Thread: Judge: Wiretapping surveillance program unconstitutional

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... 17-ON.html

Judge: Wiretapping surveillance program unconstitutional

Sarah Karush
Associated Press
Aug. 17, 2006 10:20 AM

DETROIT - 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 as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

“Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution,” Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

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 listening to 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 had already publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule on the case.

“By holding that even the president is not above the law, the court has done its duty,” said Ann Beeson, the ACLU’s associate legal director and the lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

The NSA had no immediate comment on the ruling. Taylor dismissed a separate claim by the ACLU over data-mining of phone records by the NSA. She said not enough had been publicly revealed about that program to support the claim and further litigation could jeopardize state secrets.

Beeson predicted the government would appeal the ruling and request that the order to halt the program be postponed while the case makes its way through the system. She said the ACLU had not yet decided whether it would oppose such a postponement.

I know I will feel the wrath of some of my friends here for saying this, it matters not to me if the government listens in to my calls, I have nothing to hide, if it helps to nab terroist it is worth it to me! I know that half of America feels the same as I do about this. We are not fighting Gents here, they are trying to kill americans any way they can, we are going to have to fight on their level if we expect to win, this is not a clean fight. What do the rest of you think about this? For one thing, I hate the ACLU and would foil any thing they try to do!

It doesn't matter if this judge ruled it "unconstitutional". The government will simply make it publicly known it has/will "officially" shut it down. Key word being "officially".

Personally, I don't care if they listen in on my conversations. They already have files on me and both my parents anyway (because we were military). So, we really have nothing to hide, they already know, and almost certainly know more about us than we do.

I willingly gave up my privacy a long time ago and don't regret my choice. However, I do understand why others were/are not happy about the idea of warrantless wiretapping.

Ladydrake, help me to understand, why do people care about this if they have nothing to hide? Some people today, refuse to give up any freedoms whatsoever to fight terroism, this is illlogical to me, we live in a new world, we have never been confronted by islamic jihadist before, these people's hatred for us is off the charts, it is a new world, I feel we have to use whateer tools it takes to prevent another 9-11 although, I feel it is just a matter of time before we are hit again.

Remember that those who sacrifice liberty for security desrve niether.

Ladydrake, help me to understand, why do people care about this if they have nothing to hide? Some people today, refuse to give up any freedoms whatsoever to fight terroism, this is illlogical to me, we live in a new world, we have never been confronted by islamic jihadist before, these people's hatred for us is off the charts, it is a new world, I feel we have to use whateer tools it takes to prevent another 9-11 although, I feel it is just a matter of time before we are hit again.

Because it isn't about whether or not someone has something to hide. It's about the basic freedom of speech in it's rawest, most pure form. People should be allowed to say literally anything they want without getting into trouble for it. Thoughts and words do not neccessarily equate actions.

However, due to the idiots who do follow through on the bad things, they are the reason there is fear and want for surveillence (sp?) and thus certain rights are tossed out the window.

This is not fair for the majority of our people (Americans) and so, naturally alot of our people are angry.

It may seem illogical for people to refuse to give up their freedoms, but it really isn't. Either that or it would be just as illogical for people to prefer security over freedom. See, freedom and security do not mix. The saying "Nothing in life is for free" is a good way to put it. In order to have one, the price is giving up the other. It becomes a matter of which one is more important to an individual.

Military side of me speaking up here: There will be those of us who are willing to sacrifice ourselves and our freedom in order to ensure that our families and friends won't have those freedoms stripped away because of nutjobs.

What's going on now, with the jihadists really isn't an unknown factor in the world. It is different and may seem new because it's happening in our lifetime and with means not previously available. However, the concept and throughout history there has always been someone who thinks they have the right and duty to obliterate everyone who doesn't agree with them/have the same belief system. Wether it was politics and/or religion, it's always been there.

I hope this helps you to understand better.

Personally, at a time of war....I can live with wire tapping. HOWEVER, I cannot live with it when AT A TIME OF WAR OUR BORDERS HAVE UNKNOWN AND UNAUTHORIZED PEOPLE POURING INTO OUR COUNTRY BY THE HOUR.

NO WAY, JORGE BUSH.....you're not going to pull that one over on me.

Originally Posted by nittygritty

I know I will feel the wrath of some of my friends here for saying this, it matters not to me if the government listens in to my calls, I have nothing to hide, if it helps to nab terroist it is worth it to me! I know that half of America feels the same as I do about this. We are not fighting Gents here, they are trying to kill americans any way they can, we are going to have to fight on their level if we expect to win, this is not a clean fight. What do the rest of you think about this? For one thing, I hate the ACLU and would foil any thing they try to do!

I'm with you!! I have nothing to hide, and these brainwashed Arabs do, I want them to be listened and spied upon.

I will probably get some mad here, but I am beginning to think the whole Mideastern, Asian area have, not only insane leaders, but insane citizens!

There's something not right with them!

I would like to see our Country, drill for oil here, while working on alternate fuels, stop all foreign aid and monies going to any of them, close our borders, stop all immigration for a while, and bring back our jobs!

Mark my words, China will be our worst enemy, funded by our $$ as people continue to purchase products from China!

Originally Posted by jbird

Remember that those who sacrifice liberty for security desrve niether.

Hello jbird!

You can't sacrifice your liberty to criminals either and the way to catch them is with security.

Dixie

Originally Posted by Dixie

Originally Posted by jbird

Remember that those who sacrifice liberty for security desrve niether.

Hello jbird!

You can't sacrifice your liberty to criminals either and the way to catch them is with security.

Dixie

Maybe, but there is a difference between security and waiving fundamental rights. There is NO QUESTION that the current policy is a violation of prohibitions under Article IV of the Bill of Rights. Are we to say that our rights are inalienable until a majority decides that they shouldn't be? There is little point to having God-given rights is fragile men can overturn them on a whim.

In short, I don't exist to make government's job easier, nor are my rights negotiable just because the federal government is incompetent at carrying out the tasks with which We the People have charged it. Rather, the government exists to serve me and my fellow Americans within the limitations set upon it when we ceded to it certain LIMITED powers by acceding to its compact with our republic states in the 1787 Constitution.