Judge Rules NSA Wiretapping Unconstitutional

strredwolf writes "CNN is reporting that NSA's warrantless wiretapping program has been ruled unconstitutional. This is the ACLU lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars, and lawyers. From the article: "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.""

Trust us! We're the government!

[Kelson (129150)]

The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.

Basically what this argument boils down to: We can't tell you why we're justified, but trust us, we are. This, despite the fact that 50% of the US and a good portion of the rest of the world does not trust the current US government.

Of course, there's a well-established method of establishing that a search/wiretap/etc. is justified: it's called a warrant. In fact, for the past several decades, we've had a program in place that makes getting a warrant for wiretapping quite easy. You can get a FISA warrant quickly, confidentially, and even retroactively.

Yes, retroactively. You can spot a suspect, set up an emergency wiretap, then a day later you can walk into the secret court and tell the judge why it was necessary to set up the wiretap. And you'll get the warrant. It's no hardship, unless you have reason to believe a judge wouldn't grant you the warrant.

This whole thing could have been resolved months ago if the administration were willing to just say, "Oh, yeah, you're right, we should be getting warrants for this sort of thing. We'll start doing so immediately." End of controversy, they can still listen in on suspects, it's still done without revealing state secrets. Arguing that they need the ability to spy on people without warrants makes them look awfully suspicious.

P.S. to people who do trust the current administration: just consider that someone you don't like will eventually be in charge. Maybe another Republican, maybe a Democrat, maybe the balance of power will realign and we'll be looking at Republicans vs. Greens or something for the next few decades. However it works out, someone you disagree with will be in the Oval Office at some point. Would you want them to have the powers that this administration has been insisting on?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[EggyToast (858951)]

P.S. to people who do trust the current administration: just consider that someone you don't like will eventually be in charge. Maybe another Republican, maybe a Democrat, maybe the balance of power will realign and we'll be looking at Republicans vs. Greens or something for the next few decades. However it works out, someone you disagree with will be in the Oval Office at some point. Would you want them to have the powers that this administration has been insisting on?

That's already the case. Pretty much everyone who has rallied behind Bush and his administration for the advances of executive power that he's pushed for criticized Clinton for the same attempts. They granted the line item veto, only to have Clinton use it once and have it taken away. Bush has used signing statements to accomplish the same thing. Clinton's ties to industry were scrutinized; Bush's are clear, yet it's OK because it shows he supposedly knows what's going on.

Directly related to FISA and the wiretapping, Clinton's administration conducted a few physical searches w/o warrants, which was legal at the time. When it was discovered, and a law was passed saying that a warrant was needed... they stopped.

It's just a case of "When our guys do it, it's OK, but if your guys do it it's not" syndrome. What they really want to have happen is have a law that only takes effect when members of a certain party are elected. So there would be a "Republican Only" law that only works when the president's party is Republican. And so on.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Bogtha (906264)]

It's just a case of "When our guys do it, it's OK, but if your guys do it it's not" syndrome.

It's an inevitable consequence of a populace that understands football better than politics. The idea that the parties are supposed to work together to support society is not a familiar concept. They think it's about two teams, one of which must be the winning side and one of which must be the losing side. They've picked a side, not realising that politics is not a zero-sum game.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[plague3106 (71849)]

I'd expand the question in your PS to why ever trust an entity which can exercise total power over you? Its not wise to do, even if you like the people in said entity.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[megaditto (982598)]

Actually, you are thinking about the wrong program.

The Federal Judge has ordered NSA to stop wiretapping international calls that the Government says targets suspected al qaeda members.

The one you are thinking about (a much broader domestic wiretapping) was recently dismissed [slashdot.org]. It was also filed by the ACLU, hence the confusion.

While the decision may be a good news for privacy advocates, it is certain that the Government is likely to appeal Judge Taylor's decision.

I would argue that of the three known warrantless data collection programs, the one targeting international calls has the least privacy impact and the most potential to garner actionable intelligence and protect the American public, so it may be unfortunate that this is the one ordered stopped, while the other two are allowed to continue.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[plague3106 (71849)]

I would argue that your right to free association is being violated. After all, the wiretaps between a US citizen and foreign national always involve the US citizen, even if its the foreign national whom the goverhment is really interested. You can't collect the data without violating the rights of the US citizen (unreasonable search, freedom of association). Hence, they should always need a warrant.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[buswolley (591500)]

Look. The White House knows that all their illegal activity may get them in trouble if the house and senate goes to the democrats. This is why they are pro-actively insulating themselves with legal manipulations. For example, reports http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/sp ecial_packages/iraq/15246142.htm [mercurynews.com] :

The Bush administration drafted amendments to the War Crimes Act that would retroactively protect policymakers from possible criminal charges for authorizing any humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees, according to lawyers who have seen the proposal.

