Your Civil Rights - 1, Bush Administration - 0

StewartG · 08-17-2006

[Editorial Comment: I just love the fact that Gonzales still "believes" the program is lawful. Of course, he also thinks torture is okie-dokie and the Geneva Conventions are "quaint." Of course, this ruling doesn't mean anything. Of course the Bush administration will just do whatever they want anyway. They always do.]

(CNN) -- A federal judge on Thursday ruled that the U.S. government's domestic eavesdropping program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the Bush Administration disagreed with the ruling and has appealed.

"We believe that the program is lawful," he said in Washington.

The administration secretly instituted the program after the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington. It gives the National Security Administration authorization to secretly conduct wiretaps without a court order.

In a statement from the White House, Press Secretary Tony Fox said, "The program is carefully administered and targets only international phone calls coming into or out of the United States where one of the parties on the call is a suspected al Qaeda or affiliated terrorist.

"The whole point is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks before they can be carried out," the statement said.
In a 44-page memorandum and order, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor struck down the NSA program, which she said violates the rights to free speech and privacy. (Read the complete ruling -- PDF)

The defendants "are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program in any way, including, but not limited to, conducting warrantless wiretaps of telephone and Internet communications, in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Title III," she wrote.

She declared that the program "violates the separation of powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III."

Her ruling went on to say that "the president of the United States ... has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders."

In its statement announcing the appeal, the Justice Department rejected the judge's reasoning.

"In the ongoing conflict with al Qaeda and its allies, the president has the primary duty under the Constitution to protect the American people," the Justice Department said. "The Constitution gives the president the full authority necessary to carry out that solemn duty, and we believe the program is lawful and protects civil liberties."

The lawsuit, filed January 17 by civil rights organizations, lawyers, journalists and educators, "challenges the constitutionality of a secret government program to intercept vast quantities of the international telephone and Internet communications of innocent Americans without court approval."

The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, based in Detroit. Plaintiffs included branches of the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Washington and Detroit branches of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Greenpeace.

The judge in the case, Taylor, 75, was appointed by President Carter and has been on the Eastern District of Michigan bench since 1979. She is one of the first African-American women to sit on a federal court.

Program under scrutiny

Electronic surveillance programs run by the NSA have been under fire since December, when The New York Times disclosed that the government was listening in -- without obtaining a court order -- on international phone calls involving people suspected of having ties to terrorists.

Some legal scholars said the program is an illegal and unwarranted intrusion on Americans' privacy. The Bush administration defended it as a necessary tool in the battle against terrorism.

Opinion polls suggest the U.S. public has been divided on the NSA program. A CNN poll conducted by Opinion Research Corp. on May 16-17 found that 50 percent of the respondents believe the program was "wrong," while 44 percent believe it was "right." The poll's margin of error was plus or minus 4.5 percent.

The plaintiffs alleged their communications with parties outside the country were being monitored by the NSA's wiretapping program. The complaint said the NSA's surveillance disrupts "the ability of the plaintiffs to talk with sources, locate witnesses, conduct scholarship and engage in advocacy."

On May 26, instead of responding to arguments attacking the legality of the NSA's eavesdropping program, the government filed for dismissal of the case. It cited the "U.S. military and state secrets privilege" and argued the government would not be able to defend the domestic spying program without disclosing classified information.

ACLU official calls ruling 'landmark victory'

"Today's ruling is a landmark victory against the abuse of power that has become the hallmark of the Bush administration," said Anthony D. Romero, the ACLU's executive director.

"Government spying on innocent Americans without any kind of warrant and without congressional approval runs counter to the very foundations of our democracy. We hope that Congress follows the lead of the court and demands that the president adhere to the rule of law."

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, called the ruling "a strong rebuke of this administration's illegal wiretapping program.
"The president must return to the Constitution and follow the statutes passed by Congress," he said in a statement. "We all want our government to monitor suspected terrorists, but there is no reason for it to break the law to do so."
Also in a statement, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, said, "This has become another unfortunate example of how White House misdirection, arrogance and mismanagement have needlessly complicated our goal of protecting the American people.

"By following the Constitution and our laws, we can protect both our security and our American values," said Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, said he backs the government's appeal of the ruling.

"Terrorists are the real threat to our constitutional and democratic freedoms, not the law enforcement and intelligence tools used to keep America safe," Frist said in a statement.

