Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Judge Rules Surveillance Program Unconstitutional
#1
I just heard today that Federal Judge Anna Diggs Taylor has ruled the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program unconstitutional. [It should be no surprise to anyone that she was appointed by President Carter in 1979.]

Some of the more misguided among us might cheer this decision. But before you start your celebration, you might want to consider the foiled plot to bomb the Brooklyn Bridge.

Here is what Dick Morris, former top adviser to President Clinton, said about the plot and how it was discovered:

Quote:"In 2002, the feds (presumably the NSA) picked up random cellphone chatter using the words 'Brooklyn Bridge' (which apparently didn't translate well into Arabic). They notified the New York Police Department, which flooded the bridge with cops. Then the feds overheard a phone call in which a man said things were 'too hot' on the bridge to pull off an operation.

"Later an interrogation of a terrorist allowed by the Patriot Act led cops to the doorstep of this would-be bridge bomber."

Adds Morris, "his plans would definitely have brought down the bridge, NYPD sources told me."

But shouldn't Bush have obtained a court order before monitoring terrorist conversations - as even some Republican-leaning legal analysts now claim?

"On who?" asks Morris. The NSA "had no idea what it was looking for. It just intercepted random phone calls from people in the United States to those outside — and so heard the allusions to the bridge that tipped them off."

But if Democrats succeed in rolling back Bush's efforts to keep America safe, warns Morris - it's "Bye-bye, bridge."

source: http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/20/114526.shtml

In searching for sources on this, I also found a bunch of leftwing blogs claiming that this plot was not found out by the "warrantless wiretapping" that was looking for patterns in the chatter of calls where one party was outside the US. But I found many other sources refuting what the leftwing blogs were claiming. And having watched and followed what Dick Morris --- hardly a Republican or even a conservative! --- has said about many issues in the past few years, I have found him to be without bias and truthful on every circumstance.

So those of you who remain misguided about the NSA wiretapping and the world war we are currently in can keep trusting your dubious leftwing sources (including the NY Times, et al) and cheer this idiot judge's decision. I'll trust Dick Morris and others like him who recognize the danger we are facing and understand when the gray areas in the law need to be exploited for the safety of us all.

But if this ruling stands, and we can no longer gather "chatter" in this way, I better not hear you try to blame Bush when the terrorists succeed in bringing down a juicy target like the Brooklyn Bridge, or kill hundreds or thousands with a truck bomb somewhere else!
Reply
#2
Talking about Clinton; it was during his administration (1994) that CALEA got enacted, so where were those privacy folks back then?

Privacy is an important thing, but if you want the government to fight terrorism you ought to give it the means to do so. And if you don't agree with the measures then please come up with some better ones instead of questioning the authority. Anyway, interesting thread.
Reply
#3
If you are a Leftie, that is ancient history, AND it was taken in a sense of compassion and caring. The latest rules are done out of malice and unconcern for the little people. It's the Evil, Lying, Uncaring Bush's fault. Didn't you realize that?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#4
Anna Diggs Taylor was quoted as refuting the Bush position that in order to prove the necessity for the program national security would be compromised. She said there was no need for such information because enough information was available to prove it a violation of the Constitution.

I wonder how she ignored the parts of the Constitution that enable the President's powers. and ignored the parts that limit her own.

As a local judge here in Detroit, she is just another super liberal embarrassment who should never have been gifted with the power she has held since 1979.
Reply
#5
Thank the absolutely worthless Jimmy Carter for appointing her to begin with. To me, he has managed to directly, or indirecely, cause the death, and dismantlement of our nation's system AND citizens, more so than any other president before him.

She is a towering example of someone, who was and is, unqualified for the job she was appointed. Her history is a further confirmation of this.

I have no doubt that this case will be overturned. Also, thank you ACLU.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#6
Excuse me. I know you gentlemen believe we are AT WAR, because George Bush tells you we are at war, often. But I thought you right wingers believed in the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Now, is there at least one clear statement in the Constitution against gathering evidence without a warrant? Is there? Besides, how can we be at war, constitutionally?

Perhaps Judge Taylor was trying to interpret the Constitution STRICTLY.
I'm often wrong. But I'm not always wrong!
Reply
#7
Fit', if you believe for even one minute, that we are not at war with radical Islam, then you do not believe that there was also a Cold War with the Union of Soviet Socialists. And I suspect that your slavish devotion to pacificity has entirely clouded your cognative skills.

