Carter Appointed Judge Strikes Down NSA Program - Merged w/ I hate to say It

[red states rule]

The above is an outline of the process for obtaining a FISA warrant. If Chimpy and his pet AG find the process to be too cumbersome, then they need to go to Congress and have the law changed. It is not within the Constitutionally outlined powers of the POTUS to be a law unto himself...He is neither king nor emperor.

As it stands now, the process is so loose that there is no reason to try and go around it by violating FISA.

Keep pushing for the Terrosists Bill Of Rights. Election day is about 80 days away, and this will remind the voters why Dems cannot be trusted with national defense and security

 

[red states rule]

This is why this insane decision will be overturned..........

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGU2OWE5YzEyZjk4NzI5ZWU1NWQ5YWFhZTdkNzk3MWU=


Surveilling Injustice

By The Editors

Once upon a time, the courts of the United States acted in the interests of the United States. They knew that international affairs, the conduct of war, and the protection of Americans from foreign threats stood far beyond the judicial ken. As Supreme Court justice Robert Jackson wrote in 1936, sensitive matters of foreign policy and national security involve “decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility and which has long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry.”

Enter Anna Diggs Taylor, chief judge of the federal district court in Detroit. She has just purported to find unconstitutional the Bush administration’s Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) — an early-warning system crucial to protecting the nation from attack. In so doing, she has become the latest jurist to illustrate how far we have strayed from Justice Jackson’s wisdom.

The TSP, carried out by the National Security Agency, is a classic signals-intelligence initiative of the type central to every successful American war effort since the founding. The idea is to penetrate enemy communications and thwart attacks. The NSA monitors international communications, including those into and out of the United States, when there is a reasonable basis to believe that an al Qaeda operative is on at least one end of the conversation.

Having witnessed 9/11, Americans broadly support the TSP. But ever since the end of 2005 — when government officials illegally disclosed its existence to the New York Times, which promptly compromised it — it has come under assault from the anti-American Left, civil-liberties extremists, and Muslim activists.

To block litigation by this coalition from providing the enemy with incalculably valuable intelligence, the administration invoked the “state-secrets privilege” — a 150-year-old legal tool that allows the federal government to dismiss cases that might compromise national-defense information. This should have been the end of the story. Taylor, however, reasoned that the state-secrets privilege only protected the government from litigation that would require it to disclose informants, and did not apply to other kinds of intelligence collection.

In Justice Jackson’s day, it would have been taken for granted that intercepting enemy communications into and out of the United States is vital to the prosecution of a war, and that the state should be protected from having to reveal information that would compromise such efforts. For Judge Taylor, though, there are more important interests than protecting Americans from attack. There are lawyers who want to represent al Qaeda sympathizers; there are journalists who want to write about al Qaeda sympathizers; there are Muslim activist groups who want to agitate on behalf of al Qaeda sympathizers.

And so she found that the plaintiffs in the case — mainly attorneys and journalists — had standing to sue. Standing rules of course require a plaintiff to establish that he has suffered a unique, concrete injury that can be redressed by court action. They are designed to ensure that matters of general rather than individual concern are decided by the political branches accountable to the public, not by the courts. Yet Taylor found, in flat contravention of Supreme Court precedent, that the plaintiffs were harmed because both they and the al Qaeda suspects they wished to contact had been “chilled” from communicating.

This reasoning is ludicrous. Americans have no reasonable expectation of privacy when seeking to communicate with persons outside the United States. U.S. privacy law consequently does not — cannot — apply. Moreover, virtually every intelligence agency in the world is pursuing al Qaeda operatives and intercepting their communications. In Judge Taylor’s perfect world, only the U.S. — the primary target of al Qaeda — would be forbidden to do so.

To justify her finding that the plaintiffs had standing to sue, she could do nothing but wave the banner of the imperial judiciary. If the plaintiffs lacked standing, she fretted, the “the President’s action in warrantless wiretapping . . . would be immunized from judicial scrutiny.” But judicial scrutiny is the very antithesis of what is supposed to happen here. The Supreme Court affirmed in 1991 that, in a close case (which this isn’t), judges are to “presume that federal courts lack jurisdiction.”

In short, Judge Taylor ran roughshod over all the rules that should have kept her from deciding this case in the first place. But decide it she did, finding that the TSP violates the separation of powers and the Fourth Amendment because it does not seek judicial warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to authorize its activities. She ruled thus notwithstanding that every federal appellate court to consider the issue, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review itself, had previously found that the president has inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping to protect the nation from external threats.

In disregarding this consensus, she effectively claimed that the only public official elected by all Americans — an official whose primary duty happens to be safeguarding the security of the United States — is powerless to order surveillance against an enemy in wartime unless a federal judge says he can. The Framers would be appalled. And so should we.

