in the case above, ignoring the Constitution altogether, even when a special court has already been set up (the FISA court) to allow him to do pretty much what he did anyway without the court.

[danfda]

Whew! Someone in a position of authority is challenging King George!

'Bout time, methinkes.

[TB666]

Hehe a woman to show some balls.
About time, we were getting worried for you yanks.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The backlash against the "unitary executive" is beginning. Most presidents have tried to some degree to increase the power of their branch. This president perhaps doing so more than most with the claim of being in a "war on terror" as an excuse. As more people grow out of their fear of being labelled traitors and unpatriotic for criticizing this "war president" the pendulum will start swinging back the other way. Some of the things this president has done are pretty blatant; such as declaring a "right" to ignore laws if he wants to do so, even while he's signing them, and, as in the case above, ignoring the Constitution altogether, even when a special court has already been set up (the FISA court) to allow him to do pretty much what he did anyway without the court.

I don't think it was an "excuse" so much as rationalization in action. That label suggests that Bush was seeking that power anyway and would have used any excuse to justify appropriating such power -- a suggestion that I believe is unfair.

The President, rightly, believes it to be his job to protect his citizens as effectively as possible. It's an all-too-easy choice to push for expediency of action, believing your own motives to be just, and over-step the bounds of the office. The pendulum effect does tend to correct things, and it is at the heart of the balance of power built into the Constitution.

Bush is not the first, and will not be the last, war-time President to succumb to the allure of expediency. I do not, however, doubt his intentions. But I am also glad that the Constitional system is robust enough to be self-correcting. While I agree with Bush's aims, some of his methods (Padilla being held without counsel; routinely side-stepping FISA when only a very few specific efforts along those lines were justified and not a blanket policy, etc.) have crossed the pale and need redress.

[Xiahou]

First and foremost, I'm glad this order has been stayed- it needs better oversight, not suspension.

Secondly, I expect that the 6th Circuit to overturn this on the grounds that the plaintiffs didnt have adequate standing- the judge's rationalization on that matter seemed quite strained to me. Further, virtually all national security law "experts" I have heard from think her decision was poorly reasoned in general.

"Regardless of what your position is on the merits of the issue, there's no question that it's a poorly reasoned decision," said Bobby Chesney, a national security law specialist at Wake Forest University who takes a moderate stance on the legal debate over the NSA program. "The opinion kind of reads like an outline of possible grounds to strike down the program, without analysis to fill it in."

[danfda]

How do the plaintiffs not have adequate standing? They are American citizens with the inalienable right to privacy, and the executive order/law they challenged was infringing upon that right. So how do they lack adequate standing? Bogus, man.

Illegal, unwarranted wiretapping does need suspension, permanently. Not "oversight." Better "oversight" is already in place and more than functional--its called a warrant from a judge.

I do not, however, doubt his intentions.

Unfortunaltely, I think we have an obligation as Americans to question his every intention and motive.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How do the plaintiffs not have adequate standing? They are American citizens with the inalienable right to privacy, and the executive order/law they challenged was infringing upon that right. So how do they lack adequate standing? Bogus, man.

RE: Bush [added]

Unfortunaltely, I think we have an obligation as Americans to question his every intention and motive.

The question of standing is one of legal definition. To bring suit without it being dismissed, you must have a prima facie claim that you have been harmed. I am not sure if the level of "harm" involved rises sufficiently, but that is a matter for the circuit court -- its beyond my thin legal training.

There is no inalienable right to privacy in the Constitution. The guarantees of the 4th and 5th ammendments thereto do, IMPLICITLY, place some value on privacy -- and it is reasonable to assume that a person's privacy should only be infringed with reasonable cause to believe some wrong had occurred. The question is where is the best place to draw that line when it comes to issues of national defense. I would prefer a greater resort to prior-warrants myself, at least where American citizens and legal residents are concerned.

To question motive and intent, yes; but to question from an assumption of wrongdoing until proven otherwise is unreasonable. Seek facts, evaluate, compare with law and principle yes, but I am reluctant to assume that any President is thinking of their own power first and their duties second -- I see the problem as being that it is too easy to conflate the two.

[Xiahou]

How do the plaintiffs not have adequate standing? They are American citizens with the inalienable right to privacy, and the executive order/law they challenged was infringing upon that right. So how do they lack adequate standing? Bogus, man.

Because they had absolutely no reason to think that they were ever eavesdropped on- and if they were, how did it damage them? It didnt afaik.