-M
| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Judge nixes warrantless surveillance |
| 2006-08-17 |
| DETROIT - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor (Nominated by Jimmy Carter, natch) in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. "Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion. 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 listening to conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries. The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets. The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #43 ... ... ... Why not ? |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-08-17 13:44 |
| #42 "Tommy Franks says the next attack will see the constitution and bill of rights tossed out the window." I could see martial law being put in place, and the suspension of habeas corpus for a time being. And even the formation of well regulated militias along the lines of a civilian security corp. But not the wholesale abandonment of the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Actually, these things will have to be done if we are to purge ourselves of the disease infecting us. It would open up carte blanche to round up the muzzies and their leftist sympathizers. Could result in a much needed cleansing of the nation. Or, I could just be whistling dixie! I'm afraid we'll find out in due time. -M |
| Posted by: Manolo 2006-08-17 23:11 |
| #41 Tommy Franks says the next attack will see the constitution and bill of rights tossed out the window. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-08-17 21:25 |
| #40 The moonbats are going to get a lot of Americans, both conservatives and liberals killed. There has been a thread running over at Tigerhawk about what it will take to militarize America. I wonder if order will survive in America after a large-scale strike here. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2006-08-17 21:20 |
| #39 Got to be either a Carter or Clinton appointee. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2006-08-17 21:16 |
| #38 or maybe I'm just faded at some spots...damn |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-08-17 20:30 |
| #37 tie dye here.... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-08-17 20:29 |
| #36 God painted me Argyle! -M |
| Posted by: Manolo 2006-08-17 18:19 |
| #35 This ruling is setting the stage, unwillingly as well as unwittingly, for the Islamist-delivered mushroom cloud. Rush Limbaugh and Bernard Lewis, both not known for hyping-up doom-and-gloom predictions (Rush being the eternal optimist, for example) have strongly hinted that we are going to be hit very hard, and soon. The stage is being set. Perhaps it will occur under the watchful eyes of a Lib-Democrat dominated House (and maybe even Senate). They and the ACLU will have mucho explaining to do when the radioactive dust settles. |
| Posted by: Lancasters Over Dresden 2006-08-17 17:42 |
| #34 I'm not advocating terrorism (since that is what it would be), but simply overruling her isn't enough. Impeach and remove the bitch. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2006-08-17 17:15 |
| #33 The judge actually did Bush a favor, she put this on the front page again right before an election and right after terrorist got caught using the program. Karl Rove is a genius. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2006-08-17 16:39 |
| #32 Correction: I do not deny what Judge Taylor looks like; I merely point out that what she looks like has no bearing on the quality of her reasoning--or anyone else's, for that matter. I will use preview. Preview is my friend, my very best friend. . . . |
| Posted by: Mike 2006-08-17 16:22 |
| #31 Besoeker: Appreciate the kind words regarding my father. I do not deny what Judge Taylor looks like; I merely point out that what she looks like has any bearing on the quality of her reasoning--or anyone else's, for that matter. To make a larger point, do you know what color God painted me? Or Fred? Or any of the Steves, or Oldspook, Old Patriot, Pappy, Seafarious, tu 3031, or any of the other regular Ranters? Some people here have self-identified their ancestry in the comments (e.g., Liberalhawk, TW, TGA), and some have e-mailed photos to the rest of us; if you went to one of the Rantapaloozas, you'd've gotten to see Fred and some of the others in person. Otherwise, you don't know. Now, keeping that in mind, if--oh, let's just pick someone at random--say, f'instance, you find yourself agreeing with Sock Puppet of Doom quite a bit, and you've really come to respect his reasoning (as I have), would learning that his skin is darker than yours (if it is, which I don't know 'cause I've never seen either of you, but this is a hypothetical so just work with me here OK?) really change anything? Should it? See also, Gal. 3:28. |
| Posted by: Mike 2006-08-17 16:20 |
| #30 Eugene Volokh, a superb constitutional lawyer at UCLA, offers his take on the issue here and in other posts on that page. Anyone who agrees with the judge has to counter his arguments. I'm not a lawyer and I didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but he seems persuasive to me. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-08-17 16:14 |
| #29 "At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account." Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:486 |
| Posted by: SwissTex 2006-08-17 16:01 |
| #28 Here's an interesting and non-pitchfork-filled look at the ruling. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2006-08-17 15:57 |
| #27 Mike: It is what it is. If it helps, "denial" is medicatable. As an aside, I appreciate the service to the court and our nation that your father provided. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-08-17 15:44 |
| #26 I'm certain we won't stop the program due to one idiot judge. How soon can this be overturned ? This info is absolutely critical in the Muzzie war. This f**king area around Detroit is becoming an enemy camp. There's lot's of hunters up there. When does bear season start ? Hell, phesants, dear, squirrels. Any damn thing ? |
| Posted by: SOP35/Rat 2006-08-17 15:40 |
| #25 Besoaker, why the reference to skin color? I mean, the ruling is a bad ruling regardless what color God painted the judge. wxjames: Not funny. Not even close to funny. My father was a judge for well over twenty years, much of it on a court of general jurisdiction. I remember a couple of times when Dad had made rulings that put some mob/druggie types at a disadvantage, they sent a cop to pick me up from school (and there was a plainclothes in an unmarked car parked two houses down from dusk to dawn) because there had been death threats against me and my sister. I could also tell you about the time that some lady went berserk because her son was found guilty, and started shooting the courtroom up. If you want to have a government based on laws, and not on crazy guys in turbans with assault rifles, you have to have judges who decide things, and one of the things you accept as the price of civil society is that judges sometimes get it wrong. The remedy for erroneous rulings is called a a Court of Appeals. |
| Posted by: Mike 2006-08-17 15:33 |
