Posted on 08/20/2006 9:26:23 PM PDT by Sergeant Tim
In his first Inaugural Address, March 4, 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt said:
This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory.
‘Fear itself’ was Judge Anne Diggs Taylor’s lone justification for granting standing to the plaintiffs in A.C.L.U. v N.S.A. In her decision, the judge wrote:
Plaintiffs here contend that the TSP [Terrorist Surveillance Program] has interfered with their ability to carry out their professional responsibilities in a variety of ways, including that the TSP has had a significant impact on their ability to talk with sources, locate witnesses, conduct scholarship, engage in advocacy and communicate with persons who are outside of the United States, including in the Middle East and Asia. Plaintiffs have submitted several declarations to that effect… All of the Plaintiffs contend that the TSP has caused clients, witnesses and sources to discontinue their communications with plaintiffs out of fear that their communications will be intercepted. They also allege injury based on the increased financial burden they incur in having to travel substantial distances to meet personally with their clients and others relevant to their cases.
The NSA seeks to intercept the enemy’s communications and not one plaintiff could show they “have suffered an injury in fact – an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” She decided for the plaintiffs based only upon the plaintiffs’ “well founded belief.” Within her decision, the judge points out the September 14, 2001, Joint Resolution of Congress (Senate Resolution 23):
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Perhaps Judge Anne Diggs Taylor just does not know what the meaning of ‘all’ is. After all, she left out altogether that the Constitution confers all authority to Congress to declare and fund war and to the president to conduct war and no authority at all to the judicial branch in such matters. In order to insert herself, as a federal judge, into matters of war, she had to first confer, by proxy, standing upon the only party actually injured by the Terrorist Surveillance Program: the enemy.
It seems as if Congress authorizing President George W. Bush to injure the enemy has angered the judge. What else explains her, by proxy, granting the injured enemy standing, disregarding FDR’s words about ‘fear itself,’ and granting uninjured plaintiffs standing based solely upon fear? Barring that, the only other possible explanation would be that she made a political decision and we all know a federal judge would never do that.
Judge Diggs Taylor’s decision would saddle the defense of our nation by this and all future Presidents with an impossible burden. For example, the communications of a person abroad to a terrorist abroad to confirm a hotel reservation could be intercepted yet the communications of a person in the United States to that same terrorist, to confirm that same reservation, could not be intercepted without a warrant. If the NSA were tracking that one lone terrorist, perhaps taking the time before or after the fact to get a warrant would be reasonable. Yet our intelligence agencies are attempting to gather information about the activities and whereabouts of thousands of terrorists, a myriad or organizations, and a worldwide network that must communicate from afar or risk giving away their associations and deadly missions by physically meeting instead.
What explains the joy expressed about this decision by the editors of the New York Times? Their words betray them:
She also offered a scathing condemnation of what lies behind the wiretapping — Mr. Bush’s attempt to expand his powers to the point that he can place himself beyond the reach of Congress, judges or the Constitution… “There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution,” wrote Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the United States District Court in Detroit. Her decision was based on a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union… The ruling eviscerated the absurd notion on which the administration’s arguments have been based: that Congress authorized Mr. Bush to do whatever he thinks is necessary when it authorized the invasion of Afghanistan.
Yet in the Times’ final paragraph are all of the words you need to read to discover why the plaintiffs filed in her court and the judge decided as she did:
“…one judge in Michigan has done what 535 members of Congress have so abysmally failed to do. She has reasserted the rule of law over a lawless administration.”
The American people have successfully directed those empowered by the Constitution to defend our nation since 1789. Yet the New York Times, the ACLU, and activists judges seek to fix what is not broke.
Heheh! Bookmark.
Of course you are correct. It would be simply another exercise at exposing dem hypocrisy. They put Jackson on a pedestal for being such a powerful president, yet would condemn Bush for it.
Examples of dem hypocrisy are far too common, so there no need to do it here. However, I disagree with the administration's approach. They should drop their Patriot Act argument and instead focus on established legal precedent (i.e. the Truong and Keith decisions). Keith was first argued in the same Circuit, so it should be quite easy to illustrate that Judge Taylor's decision overturns the legal precedent established by her very own Circuit Court of Appeals.
Of course you are correct. It would be simply another exercise at exposing dem hypocrisy. They put Jackson on a pedestal for being such a powerful president, yet would condemn Bush for it.
Examples of dem hypocrisy are far too common, so there no need to do it here. However, I disagree with the administration's approach. They should drop their Patriot Act argument and instead focus on established legal precedent (i.e. the Truong and Keith decisions). Keith was first argued in the same Circuit, so it should be quite easy to illustrate that Judge Taylor's decision overturns the legal precedent established by her very own Circuit Court of Appeals.
Oops. That last one was from the Department of Redundancy Department.
Lone wolf amendment
In 2004, FISA was amended to include a "lone wolf" provision. 50 U.S.C. §1801(b)(1)(C). A "lone wolf" is a non-US person who engages in or prepares for international terrorism. The provision amended the definition of "foreign power" to permit the FISA courts to issue surveillance and physical search orders without having to find a connection between the "lone wolf" and a foreign government or terrorist group.[15]
And beyond the fact that both Carter and Clinton used the old unamended version of FISA for this exact same kind of wire tapping, but in peace time and not against terrorists:
E.O. 12139 - Jimmy Carter's Executive order to provide as set forth in FISA for the authorization of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes
E.O. 12949 - Bill Clinton's Executive order to provide for the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
Beyond these important points, there is precedent set by FIVE other Judges in FIVE seperate court cases, in which ALL five of those Judges found the NSA wire tapping program was totally legal and constitution, and threw the cases out. That is QUITE compelling, and it's highly doubtful that the appeals court will uphold this pathetic partisan liberal agenda driven rulling by a sub-standard Judge who's sat on the same low court for 27 years. This ruling will only serve to anger many Americans like us and become a conservative talking point to drive more conservatives to the polls to stop these kinds of radical Judges from taking to ANY court, because with a GOP controlled Congress, NO liberal activist Judicial nominee will EVER get out of committee for a floor vote. And THAT is of critical importance, especially has unlikely as it is that Stevens or Ginsburg will make it to the end of Bush's term.
This is so important because the Judiciary effect ALL other major issues. The war (which liberal Judges have inserted themselves into the war), border control, immigration, gay marraige, Abortion, and states rights. All the major issues are effected by the courts and a GOP Congress is CRITICAL to stopping old liberal Judges from being replaced with new liberal Judges.
You have seemed to embraced some dubious theories propogated by crackpot academics. FDR's trying to spend America out of the depression certainly did not prolong it. In fact, it was precisely the right thing to do. If anything, he didn't spend enough. It was only until 1942 that the US fully emerged from the depression. Why? Government spending in the form of military outlays acted as a huge prime pump for the economy. When a depression hits, the solution is to either boost government spending, cut taxes, or expand the money supply, or have both. (Reagan certainly did this in response to the grim recession of the early 1980s.) The Fed cut the money supply in 1929 and Hoover tried to balance the federal budget (the economic theory of the time told him it was the correct thing to do) and the combination of these two measures made the depression significantly worse. In the 1930s, we really didn't have a good handle on how the economy works; hence Roosevelt's experimentation and occasional blunder. It is not to far fetched to argue that Roosevelt essentially saved capitalism and the Constitution in this country.
There is no evidence that Roosevelt wanted Pearl Harbor to occur.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.