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.
is it ok to be a Republican and love and admire FDR ? i do.
I do also.
He got us through a war that threatened our way of life. Bush is doing that now, but the opposition would rather have our nation harmed than Bush get credit for success. Our domestic enemies are almost as sick as our Islamofascist enemies.
I think he was a great leader and had a lot of guts. he looked out for our troops and he would never have put up with the anti military liberalism of today. he would be furious with the modern democratic party.
he was a good man.
That's a great analysis! Thanks for posting it.
Thanks for the ping...
I love your tagline!
you sound like a liberal talking about Bush.
you sound like a liberal talking about Bush.You took the words right out of my mouth.
Perhaps a better comparison than Bush to FDR would be Liebermann to FDR, despite his running left today suggesting that Rumsfeld resign.
My sentiments exactly! As I recall his wife didn't think much of him as well - after she caught him in bed with her secretary. Never slept with him again.
I seem to recall what Eleanor looked like... of course, that and all that time she spent traipsing all over the world on this cause and that would be irrelavent. Actually, FDR and William J. sound a lot alike.
It appears that some folks on this thread don't like the facts you have presented! They want to stray off topic and attempt to divert the focus on fdr.
Her looks had nothing to do with it - he married her. If his wife couldn't trust him - Who could?
FDR vastly expanded the power of the Federal government and almost destroyed the nation. We are still recovering from new deal programs and legislations to this day. I think he was one of hte worst presidents ever....
Judge Rules Wiretaps of Terrorists Unconstitutional
At the urging of the American Civil Liberties Union, Detroit Judge Anna Diggs Taylor has ordered the Bush Administration to shut down the National Security Agency's wiretapping program. “Listening in on someone else’s phone calls is impolite,” said Taylor. “It is an intolerable invasion of privacy.”
The judge brushed aside what she snidely referred to as "King George’s" argument that the taps were necessary to keep tabs on the adversaries of the United States. “There is no proof that all of the people being spied on are our adversaries,” Taylor observed. “Even if they are, it would be unfair to spy on them. This would be the equivalent of eavesdropping on the other team’s huddle. It’s not fair. Our Constitution requires fairness. It’s in one of the Amendments somewhere, I think. Therefore, these wiretaps are Unconstitutional.”
read more...
http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm
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.