Quote:
http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...src=rss&rpc=22
Judge orders halt to NSA wiretap program
Thu Aug 17, 2006 2:14pm ET168
By Kevin Krolicki
DETROIT (Reuters) - A federal judge ordered the Bush administration on Thursday to halt the National Security Agency's program of domestic eavesdropping, saying it violated the U.S. Constitution.
The ruling marked a setback for the Bush administration, which has defended the program as an essential tool in its war on terrorism.
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said the warrantless wiretapping under the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" violated free speech rights, protections against unreasonable searches and the constitutional check on the power of the presidency.
Quote:
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/eGov/ta...06%2010204.pdf
From page 23-24:
...it is important to note that if the court were to deny standing based on the unsubstantiated minor distinctions drawn by Defendants, the President's actions in warrantless wiretapping, in contravention of FISA, Title II, and the First and Fourth amendments, would be immunized from judicial scrutiny. It was never the intent of the Framers to give the President such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another. It is within the court's duty to ensure that power is never condensed into a single branch of government."
From Page 33:
"The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has undisputedly violated the Fourth [Amendment] in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well."
From page 40:
"The Government appears to argue here that, pursuant to the penumbra of Constitutional language in Article II, and particularly because the President is designated Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, he has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, itself.
We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no power not created by the Constitution. So all "inherent power" must derive from that Constitution."
|
|
This eloquently sums up the risks that liberal, activist judges can expose this country to:
Quote:
http://www.theamericanmind.com/mt-te...es/018538.html
Terrorist Spying Case Heard in Detroit
In a federal court in Detroit the ACLU challenged the U.S. government on the legality of NSA terrorist wiretaps. The ACLU wants the program immediately halted even though like the rest of us (including the judge) they don't really know how it works. The Plaintiffs can't prove they're being spied on. Their argument is the existence of the program prevents them from talking to people and doing research. Well, maybe, maybe not. Journalists and scholars are dumb. If they have the perserverance and imagination they can find ways to avoid the appearance of being spied on.
Government lawyers want the case tossed because it could reveal classified information.....
....<b>Suppose Judge Anna Diggs Taylor agrees with the ACLU and orders the program shut down. Is the ACLU willing to accept responsibility for another terrorist attack on U.S. soil? It's easy to preen about civil liberties in the abstract when not all the facts are known.</b>
|
IMO, Bush should ignore the rabid ACLU liberal crowd and keep doing what needs to be done to protect out country. Lincoln suspended parts of the constitution, temporarily, and he did not allow judges or congress to stand in the way of what he deemed neccessary to preserve the union in a time of war.