NSA surveillance struck down
Published August 19th, 2006 in General A federal judge in Detroit yesterday ruled that President Bush’s domestic terrorist surveillance program is unconstitutional, agreeing with a challenge from the American Civil Liberties Union and a group of lawyers, academics and journalists.”The irreparable injury necessary to warrant injunctive relief is clear, as the First and Fourth Amendment rights of plaintiffs are violated” by the surveillance program, said U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor. “The irreparable injury conversely sustained by defendants under this injunction may be rectified by compliance with our Constitution.
“The public interest is clear in this matter,” said Judge Diggs Taylor, who was appointed to the federal bench in 1979 by President Carter. “It is the upholding of our Constitution.” The judge granted a permanent injunction halting the program but delayed implementing her order pending the outcome of the Justice Department’s appeal, which was filed immediately. The Justice Department said the National Security Agency’s terrorist surveillance program authorized by Mr. Bush was “an essential tool for the intelligence community” in the nation’s ongoing war on terror. It called the program “a critical tool that ensures we have in place an early warning system to detect and prevent a terrorist attack. |
It is about time this issue sees the light of day in a court room, unfortunately Judge Taylors ruling is very thin on reasoning and has a strong chance of being overturned by the conservative leaning sixth circuit.
6 Responses to “NSA surveillance struck down”
Leave a Reply
Search
Subscribe to the Feed:
These activist judges are accountable to no one, and are intent on imposing their far left views on Americans. This judge was cherry-picked for this case by the ACLU, who brought the case, because she is the chairwoman of a group that has donated over $100,000 to the ACLU. She would have recused herself if she had any respect for the law. She knew that this ridiculous decision would be overturned, but she used the bench to publicize her personal political views, and she should be removed.
The ACLU, the liberal media, liberal politicians, and liberal citizens are taking every chance they get to weaken our country’s ability to defend itself. If you look back to WW II, our country and its citizens were willing to make sacrifices for the greater good by rationing many consumer goods and supporting our government’s decisions. Our president actually saved lives by using “the bomb” because he ended the conflict. Japan de-militarized and is now a super ecomic power in the world and an ally of the U.S.
Now, our country is full of a bunch of whiners who haven’t the stomach for any real progress and for what it takes to defend our very lives. I fear for MY children and I question you, as a fellow mom, for not advocating what it takes to make sure they’re around to give you grandchildren.
Not sure why you think I am a mom, I am not. I have to ask if you know what it means to sacrifice, or if you really know what it means to actually defend this country with your life.
What I think you are not connecting is the difference between sacrifice of the citizens of the United States and an unconstitutional act committed by our President without our consent through or representatives in Congress.
I know nothing of the judge, however based on the tone of your comment I hesitate taking your words as truth as to her reasoning or character. However, I am not defending her, nor am I defending her action. I believe the Presidents actions deserve close scrutiny by Congress and the Judiciary. I do not believe her reasoning was solid, as I stated, and believe it will be overturned.
I do strongly believe the Presidents actions are unconstitutional and therefore should be stopped. War does not give the President Carte Blanche to do whatever he wants, or whatever he determines it takes to fight an enemy. He has very defined powers and he must work within those constraints. And that is all that I am asking, that he work within the Constitution.
This is not WWII. Any comparison to it is erroneous. Any belief that restricting the President from bypassing the Constitution to eavesdrop on phone conversations leads to a reason to fear for your childrens future is pure paranoia. A state the President has successfully put you in.
Deal with something more important. Stop pointless wars with meaningless goals http://leap.cc/audiovideo/LEAPpromo.htm
Has Bush’s warrantless domestic terrorist surveillance program even worth the cost and effort? Since the September 11 attacks, terrorist already knew our government was monitering their finances, phone calls, emails, etc therefore they are alert of the fact that they’re being watch like a hawk. Wouldn’t they find away to get around it? Overall Bush not only hurts our taxpayers money but also our civil liberties.
On another note, what happens when the NSA picks up a lead on a potential murder or delinquency? Simple, they’ll ignore it because it has nothing to do with terrorism. Bush has already taken away a sense of our privacy and civil liberties so it would make no difference if he expanded this program to these type of issues.
I do believe that Bush’s domestic terrorist surveillance program is unconstitutional, but I also question if all the money spent on these types of “spying” programs have brought any significant results in the fight against terror. I doubt this ruling will keep the government from spying on us, because I feel that the government has always been and will spy on people, the difference is that now “spying” is now under the media spotlight due to the “war on terror”, also many major telecommunications companies like AT&T, and Sprint have given their support to the NSA by giving them phone records, and the right to eavesdrop on conversations.
Unfortunately it is unlikely we will receive definative proof either way for many years because of the level of secrecy and classification involved. There have been specific instances of the US government spying on US citizens in the past, but until the last 5 years the government has taken significant steps to try and protect its citizens from warrantless eavesdropping or data collection. In many cases if a US intelligence agency even accidentally collects information on a US person it is considered a significant event. The reasons for this can be clearly seen in the society at large. We have become a litigious and highly politicized country. In fact US intelligence efforts as a whole were criticized after 9/11 because they were not aggressive enough in identifying the hijackers suspicious activities. Part of the reason for this is the fractionalization of the US intelligence agencies, they don’t play well together, in fact they often don’t play well even within their own walls. Another reason is taking aggressive action prior to 9/11 took too much effort and coordination.
I am glad that some teeth has been put back into US intelligence efforts. It is my opinion the way you avoid war, or atleast best prepare for war, is to have a strong and active foreign policy backed by a very aggressive and active intelligence capability (this means spying and dealing with people we would rather not deal with). But the teeth should have never been turned on our own people.