NSA warrantless surveillance stricken down

[johnroche]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060818/ap_on_re_us/warrantless_surveillance

DETROIT - A federal judge on Thursday struck down President Bush's warrantless surveillance program, saying it violated the rights to free speech and privacy, as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit is the first judge to rule on the legality of the National Security Agency's program, which the White House says is a key tool for fighting terrorism that has already stopped attacks.

 

[Nash]

Not like it really matters much since the striking-down didn't come from the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

[Loopz]

Bout time somebody put these lawless Constitution-trampling bitches in check.
Doesn't have a fucking thing to do with actually catching terrorists.

 

[johnroche]

Not like it really matters much since the striking-down didn't come from the U.S. Supreme Court.

You're probably right.

It's a step in the right direction, anyway.

 

[evil wasabi]

trust me, no judge makes a decision with the idea that the supreme court would strike it down./

 

[NeoCverA]

Anyone want to start a pool on the date of Ana's sudden demise?

 

[aria]

Not like it really matters much since the striking-down didn't come from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Um... uh...

You don't need 3 yrs of law school to know why that isn't necessarily true.

 

[Nash]

All I'm saying is that there's still a chance for a disagreement from above.

 

[norton9478]

Why are judges siding with the terrorists?

 

[BoriquaSNK]

I heard some idiot on C-Span radio yesterday defending the program thusly:

The people at the NSA who made the decision to implement this program were not politically appointed, they were career civilians, why aren't we listening to them?

That's even worse, at least if they were appointed by the president, then they might have some sort of executive privelage to hide behind when the shit hits the fan...but when unappointed civilians are openly (or rather, not-so-openly) breaking the law what the hell has government come to?

 

[melchia]

I heard some idiot on C-Span radio yesterday defending the program thusly:

The people at the NSA who made the decision to implement this program were not politically appointed, they were career civilians, why aren't we listening to them?

That's even worse, at least if they were appointed by the president, then they might have some sort of executive privelage to hide behind when the shit hits the fan...but when unappointed civilians are openly (or rather, not-so-openly) breaking the law what the hell has government come to?

fuck..."career civilians" doing this sort of thing throws any and all rules out the window. besides, their accountability is not even close to that of a governing authority - nevermind the fact that this also seriously diminishes responsibility of any governing body which may have contracted these "career civilians."

 

[BoriquaSNK]

fuck..."career civilians" doing this sort of thing throws any and all rules out the window. besides, their accountability is not even close to that of a governing authority - nevermind the fact that this also seriously diminishes responsibility of any governing body which may have contracted these "career civilians."

You would be surprised by the nearly unmitigated free-reign NSA employees have over interpreting policy. Congress is so afraid to tamper with the agency, and they frankly know so little about it, that any particularly effective oversight is difficult if not impossible. I've heard the agency suspends employees that miss mortgage or car payments for fear of spying.

I mean, the NSA nabs its employees right out of college, starting at the coop level and grooming them to be budding gray-area citizens from the beginning. Look at the computer engineering departments at MIT, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, and Carnegie Mellon...a nice percentage of those who don't go to work for Microsoft or Google start working for "government contractors" we've never heard of. I'm exaggerating a little bit, but if what this guy was saying is true, and civilians are breaking privacy laws without even distant oversight, it's pretty scary.

 

[Highlander67]

Why are judges siding with the terrorists?

please tell me your kidding?

 

[IMTheWalrus]

Let's be honest though, was there really a question of the constitutionality of this program? The 4th amendment was made for these types of cases. You can't randomly monitor people without a warrant. It reeks of Big Brother. If it makes it easier for the terrorists to attack, so be it. We can't cut all of our civil liberties in an attempt to cut out a few attacks. The world is a changing, dangerous place, and people just need to learn not to live in fear of the fairly remote possibility of terrorism.

 

[norton9478]

The problem with the Bush Adminstration is that they have consistantly ignored and maniuplated the "Career Civilians" in nearly every branch of the goverment. Everywhere's from NASA, the FDA, the Pentagon and Intellegence and even parts of the GAO.

There are many intellegence officials who belive that the NSA wiretaping service is counter-productive.

 

[soulthug]

har har i watched enemy of the state yesterday


OH NOES, DA GUBBAMENTS ARE WATCHIN USZ!!?!


Gene hackman play's a really convincing paedophile in that flick, even though he wasn't actually supposed to be one. I don't think.

 

[IMTheWalrus]

The problem with the Bush Adminstration is that they have consistantly ignored and maniuplated the "Career Civilians" in nearly every branch of the goverment. Everywhere's from NASA, the FDA, the Pentagon and Intellegence and even parts of the GAO.

There are many intellegence officials who belive that the NSA wiretaping service is counter-productive.

I've been saying for awhile now that not only do I disagree with Bush administration politics, but that these people are also unaware of how to actually govern. That is, they aren't good at managing. The politics don't really matter when the people pulling the levers don't know what they are doing.

 

[Magnaflux]

har har i watched enemy of the state yesterday


OH NOES, DA GUBBAMENTS ARE WATCHIN USZ!!?!


Gene hackman play's a really convincing paedophile in that flick, even though he wasn't actually supposed to be one. I don't think.

Your government took away your right to firearms. Your opinion doesn't count. :chimp:

 

[norton9478]

I've been saying for awhile now that not only do I disagree with Bush administration politics, but that these people are also unaware of how to actually govern. That is, they aren't good at managing. The politics don't really matter when the people pulling the levers don't know what they are doing.

Yeah, the Management Style is my #1 gripe with the adminstration....

