Don't count on this decision standing. The Supremes will have to get involved soon as cases wend through the courts.
The program helped stop the British air bombing plot.
Now the courts decide how we prosecute a war?
The President should have the right (and constitutionally does) to prosecute a war and keep the people safe.
If this program is taken away, what should be done to keep track of terrorists?
Got any better ideas?
Why the case was brought? Read this from CBS News:
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly taping conversations between people in the United States and people in other countries.
The Judge: "Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution."
The decision here.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Terrorist Surveillance Program Unconstitutional: Federal Court
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
The key word in the whole thing is "warrantless". Get a warrant, and there's no problem. It SHOULD be an easy fix, no?
No - The Key word is "Terrorist". If your not planning on Hijacking airplanes and running them into Tall Buildings in America then you have nothing to hide. So don't worry bout your phone calls, emails, snail mail, internet blogging, etc. being monitored. Sounds like we have another Communist Judge that needs to be replaced. I'm Sure the Supreme Court will have fun with this topic, "THE TERRORIST SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM".
Hello, genius. By virtue of your own argument, I'm gonna say there's a corrolary: If this administration was not breaking Constitutional guidelines and selectively choosing which laws it wanted to follow, then it would have nothing to worry about.
Get the warrant, make it legal, eliminate problem. Very, very simple. So simple you could probably understand it.
By the way, "your" is possessive. "You're" is a contraction for "you are". As in, "your opinion in this is way off base, and you're a menace to grammar."
I wonder why it wasn't "unconstitutional" until Bush did it? Seems this judge had no problem with the program under Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton.
I'm sure there was no politics in her decision, right?
inow .Some of us might not have proper grammer but at least we know when someone is trying to kill us. Plus if your not breaking the law what do you have to worry about !!!!!!!
It's fascinating that only lawyers, media types (none of the anti-American left can claim to be journalists after their recent propaganda parade on behalf of hezbollah), and (self-described) "scholars" think it's o.k. to remain intimate with the butchers who want us all killed. After all, how can the liberals keep up with the latest bomb plots, staged photos, and phony stories if the Feds are going to spoil everything by holding them accountable? You traitors on the left should be thanked for identifying yourselves so clearly with terrorists. It helps with the profiling.
I fully expect this to be overturned in due time.
Just imagine if this lefty activist appointed by Jimmuh Cahtah judgess were over England. Possibly they would have had upwards of 10 aircraft blwon up already by terrorists.
Some of the neo-coms won't quit until they have completey destroyed America.
Just get the warrant. I can't put it more clearly.
If there are threats, and if there is proof that following certain leads is justified, it shouldn't be a problem.
Nice and legal. And if legal, knock yourself out.
Just get the warrant!
It shouldn't be too difficult, right?
NO -- Just Lock up all terrorists and DEPORT all "AINO'S" Americans In Name Only.
klatu:
One of the most precious rights that we Americans claim to enjoy is the right to speak our minds freely. Another right that I enjoy is the right to privacy. Why does the government have a right to monitor my telephone calls to my doctor discussing whether one medication is more effective than another? Or phone calls to my clergyman, discussing an interpretation of the Bible and its application to modern life? Or my phone calls to my financial advisor discussing what investment strategy is most useful in any given market? Or my telephone calls to my lawyer, discussing whatever? These and many other conversations are none of the government's business, not because they are harmless to the government but because I have a right to be left alone. Yet the Bush administration has done something that no prior administration even considered seriously: begun with the attitude that it has a right to monitor all phone conversations and then pretend to disregard those it finds uninteresting. I think it is high time that the administration that swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States actually started pay8ing attention to what that Constitution says.
Klatu: That judge is a Carter appointee. That should tell you something. And then in today's fishwrap, the head of the AmINO CLU wa chortling that the decision was a "victory" in Bush's fight against terrorism. That should make Iknow and WSDavid very happy.
I will be happy when I can trust my own government to follow its own laws. Giving the President unchecked power is a very dangerous weapon, and I would not wish it even if a Democrat was in the Oval Office. There is a series of checks and balances for a reason.
Why does the government have a right to monitor my telephone calls to my doctor discussing whether one medication is more effective than another?
A true canard if ever I read one. First, it isn't wiretapping, it's electroninc eavesdropping of suspected persons with ties to Al Qaeda.
Second, no one is tapping your phone, the government could care less what you and your doctor or Aunt Thelma are discussing, unless Aunt Thelma is Al Qaeda living outside the US.
You paint a false picture of what the program is then cry wolf.
I wonder why it wasn't "unconstitutional" until Bush did it? Seems this judge had no problem with the program under Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton.
The types of searches the previous presidents authorized were all under the FISA courts and required warrants after the fact. Bush 43 is the only President that has allowed completely warrantless searches.
However, its my understanding that the FISA courts have never been brought to the SCOTUS. Their constitutionality may in fact be in question.
It's fascinating that only lawyers, media types (none of the anti-American left can claim to be journalists after their recent propaganda parade on behalf of hezbollah), and (self-described) "scholars" think it's o.k. to remain intimate with the butchers who want us all killed.
