Federal judge orders end to wiretap program

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » August 17, 2006, 1:45 pm

I figured this would play out near the election, then be struck down.

DETROIT - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14393611/

Unfortuantely the public isn't bright enough to remember this when they go to the polls, those that bother anyway. The media won't remind them and the democrats (apparently) aren't bright enough to use it.

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » August 17, 2006, 2:25 pm

Thank God for small favors.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » August 17, 2006, 3:33 pm

But, but, but that will mean all the terrorists are gonna get us, its unamerican, lets invade Iran to prove its needed to wiretap.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » August 17, 2006, 5:02 pm

This takes all the thrill out of international phonesex

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » August 17, 2006, 5:03 pm

Hesten wrote:But, but, but that will mean all the terrorists are gonna get us, its unamerican, lets invade Iran to prove its needed to wiretap.

Make fun all you want Caffey. Today, you just weakened a country.

noel · Post by **noel** » August 17, 2006, 5:07 pm

Actually like I told you months ago when this story first broke, it was unconstitional. The judge's ruling strengthened our country not weakened it. When are you going to learn that no one, especially not our executive branch is above the highest laws in our land.

Scoreboard.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » August 17, 2006, 5:20 pm

Niffoni wrote:This takes all the thrill out of international phonesex

Exhibitionist!

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » August 17, 2006, 6:02 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Hesten wrote:But, but, but that will mean all the terrorists are gonna get us, its unamerican, lets invade Iran to prove its needed to wiretap.
Make fun all you want Caffey. Today, you just weakened a country.

No, they stopped something that would eventually destroy the country as we know it.

He's a president, not a king. He does not rule by decree.

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » August 17, 2006, 6:30 pm

But he talks to Jesus everynight, so how can he not be?!

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 17, 2006, 7:30 pm

Okay I may be harping on it, but which democrat won't pull the same kind of BS.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 17, 2006, 7:34 pm

.

Overturned on appeal.

/yawn

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 17, 2006, 7:58 pm

You honestly think the SCOTUS will overturn a case that strictly follows the intent of the 4th amendment?

noel · Post by **noel** » August 17, 2006, 8:34 pm

Metanis wrote:.

Overturned on appeal.

/yawn

Wanna make a bet?

I'll give you a chance to brush up on your Constitutional law before you answer...

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » August 18, 2006, 12:14 am

Aabidano wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Hesten wrote:But, but, but that will mean all the terrorists are gonna get us, its unamerican, lets invade Iran to prove its needed to wiretap.
Make fun all you want Caffey. Today, you just weakened a country.
No, they stopped something that would eventually destroy the country as we know it.

He's a president, not a king. He does not rule by decree.

Personally, I believe that being too liberal will destroy the United States long before an extremely small percentage of wiretaps relative to the population size would.

These wiretaps aren't randomly selected people. They are conducted under fairly specific circumstances against those giving some reason to be under suspicion. Note that I am not 100% for them, but I am not necessarily against them either.

I consider them to be necessary and temporary.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 18, 2006, 12:48 am

I consider you a fucking idiot who should have is US citizenship taken away and replaced with a chinese one.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 18, 2006, 1:14 am

noel wrote:
Metanis wrote:.

Overturned on appeal.

/yawn
Wanna make a bet?

I'll give you a chance to brush up on your Constitutional law before you answer...

Perhaps you should be the one brushing up? And yes I'm willing to make a bet.

I will however revise my prediction based on the analysis I've read. Judge Taylor's findings are so bizarre the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals is going to return the case to Ms. Taylor and instruct her to revise her findings in light of established case law or to dismiss it. In other words they are going to spank her badly. Her arguments are circular and cannot be traced to compelling and pertinent precedents.

Bottom line? The ACLU shopped a judge and then force fed her the conclusions. But the conclusions don't have a basis. The Appeals court will sidestep the issue entirely by sending it back down for new findings.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 18, 2006, 1:27 am

lol, nice direct plagarizing of a blog.

noel · Post by **noel** » August 18, 2006, 2:05 am

kyoukan wrote:lol, nice direct plagarizing of a blog.

You didn't actually expect original thought from him did you? He's only capable of parrotting what he's spoonfed.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 18, 2006, 3:22 am

That was the most blatant cut and paste yet.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » August 18, 2006, 6:28 am

Aruman wrote:I consider them to be necessary and temporary.

A legal way to do the exact same thing already exists, with after the fact oversight. What's the point? We've been down this road before, and it turned out ugly. Hence the laws against it. People are people, that won't change. Transparency is the only thing that holds them in check against eventual tyranny.

This administration has gone far out of it's way to hide all of it's activities and obstruct any form of oversight of even the most trivial matters. Far in excess of any other that I can think of.

To use the argument the zealots use on a regular basis, "Why are you trying so hard to hide if nothing's there?".

This is a bid for increased executive powers for the president, shifting the balance of our government.

*Edit - I really don't think this chain of events is being driven by the president.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » August 18, 2006, 12:50 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Hesten wrote:But, but, but that will mean all the terrorists are gonna get us, its unamerican, lets invade Iran to prove its needed to wiretap.
Make fun all you want Caffey. Today, you just weakened a country.

how do you weaken a country but upholding the constitution?

just wonderin'

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 18, 2006, 1:36 pm

Aabidano wrote: A legal way to do the exact same thing already exists, with after the fact oversight. What's the point?

See that is what I don't get.. The existing FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) already authorizes surveillance of NON-US CITIZENS without a court order. They don't need a warrant in that case.

In the case where US citizens are involved, which is your whole concern with this case, the gov't needs a warrant. Then there is this little provision in the existing FISA.

In emergencies, the Attorney General may authorize immediate surveillance but must "as soon as practicable, but not more than twenty-four hours" later, seek judicial review of the emergency application. § 1805(e).

They don't have to wait a week. They don't even have to wait 24 hours.

They can tap whatever they need, whenever they need....so long as they can prove the need was valid. And they only have to submit proof when US citizens are involved.

Nobody wants to stop them from fighting the terrorists. Nobody wants another 9/11. We just want the government to follow the procedures already in place to insure their power is not abused.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » August 18, 2006, 2:30 pm

OMGZ YOU ARE LIVING IN PRE-911 WORLD WITH pre-911!!! THINKING>. THE CONSTITUTION DOESN't APply TO GDUB!

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 18, 2006, 4:56 pm

kyoukan wrote:lol, nice direct plagarizing of a blog.

I assume your moronic comment was directed at me?

The comments are my own. The analysis that I considered vital in forming my opinion can be found at Powerline. I urge your review and please provide the proof of my "direct plagarizing".

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » August 18, 2006, 6:43 pm

NYT - In this case, the administration told Judge Taylor that merely arguing its case would expose top secret information. Judge Taylor said she had reviewed the secret material and concluded it was not relevant. The secrecy claim, she said, was “disingenuous and without merit.”

Sad.

What irritates me even more, is that if I live another 50 years, I will be hearing about all the unscrupulous shit like this that W's sick-brain trust did during all this "United We Stand" phase.

Someday, I'll have to find a list of all the executive orders W. has issued (I think there are mor than a thousand, now), which completly negate the need/use of the Congress.