They know the shit can hit the fan for them. Actually, it gives me hope: The executive branch is still afraid of something..

There is hope.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[buswolley (591500)]

If misinformation, then it is misinformation that was published in hundreds of newspapers.

From the WashingtonPost article:

The risk of possible prosecution of officials, CIA officers and former service personnel over alleged rough treatment of prisoners arises because the Bush administration, from January 2002 until June, maintained that the Geneva Conventions' protections did not apply to prisoners captured in Afghanistan.

Do officials actually do the torture, or do they give commands? Ahh.. Furthermore, if a president ordered such an act, wouldn't this amendment absolve him?

From the article I originally posted, the lawyer that leaked this information to the press had this to say about the amendment he helped to draft:

Interrogation practices "follow from policies that were formed at the highest levels of the administration," said a fourth attorney, Scott Horton, who has followed detainee issues closely. "The administration is trying to insulate policymakers under the War Crimes Act."

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[illumin8 (148082)]

From what I understand, in this case, the government got international phone numbers that were stored in cell phones they found in Al Qaeda hideouts in Afghanistan. These are the numbers they were tapping (on the U.S. side, so calls out to and in from these numbers were tapped). If that's the case, I have no problem with it...

Not true. The government admitted to tapping all phone calls that had an end-point in any foreign country. Not only that, they were tapping the phone calls of foreign countries that just happened to pass through a US exchange. While they may have a right to tap calls with two foreign end-points, without probable cause, they never had a right to tap the phone calls of any American citizens without a warrant or probable cause, which is what they were doing here.

Also, the phrase "Domestic Wiretap", in this case, is a blatant mischaracterization of what was being done.

The phrase "domestic wiretap" is exactly what they were doing here.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Alaska Jack (679307)]

"The government admitted to tapping all [my emphasis] phone calls that had an end-point in any foreign country."

Huh? Where do you get this? Even the judge's opinion striking down the program had this to say:

It is undisputed that Defendants have publicly admitted to the following: (1) the TSP exists; (2) it operates without warrants; (3) it targets communications where one party to the communication is outside the United States, and the government has a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda.

- Alaska Jack

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[gilroy (155262)]

First, the lawsuit that was thrown out wasn't "wiretapping" at all. It was data mining -- a transfer of supposedly private records to the government so that they could be sifted for patterns. Not covered by FISA.

Second, in the current case, the privacy issue is entirely secondary. The real concern is: President Bush knowingly broke the law. End of story. (The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act describes what steps the government needs to take to wiretap the phones of foreign agents. Those steps include a warrant by the special FISA court. The Administration did not seek those warrants on a large number of wiretaps. FISA also specifies that it is the only law covering such surveillance.) Caught at breaking the law -- a law, by the way, he had signaled his complete satisfaction with, and which, if he had asked, he could easily have had amended -- he brazenly declared his intention to go on breaking the law.

A few years back, a hyperventilating minority of the political leaders in this country screamed bloody murder and tried to oust a President for perjuring himself in a civil suit concerning a matter from long before his Presidency. It was, they told us, a matter of high principle: The President must obey the law. He must respect the judicial process. He must not be an oathbreaker, since he swears an oath to uphold the Consititution and faithfully execute the laws of the land.

Now, that group of leaders is shockingly silent -- indeed, worse, vocal in their defense -- when their party's President knowingly and intentionally violated an actual law and thus knowingly violates his oath of office. Even for Washington, the hypocrisy here is rank.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[mctk (840035)]

I think he'll be okay. Hunting season is over.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Philip K Dickhead (906971)]

"Well, He sounded like a quail..."

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[kalirion (728907)]

Why stage a suicide, or even a murder for that matter, when they can imprison or even kill him and then claim that it was done legally?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Seraphim_72 (622457)]

when I talk to my friend over my cell phone, I sometimes say hi to the NSA just for fun. They never respond though...

You:"Hi NSA we are talking about bombs!" (smile)

NSA:"Actually you were dicussing your blog, get a thesaurus."