 

[red states rule]

This is why this insane decision will be overturned..........

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...FhZTdkNzk3MWU=


Surveilling Injustice

By The Editors

Once upon a time, the courts of the United States acted in the interests of the United States. They knew that international affairs, the conduct of war, and the protection of Americans from foreign threats stood far beyond the judicial ken. As Supreme Court justice Robert Jackson wrote in 1936, sensitive matters of foreign policy and national security involve “decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility and which has long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry.”

Enter Anna Diggs Taylor, chief judge of the federal district court in Detroit. She has just purported to find unconstitutional the Bush administration’s Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) — an early-warning system crucial to protecting the nation from attack. In so doing, she has become the latest jurist to illustrate how far we have strayed from Justice Jackson’s wisdom.

The TSP, carried out by the National Security Agency, is a classic signals-intelligence initiative of the type central to every successful American war effort since the founding. The idea is to penetrate enemy communications and thwart attacks. The NSA monitors international communications, including those into and out of the United States, when there is a reasonable basis to believe that an al Qaeda operative is on at least one end of the conversation.

Having witnessed 9/11, Americans broadly support the TSP. But ever since the end of 2005 — when government officials illegally disclosed its existence to the New York Times, which promptly compromised it — it has come under assault from the anti-American Left, civil-liberties extremists, and Muslim activists.

To block litigation by this coalition from providing the enemy with incalculably valuable intelligence, the administration invoked the “state-secrets privilege” — a 150-year-old legal tool that allows the federal government to dismiss cases that might compromise national-defense information. This should have been the end of the story. Taylor, however, reasoned that the state-secrets privilege only protected the government from litigation that would require it to disclose informants, and did not apply to other kinds of intelligence collection.

In Justice Jackson’s day, it would have been taken for granted that intercepting enemy communications into and out of the United States is vital to the prosecution of a war, and that the state should be protected from having to reveal information that would compromise such efforts. For Judge Taylor, though, there are more important interests than protecting Americans from attack. There are lawyers who want to represent al Qaeda sympathizers; there are journalists who want to write about al Qaeda sympathizers; there are Muslim activist groups who want to agitate on behalf of al Qaeda sympathizers.

And so she found that the plaintiffs in the case — mainly attorneys and journalists — had standing to sue. Standing rules of course require a plaintiff to establish that he has suffered a unique, concrete injury that can be redressed by court action. They are designed to ensure that matters of general rather than individual concern are decided by the political branches accountable to the public, not by the courts. Yet Taylor found, in flat contravention of Supreme Court precedent, that the plaintiffs were harmed because both they and the al Qaeda suspects they wished to contact had been “chilled” from communicating.

This reasoning is ludicrous. Americans have no reasonable expectation of privacy when seeking to communicate with persons outside the United States. U.S. privacy law consequently does not — cannot — apply. Moreover, virtually every intelligence agency in the world is pursuing al Qaeda operatives and intercepting their communications. In Judge Taylor’s perfect world, only the U.S. — the primary target of al Qaeda — would be forbidden to do so.

To justify her finding that the plaintiffs had standing to sue, she could do nothing but wave the banner of the imperial judiciary. If the plaintiffs lacked standing, she fretted, the “the President’s action in warrantless wiretapping . . . would be immunized from judicial scrutiny.” But judicial scrutiny is the very antithesis of what is supposed to happen here. The Supreme Court affirmed in 1991 that, in a close case (which this isn’t), judges are to “presume that federal courts lack jurisdiction.”

In short, Judge Taylor ran roughshod over all the rules that should have kept her from deciding this case in the first place. But decide it she did, finding that the TSP violates the separation of powers and the Fourth Amendment because it does not seek judicial warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to authorize its activities. She ruled thus notwithstanding that every federal appellate court to consider the issue, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review itself, had previously found that the president has inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping to protect the nation from external threats.

In disregarding this consensus, she effectively claimed that the only public official elected by all Americans — an official whose primary duty happens to be safeguarding the security of the United States — is powerless to order surveillance against an enemy in wartime unless a federal judge says he can. The Framers would be appalled. And so should we.

 

[jillian]

Keep pushing for the Terrosists Bill Of Rights. Election day is about 80 days away, and this will remind the voters why Dems cannot be trusted with national defense and security

Terrorist bill of rights? Doesn't it ever hurt your stomach to drink kool aid all day long?

See if you can't follow along dearie... Congress passed a law. It lets the president do whatever he wants PRIOR to getting a warrant, so long as he gets a warrant within a few days after. No one's being kept from listening... what they're called upon to do is tell the FISA Court...not us, the FISA judges, who they're surveilling and why. It's the accountability that galls your guy. That makes him cranky.