I could take all the other bullshit (War, Stealing Elections, Lies, "Family Values", The shit where they give the money to the churches for charity work) if they actually were any good at doing what they said they would do.

While I knew that Bush wasn't going to be a great president, I always assumed he'd do an ok job just because the mechanizations of goverment has a pretty solid history of being able to run it's self.

But watching this goverment is like watching a Bullet train fall apart piece by piece, yet it keeps going. Eventually everything is going to crash.

 

[bloodhokuto]

Your government took away your right to firearms. Your opinion doesn't count. :chimp:

What is the point in the right to bear arms?

You can't take over the government with handguns. You might have been better able to do 200 years ago.

The right to bear arms is as archaic and impotent as our monarchy, all you pro-gun lobby cluch onto this 'right' as some kind of magic talisman.

Prove me wrong, put your money where your mouth is americans!

Unite and take over your oppresive dictatorial regime!

Funny though, that if you did like all club together to show the government what's what you will all be branded as terrorists.

Democracy was christened and died in the hands of your founding fathers (if you ever believe that even their intentions were genuine).


Honestly, despite the above and my recent post history I really do like america and americans. Honest!

 

[norton9478]

What is the point in the right to bear arms?

You can't take over the government with handguns. You might have been better able to do 200 years ago.

Look at Iraq, A bunch of rag tag militants are beating the only remaining world super power with small arms and improvised explosive devices.....

The right to bear arms is as archaic and impotent as our monarchy, all you pro-gun lobby cluch onto this 'right' as some kind of magic talisman.

Prove me wrong, put your money where your mouth is americans!

Unite and take over your oppresive dictatorial regime!

Funny though, that if you did like all club together to show the government what's what you will all be branded as terrorists.

Democracy was christened and died in the hands of your founding fathers (if you ever believe that even their intentions were genuine).[

Honestly, despite the above and my recent post history I really do like america and americans. Honest!

Yes, it amazes me too that the so called gun lovers tend to endorse a facist president. They don't understand that thier guns are next. Once the right to privacy, free speech and due proccess are stripped, it's only logical that guns are next.

 

[Magnaflux]

The post above is from one who hasn't read the US Constitution. :chimp:

It is our duty to overthrow tyranny - read it and see for yourself.

Or in our modern case, wait another two years until the democrats completely take over and start messing things up.

 

[galfordo]

Now the democrats are going to start claiming that they're for civil rights.

Fucking hilarious - they've been expanding the shit out of the government ever since the 30's.

Anyway, this doesn't really mean shit - the government will continue to spy as it sees fit. If the NSA is temporarily blocked, the ATF bureau or the FBI will step in, or one of the ten bazillion other government agencies.

Yes, it amazes me too that the so called gun lovers tend to endorse a facist president. They don't understand that thier guns are next. Once the right to privacy, free speech and due proccess are stripped, it's only logical that guns are next.

Fascist? Let's put the melodrama aside for a moment and try to be sensible here.

Our guns are next - that's a good one. Do you recall that the assault rifle ban expired and was not brought up for renewal under Bush? Do you also recall that some of the most restrictive gun control measures were concocted while Clinton was in office? You should really do some reading on that one - you're way off. Anyway, that reminds me, I need an assault rifle ( ).

Bush certainly has his faults, but the fascism claim is ridiculous, and the gun fearmongering bullshit of yours is totally without merit and based purely on speculation (wild speculation, at that).

 

[Magnaflux]

Now the democrats are going to start claiming that they're for civil rights.

Fucking hilarious - they've been expanding the shit out of the government ever since the 30's.

Galfy, as a tried and true Republican I say with full honesty that the Republicans have expanded our government and increased spending - considerably.

I'm a Republican because I agree with the ideals of the party. I do not agree with all the bullshit that is going on now. I'm not saying that I'm switching teams, but most likely will vote Democrat to send a fucking message to these asswits.

We aren't losing our guns, the 2nd amendment is not changing anytime soon. People love to draw ridiculous parallels that make little sense in the context of discussion. Forgive me for using the word context, I don't want to sound like a certain hook-dicked Canadian with a dog for a significant other but I couldn't think of a better word.

 

[aria]

To take a predictive look at what's going to happen (since the gov't understandibly appealed the decision), he are the two general areas of contention:

(1) Statutory: Basically, that the President was never authorized to authorize the NSA wiretaps; either by (a) being directly authorized by congress in the post-9/11 legislation or (b) coming from inherent presidential powers that are recognized under the constitution.

(2) Constitutional: That the NSA wiretap program violates the 1st and 4th Amendments to the Constitution. The judge actually surprised a lot of people by also finding this problem with the program (keep in mind these two areas, statutory and constitutional operate independantly from each other in stopping the program), since declaring it unconstitutional is a pretty damning pronouncement. In her decision, the judge compared this to King George's desire to seize the diaries of the colonists and how that formed the US Constitution.

Of the two, (1) is an are of contention with the program that Dems and many Republicans have taken against the program. (2) is a little more complicated, it was a bit of a surprise so we'll have to see how politicians shake out on that one (once they poll their constituents, I assume).

I, honestly, couldn't be happier with this decision; though I expect it to eventually hold on (1), (2) may end up overturned for some technical issue or something (Appeals judges love technical disqualifications) --however ultimately, it holding on (1) would keep the decision intact.

The Judge also used the SC's recent Hamdan decision to guide some of her points.

One final postscript: don't confuse lifetime-appointed federal judges with (many states') elected state judges; once their on the bench they often start saying whatever they want.