Posted on 08/17/2006 9:06:43 AM PDT by sinkspur
A federal district judge in Detroit has ruled that the Bush administration's NSA surveillance of phone conversations is unconstitutional.
Absolutely an absurd decision, as the courts are now ruling on moot, hypothetical cases to try and impose their will on elected officials with whom they disagree.
Total abuse of judicial power.
If the ACLU had an actual victim of wiretapping, a real life terrorist who suffered real damages by having their plans twarted by this program , the judge's decision would have still been wrong, but it wouldn't have been as tyrannical.
But here , there is no aggrieved party.
Its particularly ironic that the judge refers to the president in the ruling as a would be "king", when reality is that the judge is assuming that very rule.
The irony in that statement is so thick I would need a chainsaw to cut through it.
Prithee tell me, since when is a judicial ruling that the government cannot spy on its citizens without a warrant tyrannical?
There is no tyranny in liberty, my friend.
Uh, no it doesn't. Warrantless searches apply to those involving a domestic party and an international party. There is simply no reason to have to go to a FISA judge when a terrorist in the Phillipines is speaking to a contact in the United States, citizen or not.
I would also apply that to a known terrorist suspect in the United States when he is speaking to someone domestically, though I can see the case for eventually getting a FISA warrant.
And, if you'll go up the thread, you'll see plenty of judicial opinions over the last 20 years that give a great deal of leeway to the CIC in wartime to surveil terrorist suspects, even without a warrant.
It's so clearly going to be overturned as soon as it gets to the Appeals Court, or the Supreme Court. I mean, it's been proved that the only calls monitored are ones where at least one of the parties is in a nation that has terrorists in it, and no call monitored has both parties IN the U.S.. And that program is what stopped the five Muslims in Miami last month that wanted to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago. And the head of the program has made it clear that the program has stopped DOZENS of other attacks before they happened. And it's been mentioned several times that it played a hand in stopping the attack that was to take place from Heathrow. All that good it's done, and no ones civil rights violated, and STILL some extremist radical liberal Judge who apparently cares more about not violating rights of terrorists than protecting the general public, says the program has to stop because it's unconstitutional.
I read the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments regularly, and I've not seen any sentence in there that would remotely indicate, even vaguely, that the Government can't monitor communications between either citizen or foreign national in the U.S., and someone in a foreign country, if those communications are believed to be relating to an attack or some other hostile act to be carried out on American soil. I don't understand how people can make decisions so detrimental to their own safety and everyone elses safety, and then be pleased about making them. It's crazy. Oh well, as is usually the case, the media and the libs will hopp and hollar, and then in not too long a time, it will be overturned, and ignored, and the liberals will pretend that it wasn't over turned, or call Bush a Nazi again. They always either do one of those two things. Most Americans don't mind this program since it was made clear many months ago that it never monitors calls made and received both in the U.S.. So this is a really stupid fight for liberals to pick, just like on all other major issues, the Democrats are on the wrong side of the majority of the American people. Stupid liberals. They're going to lose this one too. :)
I think you got it right.
Warrantless searches apply to those involving a domestic party and an international party. There is simply no reason to have to go to a FISA judge when a terrorist in the Phillipines is speaking to a contact in the United States, citizen or not.You still need a warrant if one party involved is a "United States person", under USC Title 50 Sec. 1802, though. The USAG can't authorize a warrantless search under that section. Is there another law that says different?
A "United States person" is defined as a citizen or a legal permanent resident alien, or corporation (more or less).
--R.
I read the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments regularly, and I've not seen any sentence in there that would remotely indicate, even vaguely, that the Government can't monitor communications between either citizen or foreign national in the U.S., and someone in a foreign country, if those communications are believed to be relating to an attack...I agree, it's legal to monitor communications, as long as you comply with the law. The relevant law is FISA, which is USC Title 50. Sections 1801-1811 cover electronic surveillance.
If nobody involved is a citizen (or legal permanent-resident alien), then S.1802 allows warrantless monitoring on the USAG's say-so (more or less) for a year.
If there's a reasonable risk one of the parties is a US citizen, then you need to apply for a warrant, under the law. Exceptions exist for 15 days after Congress declares war (no longer applicable) and 'emergency orders' by the USAG who then has to go inform a judge [1805(f)], which I gather they don't do either.
FISA needs updated for today's issues and problems, and the Executive needs to get back to following the law in any event.
--R.
No you don't. You misread the 4th amendment.
The 4th amendment has to do with gathering evidence for a criminal prosecution.
Listening in on a terrorist's call is gathering information to prevent an attack, an entirely different thing.
This silly ruling is going to get thrown post haste.
The Judge seems to say that the power to enact such a program should come from Congress. Where does the Constitution say that?
"Up next, federal judge rules Constitution really is a suicide pact!"
Yeah. This seems to be the path their logic is following...
If the Congress passed a law saying "nobody can ever write anything negative about anyone who holds federal office", I could (and would) break that law early and often. Wouldn't you? If a law is unconstitutional, it can (and in most cases probably should) be broken.
There are only three interesting questions in this case. Did the President violate FISA? If so, is FISA Constitutional? And if the answer to either of those is no, then did the President violate the Fourth Amendment?
The decision says the executive "undisputedly" violated FISA... (but then a few paragraphs later goes on to say that the executive does dispute the claim and points to the AUMF). Did the POTUS indeed violate FISA? Maybe.... eh... probably. I think resting on AUMF is colorable... but weak.
But that is meaningful only if FISA is Constitutional. Is it? Probably not. Could the President sign an executive order requiring Congress to submit all proposed laws to a judge before they could be voted on? No. Such an order would have a seemingly Constitutional purpose (to prevent Congress from writing potentially harmful laws that don't pass Constitutional muster) but would violate the Separation of Powers. This decision doesn't even comment on the constitutionality of FISA... saying since the President violated the Fourth Amendment it doesn't matter one way or another.
But how did the court come to the conclusion that the President violated the Fourth Amendment? According to the decision, the POTUS violated the Fourth Amendment by violating FISA (circular reasoning alert!) and... get this... "Accordingly, the Fourth Amendment... requires prior warrants for any reasonable search...
The fourth amendment requires warrants for any reasonable search? What? Since When? So no more exigent circumstances? No more Terry stops? What about 'plain sight'? What about people on parole? When I'm at an airport can I refuse to go through the metal detector? There are plenty of warrantless searches found to pass Constitutional muster. The cases she sites all acknowledge that there are times when warrants aren't required. She's dismissed them all.
(She also claims that the President violated the First Amendment. Can you explain to me how the president could possibly have violated the clause that begins "Congress shall make no law..."? )
muslim lawyers who work for aclu went shopping for the perfect judge one appointed by jimmy carter what else could you expect
Un effin believable these liberal traitorous judges. Thanks Jimmah....your legacy lives on.
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.