You:

NSA:"The TP is in the hall closet"

Sound of phone dropping and wet footsteps running away

Re:Reminds me of an old Russian joke

[vertinox (846076)]

From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] (keep in cultural context that before the collapse of the Soviet Union that when you got a hotel room you often shared it with other people you didn't know)

A hotel. A room for four with four strangers. Three of them soon open a bottle of vodka and proceed to get acquainted, then drunk, then noisy, singing and telling political jokes. The fourth one desperately tries to get some sleep; finally, frustrated, he surreptitiously leaves the room, goes downstairs, and asks the lady concierge to bring tea to Room 67 in ten minutes. Then he returns and joins the party. Five minutes later, he bends over an ashtray and says with utter nonchalance: "Comrade Major, some tea to Room 67, please." In a few minutes, there's a knock at the door, and in comes the lady concierge with a tea tray. The room falls silent; the party dies a sudden death, and the conspirator finally gets to sleep. The next morning he wakes up alone in the room. Surprised, he runs downstairs and asks the concierge where his neighbors had gone. "Oh, the KGB has arrested them!" she answers. "B-but... but what about me?" asks the guy in terror. "Oh, well, they decided to let you go. You made Comrade Major laugh a lot with your tea joke."

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[internic (453511)]

This is not true. Where do you pull a figure like that from? Your ass?

Most people in the United States support the wiretapping program.

And yet, you say it's false without presenting any evidence of your own (or perhaps obtaining it from the same region as the GP). I'm not aware of a poll that asks a question like, "Do you trust the current administration?" I think it would be a poor question, because it's too vague to be meaningful. Most of the time, we'd trust people so far in a certain situation; trust is not a binary issue. For example, I trust Bush not to intentionally bring down the USA, but I don't trust him to make accurate statements about intelligence. There are some things we can say, however. We can say that according to polls most people disapprove of the overall job that Bush is doing (see almost any recent presidential approval rating poll), and we can say they're almost evenly split on the question of whether warrentless wiretaps are ok (see, for example, this Newsweek poll [msn.com]). Most of the polls I've seen, but not all, show a slight majority for the opinion that these searches are a bad thing. Perhaps if you're going to attack people for a lack of facts, you should at least try to offer some to support your own claims.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[badasscat (563442)]

Most people in the United States support the wiretapping program.

Most people in the United States supported slavery too.

The public at large cannot always be trusted to support the moral or ethical side of an issue, nor can they be trusted to maintain logic or consistency in their beliefs. I think it was Ben Franklin that said (paraphrasing now), "Being in the majority means that most people agree with you; it does not mean that you are right."

That's why we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights, which is intended to be a semi-permanent document that does not change with the "whims of the people". It *can* be changed, and in fact it was changed to outlaw slavery once and for all, but it is intentionally difficult to do. And if the Constitution says that this program is against the law of the land, then that's that. Public support is irrelevant.

What I was a bit surprised to read in this ruling was that the judge said the President of the United States had willfully and knowingly broken the Fourth Amendment. That's an impeachable offense; in fact, pretty much the worst kind of impeachable offense. Now, there are a lot of things that people on the other side of the aisle have said Bush could be impeached for, but this is the first time that I know of that we have a legal ruling by a federal judge that documents an actual offense for which the President could be held legally accountable. This federal judge has basically labeled the President a high criminal in a legally binding decision.

The question is, will anything be done about it? I guess we'll know in November. As we've seen, politics matters a lot more than ethics or legality to the current congress.

Actually...

[ukemike (956477)]

Recently the Supreme Court has made several rulings about prisoner detention in guantanamo and torture that firmly establish that the administration violated the War Crimes Act and the Geneva Conventions. These offences would easily rise to the level of a "high crime" and are impeachable.
The congress unfortunately is utterly corrupt and has failed for 6 years to meet it's oversight responsibilities. There is zero chance that the current congress will impeach. Vote and pray for the Democrats in 2006. Then there will be a small but real chance that the Criminal in Chief will be held accountable for his may crimes.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[jfengel (409917)]

I was interested in your question, so I did some research. The grandparent poster is overstating the case, but there were polls back in December/January that kind of back him up.

The NY Times [nytimes.com] says, "The poll found that 53 percent of Americans approved of Mr. Bush's authorizing eavesdropping without prior court approval 'in order to reduce the threat of terrorism.'"

The CS Monitor [csmonitor.com] (reporting on a Zogby poll) says, "Nearly half of likely voters, 49 percent, say Bush has the constitutional powers to approve such a plan".

