Constitution: Still Relevant
Score one for the Constitution. AOL News Reports:
----------
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 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.
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 taping 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 Matt @ 1:14 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
The Constitution, Still Irrelevant.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
And that has everything to do with warrantless spying by our democratic government how? Sorry, just don't see your point. You can't search a person's property, or for that matter, wiretap their phone calls without a reason for doing so. It's incredibly dangerous to have an organization that answers to no one but itself. Don't you see how that completely undermines our form of government? Of course I want the NSA to be able to listen to terrorist chatter but how hard can it possibly be to get a warrant? The answer is that it's not. British authorities obtained information about the recent terrorist "dry-run" in one of their airports within the confines of their laws and with warrants.
Taylor was appointed by Carter; is this ruling any big surprise at all?
Judge Taylor's decision disagrees with repeated rulings by various federal appellate courts, including the FISA court the Dems love so much. The other rulings held uniformly that the president does indeed have such broad authority. More than likely, the Sixth Circuit will overturn Judge Taylor's decision, and it will be the ACLU that files for Supreme Court review.
So...if what you're were true, yes. But the point is, here, that Bush isn't overstepping his bounds. Saying he is doesn't make it so.
Who cares who Taylor was appointed by. You take all your debating tricks from hannity don't you? If someone disagrees with you, personalize the issue and say that they're nutty because they're too this or too that. Taylor MUST BE too liberal because he was appointed by CARTER! That's all you have to say and with a wave of your hand, magically discount the judge as yet another whacky liberal activist in a powerful position. Taylor's decision was very thoughtful and informed by the system and rule of law that has been upheld for over 200 years. Personalizing this ruling is distasteful and you should know better.
I didn't say that this ruling was bunk because she was appointed by Carter. I said it was predictable because she was appointed by Carter. There's another two paragraphs after that explaining why her decision is worthless. The first is merely to put in context why the decision came about.
In addition, you're wrong about the "thoughtfulness" of her decision. The reason I'm blowing it off as an activist decision is because thats precisely what it is.
Several dozen lawsuits have been filed around the country challenging the program's legality, but yesterday's ruling marked the first time that a judge had declared it unconstitutional. Experts in national security law argued, however, that Taylor offered meager support for her findings on separation of powers and other key issues.
"Regardless of what your position is on the merits of the issue, there's no question that it's a poorly reasoned decision," said Bobby Chesney, a national security law specialist at Wake Forest University who takes a moderate stance on the legal debate over the NSA program. "The opinion kind of reads like an outline of possible grounds to strike down the program, without analysis to fill it in." - Washington Post
Her ruling was completely condescending in tone, completely emotionally argued, she makes a perilous connection to the first ammendment (at best) and it was completely counter to dozens of previous rulings.
To quote Ed:
Taylor not only declares that the President has violated the Fourth Amendment but also the First Amendment by not allowing people the right to unfettered international communications. In this, she accepted the fact that the plaintiffs suffered real damage because they are journalists who have to make overseas phone calls for their job. However, the program in question only applied to telephone numbers and/or persons identified by intelligence agents as potential terrorists. Unless Taylor heard evidence that these men knowingly communicated with terrorists, it seems a stretch to accept their standing to sue over the program.
Is her decision thoughtful and informed simply because you agree with it?
Post a Comment
<< Home