"We need to strengthen, not weaken, our ability to foil terrorist plots before they can do us harm. I encourage swift appeal by the government and quick reversal of this unfortunate decision."

In July, Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the White House agreed to submit the
program to the FISA court for review.

Specter, R-Pennsylvania, and the White House said they would support legislation that would consolidate about 30 lawsuits filed against the government, transferring them to the FISA court so there would be a single forum in which to litigate them.

But the legislation has not passed through the Judiciary Committee, let alone the Senate, and it may never be approved, as Democrats have raised objections to a number of its key components.

Specter was in India and not immediately available for comment on the ruling.

CNN's Bill Mears and Andrea Koppel contributed to this report.

Banzoomba · 08-17-2006

Lets see they did not do enough to stop 9/11 now they are doing to much to keep it from happening again

lulabell · 08-17-2006

Stewart
Is this the same program that picked up on the possible terror attacks on the flights from London to Washington? This is a sincere question, I'm really not trying to start anything, but if it is couldn't it be a good thing?

PlayadelSoul · 08-17-2006

Whatever we can do to make the terrorists's job easier, we should. This is, indeed, a cause for celebration! Congrats to the ACLU and NY Times for their tireless work trying to get the rest of us killed.

Dallas91 · 08-17-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Whatever we can do to make the terrorists's job easier, we should. This is, indeed, a cause for celebration! Congrats to the ACLU and NY Times for their tireless work trying to get the rest of us killed.

Just Lucky · 08-17-2006

It seems that many of you just don't "get it". I like living under a system of checks and balances. I love the Constitution. I even like it when we feign living in a democracy.

StewartG · 08-17-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banzoomba

Lets see they did not do enough to stop 9/11 now they are doing to much to keep it from happening again

Then YOU tell ME where we draw the line, my friend?

Wiretapping is illegal. Has been for years. The Bush administration ordered it anyway. We had FISA courts set up, the Bush administration decided not to use them.

Seriously, I am asking you... How many and how much of your (and your fellow Americans') civil rights are you willing to give up in the name of your safety?

StewartG · 08-17-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrsbosco

Stewart
Is this the same program that picked up on the possible terror attacks on the flights from London to Washington? This is a sincere question, I'm really not trying to start anything, but if it is couldn't it be a good thing?

Well, first of all, no, it wasn't. That plot was broken up by the British. As far as I know, the illegal wiretapping on millions of U.S. citizens had nothing to do with it.

Second of all - I have another idea that will help keep us more safe. Lets have the U.S. government install cameras in our homes, cars, workplaces and all public spaces so they can watch what every individual in the country is doing at any given time. That would most CERTAINLY help cut down on terrorism. Are you up for this?

StewartG · 08-17-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Whatever we can do to make the terrorists's job easier, we should. This is, indeed, a cause for celebration! Congrats to the ACLU and NY Times for their tireless work trying to get the rest of us killed.

So what do you think about my camera suggestion, PDS? Instead of a chicken in every pot, how about a camera in every square foot of our living spaces? That would keep us safe, don't you think? You up for it?

StewartG · 08-17-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Whatever we can do to make the terrorists's job easier, we should. This is, indeed, a cause for celebration! Congrats to the ACLU and NY Times for their tireless work trying to get the rest of us killed.

[edit] sorry double post.

i got excited...

Banzoomba · 08-17-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

It seems that many of you just don't "get it". I like living under a system of checks and balances. I love the Constitution. I even like it when we feign living in a democracy.

What "I get" is......We are under attack by people who don't play by any rules.......and if listening to targeted phone calls is going to keep us from getting attacked again.....What I "don't get" is who besides the bad guys would be against it

Just Lucky · 08-17-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrsbosco

Stewart
Is this the same program that picked up on the possible terror attacks on the flights from London to Washington? This is a sincere question, I'm really not trying to start anything, but if it is couldn't it be a good thing?

I think MI5 is capable of surveilling British citizens independently of the long reach of the NSA.

StewartG · 08-17-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banzoomba

What "I get" is......We are under attack by people who don't play by any rules.......and if listening to targeted phone calls is going to keep us from getting attacked again.....What I "don't get" is who besides the bad guys would be against it

Zoom, you didn't answer my question. Where are you willing to draw the line? Since you say that the bad guys don't play by any rules, are you implying that the U.S. Government should not play by any rules?