I don't have more recent figures. The President's popularity is roughly the same now that it was then, though it had risen a bit for a while in the meantime.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[squiggleslash (241428)]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could turn back the clock 10 years and have our greatest concern about the President be, quite legitimately, that he once lied in court about whether he had sex with an intern.

Even better!

[raehl (609729)]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could turn back the clock 10 years and have our greatest concern about the President be, quite legitimately, that he once lied in court about whether he had sex with an intern.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could turn back the clock 10 years and have our greatest concern about the President be, quite legitimately, that he once lied in a deposition for a civil case?

The difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush is Bill Clinton thought he had to break the law to cover his ass. George Bush doesn't think the law applies to him in the first place.

Of course...

[HTH NE1 (675604)]

It doesn't mean they won't keep doing it anyway.

Finally.

[oddman (204968)]

One branch of the U.S. government acts in a sane and rational manner, not to mention appropriate regard for the Constitution.

Re:Finally.

[Incongruity (70416)]

Indeed. It just seems like a dangerous practice to be able to claim that national security trumps the constitution or seemingly substantive claims that constitutional rights have been violated. Protecting us by depriving us of liberty is not really protection in the secure, unharmed sense... but that horse has been beaten so many times that I'll leave it at that...

Re:Finally.

[mrchaotica (681592)]

It just seems like a dangerous practice to be able to claim that national security trumps the constitution or seemingly substantive claims that constitutional rights have been violated.

No, it just is a dangerous practice to be able to claim that national security (or anything else whatsoever) trumps the Constitution. Full Stop. No qualifying statements are required.

Re:Finally.

[fyngyrz (762201)]

This is just a stop on the way to the supreme court. Don't be counting any chickens of liberty as yet. And remember: This is the supreme court that ruled that growth, distribution and use of pot within the borders of California was "interstate commerce", and it's not a lot different from the supreme court that ruled that retroactive registration of sexual and violent offenders wasn't ex post facto punishment, either.

Don't get me wrong -- I applaud the ruling. But the fact of the matter is that for matters of state and country, things typically progress to the supreme court, and lower court rulings mean very little in the long run.

Re:Finally.

[jnaujok (804613)]

Sorry, you can't blame this court for that ruling. The decision that growing a crop in one state for consumption in that state is Interstate commerce can be laid squarely at the feet of FDR and his court in 1942.

Wickard v. Filburn got to the Supreme Court, and in 1942, the justices unanimously ruled against the farmer. The government claimed that if Mr. Filburn grew wheat for his own use, he would not be buying it -- and that affected interstate commerce. It also argued that if the price of wheat rose, which is what the government wanted, Mr. Filburn might be tempted to sell his surplus wheat in the interstate market, thwarting the government's objective. The Supreme Court bought it. http://www.fff.org/freedom/0895g.asp [fff.org]

*Jaw drops*

[JGuru42 (140509)]

It's such a small article but with all of the talk that has been going on about the "alleged" illegal wiretapping this simple story headline was more then enough to make my jaw drop open in awe.

However, how long will it take before Judge Taylor becomes just another of then "activist" judges?

Bravo, Judge Taylor, Bravo.

Re:*Jaw drops*

[JordanL (886154)]

However, how long will it take before Judge Taylor becomes just another of then "activist" judges?

If this case goes before the Supreme Court, I can almost guarantee that the SCOTUS will also declare it unconstitutional. The Administration is directly marginalizing the oversight powers of the very branch of the government which these people represent. It won't be an activist judge thing.

And FYI, I voted for this guy.

So What?

[bbernard (930130)]

Not to seem too pessimistic here, but exactly what kind of enforcement is going to happen here? Is the judge going to order Bush arrested if they don't stop? Will the judge impound NSA's computers? Sure, it's a step in the right direction, but it seems much more symbolic to me that actually useful.

The most important question

[by Anonymous Coward]

Does it mean that any arrests and prosecutions made as a result of information gained from these wire-tappings are deemed unconstitutional and their respective cases dropped and verdicts overturned? What happens to the people whos freedoms were violated by this unconstitutional act? .. sorry that's more than one question

-Sj53

Ok...This is what happens next

[by Anonymous Coward]

As provided for under Section VI of the Patriot Act, President Bush will now declare U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor an enemy combatant, have her stripped and dog piled in Gitmo.

Land of the free, eh?

Congratulations!

[Saint Aardvark (159009)]

Welcome back, you guys.

Signed,
The Free World

Re:Congratulations!