Or are you sitting on them? Seriously! Shock
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#8
Fit2BThaied Wrote:Besides, how can we be at war, constitutionally?
It is one of the powers of Congress: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"—US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11

But to give a definition other than this:
Quote:"Cicero styled war a contention by force. But the practice has prevailed to indicate by that name, not an immediate action, but a state of affairs; so that war is the state of contending parties, considered as such."—Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis
Quote:"4. War is not only an act, but a state or condition, for nations are said to be at war not only when their armies are engaged, so as to be in the very act of contention, but also when, they have any matter of controversy or dispute subsisting between them which they are determined to decide by the use of force, and have declared publicly, or by their acts, their determination so to decide it."—Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856 Edition)
---

Fit2BThaied Wrote:Excuse me. I know you gentlemen believe we are AT WAR, because George Bush tells you we are at war, often. But I thought you right wingers believed in the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Now, is there at least one clear statement in the Constitution against gathering evidence without a warrant? Is there?

Sure, a warrant is needed, but since there is no war going on according to the Judiciary (the Executive wasn't allowed to use war powers), Congress should pen down some laws that are Constitutionally sound and can effectually combat terrorism. But I doubt law-enforcement can cope with it. In the meantime the current 'abuse' of the Constitution will probably do more good than harm; definitely compared to other abuses, like of the Commerce and Welfare clauses.
Reply
#9
Yeah, and isnt it funny how many leftwingers are for strict application of the Constitution. Yet when it comes to a discrepancy between what is best for the US and the "higher power" of the United Nations, many of these same people want the US to forfeit much of its sovereignty and ability to defend itself! :?

Good points all, SNK, John, and Wm.
Reply
#10
Quote:Excuse me. I know you gentlemen believe we are AT WAR, because George Bush tells you we are at war, often. But I thought you right wingers believed in the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Now, is there at least one clear statement in the Constitution against gathering evidence without a warrant? Is there? Besides, how can we be at war, constitutionally?

Perhaps Judge Taylor was trying to interpret the Constitution STRICTLY.
Find it, and show it to me, or anyone else.
What are you citing as one clear statement in the Constitution against gathering evidence with out a warrant, that applies to wiretapping conversations emanating from Outside the Country.
Show me that law, and we go forward.
You said evidence. Evidence is used in a trial. A determination is made during the discovery phase as to whether that evidence meets the requirements for admission into court.
90% of what they gather is NOT going to end up in court but rather in Intelligence hands and is used to stop acts of Terrorism like the boys from Britain that wanted to blow up planes in midair.
So what are you saying? That we can not protect ourselves?
What you make obvious with exaggerated statements like this "But I thought you right wingers believed in the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION" is that you don't unless the interpretation fits your definition.
One thing you left wingers make clear is that you do not like the Constitution and you desire another one, written your way and subject to change when your in power.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government
Edward Abbey
[Image: eagle_1721.png]
Reply
#11
If we're not at war,why did Congress overwhelming authorize the POTUS to make war on al qaeda and related Islamic terrorists across the globe?

What is this now,1984 speak? The Brave New World?
Reply
#12
She uses the 1st amendment in her reasoning. Listening to terrorists conversations somehow scares people from exercising their 1st amendment right. The legal precedent she has set is you can't do anything which will scare people from exercising a right, no matter how irrational their fears are. I bet she would ignore this newly set principle of hers if for example a case was brought forward alleging gun laws scare people from exercising their 2nd amendment right.

I have a better one, with this principle she may cancel the war against islamic fascist simply because it may scare muslims out of practicing islam.
Reply
#13
Her reasoning is if we are at peace,but our government voted for war back on September 12,2001,though some have forgotten this apparently. I personally wouldn't concern myself with judicial adjudications during war,no US POTUS ever has.

I think it's in article 9 that states the government can suspend habeas corpus during bad times and it is not even delineated that it must be war.
Reply
#14
You're right and wrong. Its article 1 section 9. S2

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Thats what it says and correct me if I am wrong but people who are here illegally isn't that an invasion? So terrorists who sneak into the country don't require Habeas Corpus if for example President Bush were to suspend it based on the terrorist invasion.
Reply
#15
Habeus Corpus, in Anna Diggs Taylor's view, was represented by the attorneys from the ACLU, who all protested that they professionally spoke with suspected terrorists all the time in their normal scope of professional duties, be they legal representations, fact finding, or media news gathering - and that knowledge of the government listening in suppresses meaningful conversation with the suspected terrorists.

Taylor is so one-dimensional that she can't prioritize justice over politics. Always has been - always will be.

Sad thing is, she represents the one-sided Democrat base of her city.
Reply
#16
Yay!
Reply
#17
Dem,

That's it. There is NO delineation or specificity contained within. Lincoln made serious use of that provision and since our nation has ~ 6 million Muslims residing within,anything the POTUS does relating to them,as far as I am concerned,is appropriate to protect the nation's people.

I think they simply should be given a couple of years to make plans for life somewhere else,there is no need for this to be deadly unless that's their desire.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)