Federal Judge Orders Halt to NSA Wiretapping

[orangat]

link
Clear enough? It's not my logic- it's the judicial system.

ah
So its just a procedural objection then. You don't see unauthorised phone taps being itself wrong or do you?

[Redleg]

ah
So its just a procedural objection then. You don't see unauthorised phone taps being itself wrong or do you?

Ah but that is the issue - is the phone taps unauthorized or are they unconstitutional.

If the wire tap follows the procedures of the law and the requirements and meets the specifications of the law as monitored by the FISA court then the wire-tap is not un-authorized. In fact under the current laws those wire-taps are within the statues of the law.

If it violates this process then the wiretap is indeed unauthorized and can be unconstitutional.

From reading this thread I wonder if some are confusing unauthorized with un-constitutional.

For the warrantless wiretaps to be unauthorized, the agency must have violated the process as stipulated in the law as it was designed. Evidence does indeed point to a conculsion that the government has not been following the procedure and the requirements under FISA.

Now if the arguement is that such a law is unconstitutional - then one must demonstrate that the law is unconstutional. All laws are prone to abuse by the authorities, but that does not make the law unconstitutional.

[drone]

The Senate Judiciary Committee has just passed this gem:
http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/s2453.pdf
sponsored by Sen. Specter, which is changing the scope of the FISA act and legalizing warrantless wiretaps.

From Wired:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology...?tw=wn_index_1

I'll see if I can come up with a better source.

I encourage all US .Orgsters to contact their senators ASAP and express their concerns about this. If they are one of the lucky third up for re-election, you may want to mention that Nov. 7th is fast approaching.

So much for that wacky Fourth Amendment.

[Vladimir]

Why are Americans so afraid that the government is going to be listening to their international calls with terrorists? Oversight for this program has existed forever and no one can show a case where it was done without cause.

[drone]

Why are Americans so afraid that the government is going to be listening to their international calls with terrorists? Oversight for this program has existed forever and no one can show a case where it was done without cause.

I have no problem with the government listening to my calls, as long as the executive clears it through the judicial first. Oversight has existed forever, and now they are trying to remove the oversight requirement. That is the problem.

Edit-> better link from the WashingtonPost
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...201252_pf.html

[macsen rufus]

Who was it said that a nation which chooses security over freedom deserves neither? Some US president I think.... how times change

Still, the balance between the arms of government should be a concern for all citizens, and an executive that plays fast and loose with one constitutional right can do the same with others. Then one day you'll wake up and find you've got none left at all.

[Pindar]

I have no problem with the government listening to my calls, as long as the executive clears it through the judicial first.

Hello,

The above is confused. Executive Branch authority is not bound to or derived from the Judiciary. It is Constitutionally distinct and empowered to operate in its own sphere. This sphere includes national security as noted in Article II of the Constitution: that this implicitly entails foreign intelligence gathering has also been a consistent legal interpretation. Two simple examples:

United States v. Truong (1980)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Part of the Government's argument:

"The defendants raise a substantial challenge to their convictions by arguing that the surveillance conducted by the FBI violated the Fourth Amendment and that all the evidence uncovered through that surveillance must consequently be suppressed. As has been stated, the government did not seek a warrant for the eavesdropping on Truong’s phone conversations or the bugging of his apartment. Instead, it relied upon a “foreign intelligence” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. In the area of foreign intelligence, the government contends, the President may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs."

The Court's agreement:

"For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], “unduly frustrate” the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations."

United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review: Sealed Case No. 02-001 (2002):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Court Held:

" The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power."

The 2002 Sealed Case was decided by the FISA Appellate Court of review. It is a Superior Court to U.S. District Justice Anna Diggs Taylor. That Justice Taylor did not address this case or Truong or Katz or any of the other clearly worded Court opinions that contradict her own ruling is one reason why a stay was so quick in coming after her decision. Detroit Justice Taylor's "ruling" was an example of political penchant trumping legal reasoning. This is why judge shopping contra the legally obvious is a bad idea.