Judge Rules NSA Wiretapping Unconstitutional 781
strredwolf writes "CNN is reporting that NSA's warrantless wiretapping program has been ruled unconstitutional. This is the ACLU lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars, and lawyers. From the article: "U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.""
So What? (Score:5, Interesting)
The most important question (Score:5, Interesting)
-Sj53
Accountability (Score:2, Interesting)
Good compilers know enough to optimize out a test if nothing will be done as a result of that test. Seems to me that the U.S. courts could've gone the same route and just skipped the trial.
Re:Trust us! We're the government! (Score:2, Interesting)
Ever since I heard about the wiretapping issues, when I talk to my friend over my cell phone, I sometimes say hi to the NSA just for fun. They never respond though...
I am so glad to hear about this decision! I hope that the message has been sent now: We will not tolerate being spied upon for no apparent reason.
Divisive Issues (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:*Jaw drops* (Score:2, Interesting)
Now let's see if the government that ignores the constitution and rule of law will ignore the ruling of a judge as well.
I wonder if ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Which Congressman? (Score:5, Interesting)
Note: Conyers backed down [washingtonpost.com] this past May.
From the conservative bench (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course, you do realize that if NSA contests this judgement in the U.S. Supreme Court, Mr. Bush has his men there.
Re:Trust us! We're the government! (Score:3, Interesting)
However, I've always disagreed with this argument. I use the Mafia example. Let's say the government DOES get a grant to tap a criminal's phone line. Then YOU call him... now YOUR call is being tapped because of who you called. That's the way it works. Otherwise the government has to have permission to tap both parties phones. That's ridiculous.
From what I understand, in this case, the government got international phone numbers that were stored in cell phones they found in Al Qaeda hideouts in Afghanistan. These are the numbers they were tapping (on the U.S. side, so calls out to and in from these numbers were tapped). If that's the case, I have no problem with it...
Except that they could have gotten warrants and avoided a lot of problems.
Also, the phrase "Domestic Wiretap", in this case, is a blatant mischaracterization of what was being done. The score, in my opinion, is zero-zero...
The administration shouldn't have done it without the easily obtained warrants...
But the media made a much bigger story out of it and mischaracterized what exactly was happening.
They're all a bunch of %$@%$@#@'s.
Wait till Jr. pulls an Andrew Jackson (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Trust us! We're the government! (Score:2, Interesting)
For instance, if you asked if you supported "Bush's warrantless, unregulated wiretapping program" then you would probably get less than 50% approval.
However, if you asked if you supported "Anonymous wiretapping to promote US Security" then you would probably get more than 50% approval.
So there are two morals to this story. First, every one has an opinion. Including the survey makers. They can (and in most cases will) skew the questions to achieve the results they really want. Second, statistics are just statistics. Even if 0 or 100% of a poll/survey/whatever said one thing, you should still make up your own mind and vote accordingly.
Again, not going to pick a side, but it should be assumed that the gov't is going to appeal. As with the scenario above, people have different opinions. I'm not saying it was that judges personal agenda to shoot this down, but if it were then there is just as good a chance that the next hearing will have someone with a different view and the ruling will be overturned.
Re:So What? (Score:3, Interesting)
Look, I think Bush is a huge jerk and an incompetent leader, but I do expect that we will obey a court decision. His administration has become extremely "creative" in their interpretation of the law, I admit, but in the end this will come down to a decision by the SCOTUS on interpreting the constitution. I don't think there's much evidence to suggest that they would dispute that ability of the SCOTUS. Moreover, even the gutless yes men that surround Bush would, no doubt, inform him that not abiding by the SCOTUS decision would fundamentally undermine the rule of law, destabilize our government, and do great damage to the country. That's something that Bush does not want, no matter who bad a president he may be.
So, if the supreme court rules against them, the Bush administration will abide by the decision, or at least some creatively interpreted version of it. Perhaps more likely is that they'll do as they did in the Jose Padilla case and have a sudden change of heart at the last minute if they believe the decision will not go their way, hope to avoid having the decision actually made against them. I don't know if that would work here.
Re:So What? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now for the next question: What if the president goes on a criminal rampage out of sight? What if he wipes his ass with the constitution? What if he destroys the few remaining shreds of democracy left in the current system? Would he get away without punishment? I'll leave the answer up to you.
Re:Trust us! We're the government! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:So What? (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually... (Score:5, Interesting)
The congress unfortunately is utterly corrupt and has failed for 6 years to meet it's oversight responsibilities. There is zero chance that the current congress will impeach. Vote and pray for the Democrats in 2006. Then there will be a small but real chance that the Criminal in Chief will be held accountable for his may crimes.