I mean, the Bush administration ordered and authorized the wiretaps, which everyone will freely admit (I hope!) were against the law. They did this even though they had a "quick action" court set up to help get the needed warrants to comply with the law.

I *REALLY* want to know from you and PDS - when is enough enough? WHERE WILL YOU DRAW THE LINE???

PlayadelSoul · 08-17-2006

Good thing the ACLU wasn't around during the Civil War. They would have made it impossible for Lincoln to do most of the things he did to save the Union. In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation would have been overturned.

In times of war, our country has always done things that seem to run counter to the Constitution. Some have been proven to be right, and some have not. The point is that the survival of the country always came first. By supposedly protecting our rights, the court is putting some people's lives at risk. Next time some building gets blown up, and we have a commission to see why, lets remember this day.

StewartG · 08-17-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Good thing the ACLU wasn't around during the Civil War. They would have made it impossible for Lincoln to do most of the things he did to save the Union. In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation would have been overturned.

In times of war, our country has always done things that seem to run counter to the Constitution. Some have been proven to be right, and some have not. The point is that the survival of the country always came first. By supposedly protecting our rights, the court is putting some people's lives at risk. Next time some building gets blown up, and we have a commission to see why, lets remember this day.

So, just to clarify, you are in favor of knowingly suspending our nation's constitution in a time of war?

By the way, what did you expect from Lincoln? He was a Republican!!!

08-17-2006	#1 (permalink)
StewartG commie pinko Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: The Kremlin (when not at my dacha in Houston) Posts: 12,940	Your Civil Rights - 1, Bush Administration - 0 [Editorial Comment: I just love the fact that Gonzales still "believes" the program is lawful. Of course, he also thinks torture is okie-dokie and the Geneva Conventions are "quaint." Of course, this ruling doesn't mean anything. Of course the Bush administration will just do whatever they want anyway. They always do.] (CNN) -- A federal judge on Thursday ruled that the U.S. government's domestic eavesdropping program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the Bush Administration disagreed with the ruling and has appealed. "We believe that the program is lawful," he said in Washington. The administration secretly instituted the program after the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington. It gives the National Security Administration authorization to secretly conduct wiretaps without a court order. In a statement from the White House, Press Secretary Tony Fox said, "The program is carefully administered and targets only international phone calls coming into or out of the United States where one of the parties on the call is a suspected al Qaeda or affiliated terrorist. "The whole point is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks before they can be carried out," the statement said. In a 44-page memorandum and order, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor struck down the NSA program, which she said violates the rights to free speech and privacy. (Read the complete ruling -- PDF) The defendants "are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program in any way, including, but not limited to, conducting warrantless wiretaps of telephone and Internet communications, in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Title III," she wrote. She declared that the program "violates the separation of powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III." Her ruling went on to say that "the president of the United States ... has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders." In its statement announcing the appeal, the Justice Department rejected the judge's reasoning. "In the ongoing conflict with al Qaeda and its allies, the president has the primary duty under the Constitution to protect the American people," the Justice Department said. "The Constitution gives the president the full authority necessary to carry out that solemn duty, and we believe the program is lawful and protects civil liberties." The lawsuit, filed January 17 by civil rights organizations, lawyers, journalists and educators, "challenges the constitutionality of a secret government program to intercept vast quantities of the international telephone and Internet communications of innocent Americans without court approval." The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, based in Detroit. Plaintiffs included branches of the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Washington and Detroit branches of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Greenpeace. The judge in the case, Taylor, 75, was appointed by President Carter and has been on the Eastern District of Michigan bench since 1979. She is one of the first African-American women to sit on a federal court. Program under scrutiny Electronic surveillance programs run by the NSA have been under fire since December, when The New York Times disclosed that the government was listening in -- without obtaining a court order -- on international phone calls involving people suspected of having ties to terrorists. Some legal scholars said the program is an illegal and unwarranted intrusion on Americans' privacy. The Bush administration defended it as a necessary tool in the battle against terrorism. Opinion polls suggest the U.S. public has been divided on the NSA program. A CNN poll conducted by Opinion Research Corp. on May 16-17 found that 50 percent of the respondents believe the program was "wrong," while 44 percent believe it was "right." The poll's margin of error was plus or minus 4.5 percent. The plaintiffs alleged their communications with parties outside the country were being monitored by the NSA's wiretapping program. The complaint said the NSA's surveillance disrupts "the ability of the plaintiffs to talk with sources, locate witnesses, conduct scholarship and engage in advocacy." On May 26, instead of responding to arguments attacking the legality of the NSA's eavesdropping program, the government filed for dismissal of the case. It cited the "U.S. military and state secrets privilege" and argued the government would not be able to defend the domestic spying program without disclosing classified information. ACLU official calls ruling 'landmark victory' "Today's ruling is a landmark victory against the abuse of power that has become the hallmark of the Bush administration," said Anthony D. Romero, the ACLU's executive director. "Government spying on innocent Americans without any kind of warrant and without congressional approval runs counter to the very foundations of our democracy. We hope that Congress follows the lead of the court and demands that the president adhere to the rule of law." Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, called the ruling "a strong rebuke of this administration's illegal wiretapping program. "The president must return to the Constitution and follow the statutes passed by Congress," he said in a statement. "We all want our government to monitor suspected terrorists, but there is no reason for it to break the law to do so." Also in a statement, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, said, "This has become another unfortunate example of how White House misdirection, arrogance and mismanagement have needlessly complicated our goal of protecting the American people. "By following the Constitution and our laws, we can protect both our security and our American values," said Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, said he backs the government's appeal of the ruling. "Terrorists are the real threat to our constitutional and democratic freedoms, not the law enforcement and intelligence tools used to keep America safe," Frist said in a statement. "We need to strengthen, not weaken, our ability to foil terrorist plots before they can do us harm. I encourage swift appeal by the government and quick reversal of this unfortunate decision." In July, Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the White House agreed to submit the program to the FISA court for review. Specter, R-Pennsylvania, and the White House said they would support legislation that would consolidate about 30 lawsuits filed against the government, transferring them to the FISA court so there would be a single forum in which to litigate them. But the legislation has not passed through the Judiciary Committee, let alone the Senate, and it may never be approved, as Democrats have raised objections to a number of its key components. Specter was in India and not immediately available for comment on the ruling. CNN's Bill Mears and Andrea Koppel contributed to this report. __________________ I will be riding this Sunday, September 7th, in the *Tour de Pink* cycle classic to fight breast cancer. I will ride in honor of MaripositaII's mother who is currently fighting this disease. To sponsor my ride and join in the fight, please go to my personal sponsorship page. Last edited by StewartG : 08-17-2006 at 03:55 PM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