[Red Flayer (890720)]

Welcome back, you guys.
Signed,
The Free World

Not so fast, there, bucko -- this will go to the 6th Cicruit Court on appeal, who consistently rule in favor of national security over civil liberties.

State secrets?

[Overzeetop (214511)]

FTFA

"The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets."

What about the President's authority is secret? Is there some part of the constitution that you have to be TS/SCI to read? If the law exists that allows the President such powers, then let's take a look at it. I think the "state secrets" trump is going to fail them this time. It's not about the purpose for what's being done, but the authority to do so, and this judge has (thank goodness) made a sensible call that the President does not have the power to authorize this invasion of privacy, even to combat terrorism or while thinking of the childern.

cue the obvious comments

[gEvil (beta) (945888)]

Damn activist judges, legislating from the bench! What's that? There was no legislating involved here? She was just ruling based on the laws that are already on the book? Well, she's still a damn activist judge!

Andrew Jackson will return!

[by Anonymous Coward]

"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" -- Andrew Jackson's reply to the Supreme Court on the subject of indian removal.

The lesson learned: judges can strike down anything, but unless it's enforced, the decision is moot. Will the NSA stop? No. Will the government ensure they stop? No. What can anyone do? Nothing.

Divisive Issues

[MandoSKippy (708601)]

I was listening to a local radio talk show when this issue came up. The host, a right-leaning Bush mouthpiece used the if you are against this program, then you are pro-terrorist. I actually called in and explained to him about the FISA court, and how it is retroactive, and most people (including myself and those I have spoken to) don't have a beef with the program itself, but more so the warrantless methodology used by the administration. The talk show host, quick on the reponse as most of them are Asked "So you would have activist judges like the judges who ruled that goverments can take your land and give it to corporations making the decision on whether you are wiretapped?" He was basically using a tactic that many policial folks, use another unrealted issue to hide the issues with the one we are talking about. Well, I responded quietly and firmly that he was using an unrelated case, AND in that case the Supreme Court did not rule it that goverment can take your land and give it to companies, but instead ruled that nowhere in the constitution does it state that people are protected from this, and as long as the process is lawful (which in Conneticut at the time it was) it wasn't the Supreme Court's decision to make. This is a correct judgement, and has lead to many newly passed state laws protecting citizens from this behavior. His response was "What are you a lawyer or something?" to which I replied, no just an informed citizen. My point? I am sick an tired of divisive issues like this being hidden in the terrorism crap... you are any NSA wire tapping, you are pro terrorism... that's BS. We just want security WITH protections of our rights. Some actually informed news people who could communicate the issues instead of getting all hot button on the issues wouldn't hurt as well.

Re:Divisive Issues

[QuantumRiff (120817)]

History is such a fun thing to watch being repeated... Just sit back, read the news, and everytime there is the word Terrorist, replace it mentally with "communist" or "japaneese spy" or "Indian." Man, why don't we teach more history in the schools? Honestly...

Re:Divisive Issues

[Poppler (822173)]

We just want security WITH protections of our rights.

You're missing the point. They're not interested in protecting you from terrorists at all, they're interested in chipping away the Bill of Rights. Stopping terrorism is just a pretext for a power grab.

the obvious?

[SafariShane (560870)]

The reason that they do not want to retroactivley get warrents is simple. Elegant actually. They are tapping an extreme amount of traffic, more than any of us can imagine. Probably entire geographic regions. Much later on when someone is suddenly suspected of being a terrorist, they have at their fingertips mountains of backdated infomation to sift through to see what you've been up to. There is likely waaaaay too much data to peek at it all, but if you suddenly became a terror suspect tomorrow, they are going to listen to your overseas calls from three years ago.

That's why they can't go to the court and get a warrent "retroactivley". The judges on the court can't time travel, and would be freaking pissssed to find out that the government is doing in effect that.

We are not out of the woods yet

[lawpoop (604919)]

Folks, it isn't over until it's over. The ruling can still be appealed. Bush nominated judge Samuel Alito to the supreme court. Alito subscribes to the notion of the unitary executive [wikipedia.org], which basically means that anything the president does is legal, by definition. Alito may be sympathetic to the administration's view on this. He is just one of nine judges, but I point him out to show you who Bush is appointing.

Remember the Total Information Awareness project, proposed by Admiral Poindexter, shortly after 9/11? It was to be a gigantic database of all electronic information -- the complete, ongoing electronic record of every US citizen. Of course, because of public outcry, the project was defunded. However, the project has simply been broken apart and pursued. Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] says "An unknown number of TIA's functions have been merged under the codename "Topsail".