And the decision may not get overturned, even Bush's appointees slapped him down on the Gitmo thing. See...it's like this, THE PRESIDENT CAN'T DECIDE WHAT LAWS HE LIKES AND WHICH HE DOESN'T. Unless and until the Congress changes the law, he has to abide by it.

I don't like paying for parking meters....but I have to do that, too.

 

[red states rule]

Terrorist bill of rights? Doesn't it ever hurt your stomach to drink kool aid all day long?

See if you can't follow along dearie... Congress passed a law. It lets the president do whatever he wants PRIOR to getting a warrant, so long as he gets a warrant within a few days after. No one's being kept from listening... what they're called upon to do is tell the FISA Court...not us, the FISA judges, who they're surveilling and why. It's the accountability that galls your guy. That makes him cranky.

And the decision may not get overturned, even Bush's appointees slapped him down on the Gitmo thing. See...it's like this, THE PRESIDENT CAN'T DECIDE WHAT LAWS HE LIKES AND WHICH HE DOESN'T. Unless and until the Congress changes the law, he has to abide by it.

I don't like paying for parking meters....but I have to do that, too.

Jilly dear, this was not a legal decision it was a political decision. Please read my prior post and you will see WHY this will be overturned.

This liberal Judge based her decision not ont he law, but on her personal beliefs - liberalism

 

[CockySOB]

The above is an outline of the process for obtaining a FISA warrant. If Chimpy and his pet AG find the process to be too cumbersome, then they need to go to Congress and have the law changed. It is not within the Constitutionally outlined powers of the POTUS to be a law unto himself...He is neither king nor emperor.

As it stands now, the process is so loose that there is no reason to try and go around it by violating FISA.

And your assumption is one which has not been challenged in SCOTUS on Constitutional grounds - that FISA illegally encroaches on Executive Authority. Congress cannot pass a law which removes a power specifically delegated in the Constitution, which is how FISA will be challenged eventually.

BTW, I just realized why the topic seemed so familiar to me - we already have a thread on the topic here at USMB, but I guess your sorry ass couldn't be bothered to discuss it there, right?

I'd suggest this thread be merged with the other thread.

 

[Avatar4321]

And lets remember that interception of overseas calls has been deemed legal, and a common practice for many years, as I recall.
Lets not confuse this with the data mining on domestic calls, which IMO is illegal.

Datamining isnt illegal. In order for something to be illegal there has to be a reasonable expectation for privacy. The fact that telephone businesses has this information negates any reasonable expectation of privacy. That is why its perfectly legal for the police to request a persons phone records if they are investigating. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this. Which is what makes this all sick. This judge overturned the Supreme Court without authority to do so and for her own political reason. Hence this judge needs to be impeached.

 

[jillian]

Near as I can tell, you haven't rubbed two thoughts together since you started posting.

But do share the bona fides which make you think you have the ability to call a Justice's decision "insane".

 

[Avatar4321]

...No I don't...But I told ya so. Chimpy McPresident's warrantless domestic spying program violates the 1st and 4th Amendments of the Constitution. It violates the separation of powers as enumerated in the Constitution. It violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

<blockquote>"It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly when his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights," she wrote. "The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another." - Judge Anna Diggs Taylor</blockquote>

In light of the fact that the British airline bombing plot was foiled by adhering to the four corners of the law, Chimpy and Co's hand in this matter is weaked all the further. And that can only be good for America.

For the story, goto:

<center><a href=http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2006/08/18/america/web.0818nsa.php> Judge finds wiretapping plan violates the law; U.S. appeals</a></center>

For the full text of the decision, goto:

<center><a href=http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/nsa/aclunsa81706opn.pdf>FindLaw</a></center>

Told ya so...

Actually, this court decision violates Separation of powers. Not the NSA program. This judge has encroached on the Executives power to gather intelligence as the commander in chief. The Commander in chief powers are by necessity broad powers. You cant run a military operation without intelligence on the enemies. By interfering with this the judge overstepped her bounds.

 

[jillian]

And your assumption is one which has not been challenged in SCOTUS on Constitutional grounds - that FISA illegally encroaches on Executive Authority. Congress cannot pass a law which removes a power specifically delegated in the Constitution, which is how FISA will be challenged eventually.

BTW, I just realized why the topic seemed so familiar to me - we already have a thread on the topic here at USMB, but I guess your sorry ass couldn't be bothered to discuss it there, right?

I'd suggest this thread be merged with the other thread.

Actually, FISA's history is an interesting one. The first President Bush went to Congress and told them what he thought he needed for security purposes. Congress then passed the FISA law to set the perameters of that agreed upon power. If circumstances changed such that THIS President Bush felt he needed changes, all he ever had to do was go to HIS Congress (which certainly would have gone along with whatever he needed) and ask. He chose not to do so and instead violated the law. His Justice Department brought no case alleging that FISA, with which the executive had agreed in SIGNING it into law.... was or is an unlawful restriction on executive power.