If there are "butchers who want us killed" there should be evidence toward that. All that's required for a warrant is probable cause..and in the case of the FISA courts, a warrant can be obtained after an emergency search has already taken place.
That hardly seems unreasonable.
A true canard if ever I read one. First, it isn't wiretapping, it's electroninc eavesdropping of suspected persons with ties to Al Qaeda.
If a suspected person truly has ties to Al Qaida, obtaining a warrant should be no problem.
So why isn't it being done?
The types of searches the previous presidents authorized were all under the FISA courts and required warrants after the fact. Bush 43 is the only President that has allowed completely warrantless searches.
"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
“Attorney General Reno has already signed off on the warrantless search of an American home on the basis of the dubious "inherent authority" theory. The actual number of clandestine "national security" searches conducted since 1993 is known only to the White House and senior Justice Department officials.” Benjamin Wittes, "Aldrich Ames' Legal Legacy: Surveillance Court Gets New Powers," Legal Times, November 7, 1994, p. 1.
“One of the most famous examples of warrantless searches in recent years was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames' home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants.”
“In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.”
“In 1978, for instance, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government.”
“Clinton asked Congress to pass legislation that would give the Federal Bureau of Investigation the power to use "roving wiretaps" without a court order. The president also fought for sweeping legislation that is forcing the telephone industry to make its network more easily accessible to law enforcement wiretaps. Those initiatives have led ACLU officials to describe the Clinton White House as "the most wiretap-friendly administration in history." ("Anti-Terror Bills Pushed by Clinton," Washington Post, July 30, 1996, p. A1 and "Clinton, Dole Rate Low on Civil Liberties," National Law Journal, October 28, 1996, p. A1)
As quoted From Dereliction of Duty, by Timothy Lynch of the Cato Institute, March 31, 1997.
However, its my understanding that the FISA courts have never been brought to the SCOTUS. Their constitutionality may in fact be in question.
FISA was initiated by President Carter in 1978. Today’s Supreme Court is less in the pockets of the ACLU than it was then or since. For a bit more in depth view into how past Courts have ruled on wiretapping, including wireless wiretapping, visit the article at Powerlineblog.com . A lengthy read, but informative.
Justice Byron White ruled in 1967 that Presidents have long exercised the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance for national security purposes, and a warrant is unnecessary "if the President of the United States or his chief legal officer, the Attorney General, has considered the requirements of national security and authorized electronic surveillance as reasonable." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 363-64 (1967)
In the past, the Supreme Court has ruled that warrants are relevant only in domestic threats. It has expressly distinguished, foreign threats. See United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297,308 (1972).
The Case For Spying
First obtaining a warrant in the fast minute by minute speed of intercepting overseas communications to possible Al Qaeda cells within the US would allow the early warning of a pending terrorist attack to go undetected. (WOW, you actually read this far?) Additionally, if you advocate warrants first, how do you propose the government gather the evidence needed for obtaining the warrant in the first place?
As I understand it, warrants are only required under if the communication is wholly contained within the U.S.
President Carter's Attorney General Griffin Bell stated that, despite the absence of an express reservation, the Act "does not take away the power of the President under the Constitution. It simply, in my view, is not necessary to state that power, so there is no reason to reiterate or iterate it as the case may be. It is in the Constitution, whatever it is." Testimony of Attorney General Griffin Bell before the Subcommittee on Legislation of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives (January 10, 1978).”
“AG Edward Levi before the Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate (March 29, 1976) "It is hard to imagine all the conceivable possible cases, particularly in an area where scientific developments may make enormous changes. . . The very nature of the reserved Presidential power, the reason it is so important is that some kind of an emergency could arise which I cannot foresee now, nor with due deference to the Congress, do I believe Congress can foresee . . . I would not want to advise anyone to think that the kinds of circumstances which might arise might not be of such a strange and peculiar nature that we would not have thought of them, and particularly in an area, as I say, where scientific developments come so frequently."
“Levi also said a traditional warrant procedure works when surveillance "involves a particular target location or individual at a specific time." Foreign intelligence, however, may in some situations require "virtually continuous surveillance, which by its nature does not have specifically predetermined targets." In these situations, "the efficiency of a warrant requirement would be minimal."
“FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation. What was needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case-by-case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment.”
”Should we be afraid of this inherent presidential power? Of course. If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense.” (Statements of John Schmidt, associate Attorney general, 1994 to 1997 under President Clinton.)
Carla: You are doubting that there are "butchers who want us killed"? Have you forgotten the attacks on 9-11 ? Or was that a convenient oversight on your part?
The Presidents War Powers must be fully restored that were taken from "THEM" back in 1973 by a bunch of "AINO'S " Americans in Name Only, and there buddies the TRIAL LAWYERS. This is what Vice President Cheney has been talking about since 2001. S_ _ ___ _$^%the courts when it comes to protecting America. Of course AINO'S don't give a _ _ _ _ _ - about America.
Carla, iknow and the rest, read this article, it's a real eye opener and outlines the problems with Judge Taylor's 'opinion' much better than I could ever do.
Amateur Hour
Notable that even those who disagree with the program see huge problems with her ruling.
Post a Comment