08-17-2006	#2 (permalink)
Banzoomba big sexy speedo guy Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Top of the Chesapeake Bay, Md Posts: 9,276	Lets see they did not do enough to stop 9/11 now they are doing to much to keep it from happening again

08-17-2006	#3 (permalink)
lulabell way into it Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: The land of the longhorns Posts: 227	Stewart Is this the same program that picked up on the possible terror attacks on the flights from London to Washington? This is a sincere question, I'm really not trying to start anything, but if it is couldn't it be a good thing?

08-17-2006	#4 (permalink)
PlayadelSoul Registered User Join Date: May 2005 Location: We'll know when we get there, We'll find mercy Posts: 8,965	Whatever we can do to make the terrorists's job easier, we should. This is, indeed, a cause for celebration! Congrats to the ACLU and NY Times for their tireless work trying to get the rest of us killed.

08-17-2006	#6 (permalink)
Just Lucky link king Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "Fashionably Leftist" Austin Posts: 6,092	It seems that many of you just don't "get it". I like living under a system of checks and balances. I love the Constitution. I even like it when we feign living in a democracy.

08-17-2006	#14 (permalink)
PlayadelSoul Registered User Join Date: May 2005 Location: We'll know when we get there, We'll find mercy Posts: 8,965	Good thing the ACLU wasn't around during the Civil War. They would have made it impossible for Lincoln to do most of the things he did to save the Union. In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation would have been overturned. In times of war, our country has always done things that seem to run counter to the Constitution. Some have been proven to be right, and some have not. The point is that the survival of the country always came first. By supposedly protecting our rights, the court is putting some people's lives at risk. Next time some building gets blown up, and we have a commission to see why, lets remember this day.

register to remove these adverts