Executive power is not, nor should it be limitless. FISA was an agreed upon compromise position between the legislature and the executive.

The President is not above the law.

You're too bright not to see that, quite frankly.

 

[red states rule]

The Judge is to rely on the law when writing decisions. She did not in this decision.

The phrase " "There are no hereditary kings in America," shows her contempt for Pres Bush and has nothing to do with the law

Also, the ACLU has no reason to file this case in MI. They found a Judge who would rule in their favor.

Her insane decision will be overturned soon enough.

 

[theHawk]

So are you libs only upset at the legality of the NSA wiretap program or are you also against the idea of wiretapping?
I understand being upset about them not getting warrants, I think they should be able to get warrants too.
The problem is the Dems screaming about the program make it sound like they are totally against the idea of wiretapping suspected and known terrorist collaborators. If they actually pushed for legislation so the NSA could do exactly what they are doing now, only 'legally'(from the liberal point of view) then I could support it. But all I hear is the rabid anti-Bush noise. Maybe Zippy and Jilly can clear this up for me?

 

[jillian]

The Judge is to rely on the law when writing decisions. She did not in this decision.

The phrase " "There are no hereditary kings in America," shows her contempt for Pres Bush and has nothing to do with the law

Also, the ACLU has no reason to file this case in MI. They found a Judge who would rule in their favor.

Her insane decision will be overturned soon enough.

Again.... your bona fides?

Oh right... you have none..... just a big mouth. RAFLMAO! You should really go back to your Dungeons and Dragons game. I suspect you're more in your league there. :gang1:

Oh and for the record, I haven't spoken to a Judge who DOESN'T have contempt for Bush's violations of law and of the separation of powers and flouting of checks and balances. How many have you spoken to?

 

[Gunny]

Nah...nothing political about the decision... nope...nothing to see here. :gang1:

Now about the slime who refused to recuse himself from his hunting buddy's case...... I'm still waiting.

Oh yeah...you have no answer for that one cause he's one of your boys.

Actually, no ... wrong again. I DON'T CARE is far different from having no "excuse." Because really, WHO cares? This is just a perfect example of you liberals making mountains out of molehills.

Had there been a conflict between the two parties, or contradictory evidence, I could see where you might have a point. Since it was just a matter of an accident and reporting it, where both sides agree, you have none.

 

[jillian]

So are you libs only upset at the legality of the NSA wiretap program or are you also against the idea of wiretapping?
I understand being upset about them not getting warrants, I think they should be able to get warrants too.
The problem is the Dems screaming about the program make it sound like they are totally against the idea of wiretapping suspected and known terrorist collaborators. If they actually pushed for legislation so the NSA could do exactly what they are doing now, only 'legally'(from the liberal point of view) then I could support it. But all I hear is the rabid anti-Bush noise. Maybe Zippy and Jilly can clear this up for me?

If you want an answer from me, my name is Jill or Jillian. We are neither friends nor family, dearie. I don't answer disrespectful children.

 

[theHawk]

If we're not friends or family, why are you calling me dearie then?

Lighten up a little please?

 

[dmp]

Two threads - one topic - merged.

 

[dmp]

If you want an answer from me, my name is Jill or Jillian. We are neither friends nor family, dearie. I don't answer disrespectful children.

Relax Pumpkin.

 

[KarlMarx]

Actually, FISA's history is an interesting one. The first President Bush went to Congress and told them what he thought he needed for security purposes. Congress then passed the FISA law to set the perameters of that agreed upon power. If circumstances changed such that THIS President Bush felt he needed changes, all he ever had to do was go to HIS Congress (which certainly would have gone along with whatever he needed) and ask. He chose not to do so and instead violated the law. His Justice Department brought no case alleging that FISA, with which the executive had agreed in SIGNING it into law.... was or is an unlawful restriction on executive power.

Executive power is not, nor should it be limitless. FISA was an agreed upon compromise position between the legislature and the executive.

The President is not above the law.

You're too bright not to see that, quite frankly.

Perhaps I misunderstand your meaning, but FISA was passed into law in 1978 during the Carter Administration....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act

Where did you get the idea that it was passed during Bush I?

No one is claiming that the Executive Branch's power should be limitless, but then, neither should the other two branches of the government. The President has the authority to defend the United States, not Congress. I don't understand how spying on agents of foreign powers violates any amendment regarding unreasonable searches.

Still, I'll wait to see how the Supreme Court rules on this. My guess is that it will upset a lot of liberals. Then we'll get to hear how certain Supreme Court justices are under the influence of Bush.... golly, I just can't wait to read this insults!

 

[Gunny]

Relax Pumpkin.

Pumpkin?