"...the rights to free speech and privacy." (Score:4, Interesting)
Searching the consitution... [usconstitution.net]
Free Speech - Check.
Privacy... searching... hmmm.
<tinfoil_hat> Just wait - when a supreme court rules you don't have privacy, what other famous cases based on privacy will fall? </tinfoil_hat>
BTW - here is a reasoned argument on why there is such a right [harrybrowne.org].
Re:*Jaw drops* (Score:3, Interesting)
And, buried way down here in the comments where the
See, here's the thing. The program almost certainly isn't unconstitutional. Yes, the judge has ruled it so, but she produced almost literally no analysis to support that conclusion. She deals with the administration's 4th amendment exceptions arguments by -- almost completely ignoring them. The opinion is, after one day, already taking a drubbing by scholars on both sides of the political spectrum.
Now, here's the other thing: There is a very good chance SCOTUS might find the program *illegal*. But that's not the same thing as unconstitutional. Lots of things are illegal that aren't prohibited by the constitution.
In other words, about 90 percent of this entire
- Alaska Jack
Re:It goes back... (Score:3, Interesting)
Hello? You're the one peddling the "everybody does it" line. I'm the one saying that what Bush did was a crime, illegal, wrong, and he should be impeached for it (see, for example, the link in my my sig.)
Where in the heck do you get off saying that I'm apologizing for Bush's conduct, or for Clinton's? And, for that matter, why is it that you focused on the phrase "ethical relativism", made a baseless accusation in return, but managed to totally ignore the point of my post which is that your "everybody does it" talking point is factually incorrect, in that it conflates two very different things as if they were the same?
President Coolidge fed his cat at the table, the first President Bush vomited into the lap of the Prime Minister of Japan, and the present President Bush talks with his mouth full of food. If some future President kills a dinner guest (which, unlike the other items, is illegal, even when the president does it), would you trot out some sort of "Presidents have always had atrocious table manners" line?
--MarkusQ
Even better! (Score:5, Interesting)
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could turn back the clock 10 years and have our greatest concern about the President be, quite legitimately, that he once lied in a deposition for a civil case?
The difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush is Bill Clinton thought he had to break the law to cover his ass. George Bush doesn't think the law applies to him in the first place.
Re:Impeachment (Score:3, Interesting)
Take a look at the Bill of Rights (which contains the clauses used to find this program unconstitutional) and tell me which one contains the words "resident" or "citizen."
Funny... none of them do. Our founders held those rights to be inalienable - self evident - for all humans. They didn't want our government to be allowed to violate anyone's rights, including people who aren't Americans.
I realize our current legal establishment doesn't look at the issue that way, but they ought to. Those are human rights, not American Citizen's rights.
Storm the Castle and Arrest the King and His Men! (Score:2, Interesting)
According to this statement This means that "Senior Gonzales" is going to get the President, who authorhized this UNCONSTITUTIONAL program, to continute the program against the judges ruling.
I would be reasonable enought to arrest the President of the United States for treason against his own country.
Hopefully, the Judge thought of the possiblity that Gonzales would go to the President and has a plan to stop the the program from continuing.
Gonzales and Bush are more concerned about protecting that small group of rich men in Washington. Why would $60 Million that is suppose to be used by DHS's science and technology division be used to hire extra security guards at a building owned by the Treasury Department?
NEVER sacrifice true freedom for false security!
Re:I'm glad this isn't my job.. (Score:2, Interesting)
There is a very real, very effective way to accomplish this without circumventing U.S. laws.
Step 1: Find people that you want to wiretap (internationally if that's what you need)
Step 2: Obtain a WARRANT from a closed court which has its records sealed.
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Stop terrorists.
The only action missing from much of the presidential wiretapping programs is not that they wiretap, but rather they do it without ANY checks and balances. If you'll recall from your high school civics class, checks and balances are part of the strength of our government. Ideally, no one portion can be given undue influence over our entire government. In instances such as this, the courts are not just thrown in there, willy-nilly, just because. They are meant to be put in place as a bulwark to prevent someone from, I don't know, say, going around an wiretapping people without any necessary rhyme or reason.
Does President Bush have reason to wiretap the people he is? Probably. And it's probably effective at doing things that help unearth and stop terrorist cells. I hope so. You can't have reason alone though. People often only behave in ways the think is reasonable, even if it means plowing airplanes into buildings. You can't have an executive that gets to operate by REASON alone. He needs justification, and accountability. Warrants provide that.
So to summarize, you can wiretap whoever the hell you want, but please, pretty please get a warrant first.