| #24 Of course this is a terrible ruling, but let's not get all homicidal just yet. Think long term. These things have a way of working themselves out. This particular ruling will wind up in the SCOTUS and considering that it's makeup is now more conservative or at least more constructionist, it will more than likely be overturned. I can vehemently disagree with liberal judges. I can despise them. I can hang photos of them on my wall and throw darts. But in the end, remember that one judge is not the only game in town. Let the ACLU cherry pick for headlines. Let the moonbat progressive judges try to reconstruct the culture and laws of the United States. Just go out and VOTE for people who are fighting that. |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2006-08-17 15:31 |
| #23 The stark reality of federal appointments and federal prisons. Both institutions are currently filled with folks that have quite a lot in common. When the authority delta is finally reached and the "rule of law" calapses, the prisons are emptied. As more leftest politicians are placed in office, the process is hastened. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-08-17 15:31 |
| #22 Darth, don't worry. Nobody's stopping anything based on what a District judge says. Beeson predicted the government would appeal the wiretapping ruling and request that the order to halt the program be postponed while the case makes its way through the system. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-08-17 15:25 |
| #21 Just for the record, there's only one topic with total unanimity on the bench and it is how to deal with those who make or carry out threats on a judge. And it isn't a strict construction of the first amendment. Every judge is at risk and knows some one who died that way. And the FBI will follow up on it. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-08-17 15:19 |
| #20 What I don't get is a no nothing, barely noticable district judge can order the ENTIRE FEDERAL FUCKING GOVERNMENT AND THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION OF THE USA to stop. This is bullshit and is nothing more than tyranny from the bench. Remember what we did to tyrants in 1776, ya dumb broad? |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2006-08-17 15:18 |
| #19 74 and still working. It really does take the jaws of life to pry some of these people off of the bench. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2006-08-17 15:13 |
| #18 Having Her oveturned as fast as possible and her retirement would be good enough for me. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-08-17 15:08 |
| #17 Here she is, and she has that plate glass window thing happening with the glasses. -M |
| Posted by: Manolo 2006-08-17 15:03 |
| #16 Everything needed is right there in the Constitution already. Quite true Silentbrick, but the portions of the Constitution dealing with treason have apparently been logically excised. |
| Posted by: Kirk 2006-08-17 15:03 |
| #15 She is not a traitor. She's not knowingly conspiring to harm our country. She is, however, completely wrong and seriously misguided as to what the law and Constitution says. We need to ensure that her ruling is overturned -- if not by a higher court, then by appropriate new legislation. I'd like to have that debate on new legislation in October of any even-numbered year. The judge does not need execution or death, so let's stop that shit. She needs to be overruled. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-08-17 15:03 |
| #14 Emminent domain the ACLU offices |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-08-17 14:52 |
| #13 She is giving material aid and comfort to the enemy, therefore she is a traitor. Have her arrested, give her a trial and convict her. Then execute her. Everything needed is right there in the Constitution already. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2006-08-17 14:34 |
| #12 We don't sink to the level of the Democratic Underground here, wxjames. Let's keep it civil, please. |
| Posted by: Steve 2006-08-17 14:21 |
| #11 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 listening to conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries. The MSM believes that their ability to print the propaganda of terrorists is more important than the lives of innocent people. |
| Posted by: DoDo 2006-08-17 14:20 |
| #10 Guys, C'mon... Don't get like this... I deplore any suggestion of violence. We can't get down to their level. But of course citing the New Haven CT case as precident, I see need for a luxury resort right on the lot where the house is where she lives. Emminent domain proceeding should begin forthwith... Keep it legal, and non-violent! |
| Posted by: BigEd 2006-08-17 13:52 |
| #9 " has used her positions to advance civil rights" Judges are supposed to JUDGE, not legislate from the bench. Stupid bitch (or basterd if she were a guy). |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2006-08-17 13:46 |
| #8 Send her a letter saying her property is at risk in the event of any terrorist attacks that could have been stopped by this surveilance. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2006-08-17 13:46 |
#7
| |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-08-17 13:44 |
| #6 Do they have an Ramadan parade in Dearborn? Because, if they do, I just found their Grand Marshall.... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2006-08-17 13:17 |
| #5 I thought the US Supreme Court already ok'd it? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-08-17 13:11 |
| #4 An attorney and judge, Anna Diggs Taylor was the first African-American woman appointed to a federal judgeship in Michigan and later became the first African-American woman to be named chief federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan. Taylor has used her positions to advance civil rights throughout the United States. Born Anna Katherine Johnston in 1932 in Washington, D.C., Taylor grew up in a household in which politics and civil rights were highly valued. Her parents sent her to private school in Massachusetts I have no further questions your honor. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-08-17 13:08 |
| #3 Judge is a life-long very liberal Democrat. She seems to have ignored Article III of the constitution. Basically were her rulign to stand, it woudl be illegal to intercept Osama calling from overseas to give an attack order, without a prior warrnat - meaning you'd need to know which phone he was calling to, and from. Meaning tis impossible to do so if Osama and his group are using throw-away cell phones. What a fucking idiot this Carter appointed judge it. It will be overturned by the 6th circuit. Fucking ACLU using a cherry picked judge to get a headline, and damage our security. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2006-08-17 13:06 |
| #2 And the liberals complain that we're less safe now than we were several years ago . . . well, yes, we are - thanks to them and their idiot stunts. |
| Posted by: The Doctor 2006-08-17 13:06 |
| #1 What a surprise! A judge in the town with the most muslims is trying to prevent us from stopping terrorist attacks. Who saw that coming? |
| Posted by: Destro in Panama 2006-08-17 13:01 |