We don't know the full story, yet we are being given some very clear, bright red flags. Why does the government need to keep track of every single citizen?

Re:We are not out of the woods yet

[DrJimbo (594231)]

lawpoop asked:

Why does the government need to keep track of every single citizen?

Because every single citizen is a threat to this illegal government.

Power outage

[Wind_Walker (83965)]

In other news, freak power outages have been reported all over the United States today. Experts attribute this power outage to the newly-installed generators on the Founding Fathers' graves. Powered by their eternal rolling over, they were expected to provide power to the United States for the duration of the Bush presidency.

The Department of Energy has urged power consumers to attempt to cut back on their energy usage until new generators can be installed on the Republican Spin machine, which provides nearly as much spin as the Founding Fathers' graves.

Which Congressman?

[michaelmalak (91262)]

Which Congressman will have the courage to introduce articles of impeachment?

Note: Conyers backed down [washingtonpost.com] this past May.

At least someone is putting up a fight

[End Program (963207)]

I think the sad part of this story is that the ALCU are the ones standing up for our rights. Where is the outrage? The problem is Americans are too complacent in their SUV and Mc-Mansion lives to give a F***.

I remember a poll a while back that stated 50% of people surveyed are willing to give up their rights if they thought it would help the war on terror. I am sure that's not what our forefathers had in mind.

Most people just take their freedoms for granted and assume they will always be there. I can imagine the look on their faces when the police show up to randomly search their homes, and they state "Don't you need a warrant for this?" and the police reply "Nope. Not any more!"

Quotes from the decision

[Animats (122034)]

The actual decision by the court [cnn.net] is worth reading. Some quotes:

• "In this case, the President has acted, undisputedly, as FISA forbids. FISA is the expressed statutory policy of our Congress. The presidential power, therefore, was exercised at its lowest ebb and cannot be sustained."
• "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 powers not created by the Constitution. So all "inherent powers" must derive from that Constitution."
• "For all of the reasons outlined above, this court is constrained to grant to Plaintiffs the Partial Summary Judgment requested, and holds that the TSP violates the APA; the Separation of Powers doctrine; the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution; and the statutory law."
• "The Permanent Injunction of the TSP requested by Plaintiffs is granted inasmuch as each of the factors required to be met to sustain such an injunction have undisputedly been met. The irreparable injury necessary to warrant injunctive relief is clear, as the First and Fourth Amendment rights of Plaintiffs are violated by the TSP. See Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 (1965). The irreparable injury conversely sustained by Defendants under this injunction may be rectified by compliance with our Constitution and/or statutory law, as amended if necessary. Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution. As Justice Warren wrote in U.S. v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967): Implicit in the term 'national defense' is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this Nation apart. . . . It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of . . . those liberties ....Id. at 264.
  IT IS SO ORDERED.
  ANNA DIGGS TAYLOR
  UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE"

Re:Correct, but...

[mrchaotica (681592)]

Who cares (aside from partisan dumbasses (and everyone who is partisan is a dumbass))? Government abuse of power always sucks, no matter what ideology the perpetrators subscribe to.

Not a troll, just wrong

[gilroy (155262)]

Blockquoth the poster:

I for one believe this particular program is good, necessary, and in line with the Constitution, so it's not a matter of "security vs. freedom" for me.

Unfortunately, you are simply wrong. The NSA is not doing anything that it couldn't do legally. All that is required is getting a FISA judge to issue a warrant. Since the institution of the FISA court in 1979, the government has requested more than 10,000 warrants. It has been denied four times.

But wait! Today's terrorist moves fast. Maybe there isn't time to speak to a judge! Bzzzt. But thanks for playing. The FISA judges hold court in the oddest of places -- such as the chief judge's living room at 3 AM -- so that they can be responsive and quick. And even then, the law (as amended) allows the government to conduct an emergency wiretap so long as it gets a (retroactive) warrant within 72 hours. So no nasty terrorist plots can slip through waiting on that burdensome due process.

Should the government be allowed to wiretap suspected terrorists? Of course. Not a single major player has ever said otherwise. But that's the question the Bush people want you to focus on, so that you don't notice the real question: Should the President of the United States be bound by the Constitution and the laws passed under it? And this Administration's clear, stark answer is: NO. The President should be entirely unconstrained.

That is why this Administration is the greatest threat to the Republic since the Civil War.