Judge Rules Against Wiretaps ( halt delayed till Sept 7)

Judge Rules Against Wiretaps
NSA Program Called Unconstitutional

By Dan Eggen and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 18, 2006; Page A01

......

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ordered a halt to the wiretap program, secretly authorized by President Bush in 2001, but both sides in the lawsuit agreed to delay that action until a Sept. 7 hearing. Legal scholars said Taylor's decision is likely to receive heavy scrutiny from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit when the Justice Department appeals, and some criticized her ruling as poorly reasoned.

..........


Ruling in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups in the Eastern District of Michigan, Taylor said that the NSA wiretapping program, aimed at communications by potential terrorists, violates privacy and free speech rights and the constitutional separation of powers among the three branches of government. She also found that the wiretaps violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law instituted to provide judicial oversight of clandestine surveillance within the United States.

.......Congressional Republicans quickly condemned Taylor's ruling, and the Republican National Committee issued a news release titled, "Liberal Judge Backs Dem Agenda To Weaken National Security." Taylor, 73, was appointed to the bench in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter....

The NSA declined to discuss Taylor's ruling or whether it had suspended any surveillance activities. The office of John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, also declined to comment....

Judge Taylor ruled that the NSA spying was illegal and should be immediately stopped. But there is a delay in enforcing that ruling until a September 7 hearing, in which the government will argue that this delay should continue until after they can get an appeals court ruling.

So the NSA spying is illegal, but it's OK to keep breaking the law until September 7? And how long will that hearing take? And if Judge Taylor grants a stay until after this case is heard on appeal, whonder how long that process will take?

I'm glad lawyers aren't firemen or ambulance drivers.

Regardless of what your position is on the merits of the issue, there's no question that it's a poorly reasoned decision," said Bobby Chesney, a national security law specialist at Wake Forest University who takes a moderate stance on the legal debate over the NSA program. "The opinion kind of reads like an outline of possible grounds to strike down the program, without analysis to fill it in."

there's no question? This is a moderate stance?

Once again the Washington Post writes a well balanced "cough" piece that carefully examines issues involved with Bush's WOT policies.

It is obviousl breach of the existing Law. Duh Bush is breaking the law period. The only thing left to determine is how much account he needs to be held to. Feingold tried a censure and it got shot down by our side as much as the repugs. How many more ways can it be said "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"

"Sedition is a term of law to refer to covert conduct such as speech and organization that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often included subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws."

Clearly, this attack by the RNC on Judge Anna Diggs Taylor qualifies as sedition.

...in the Ray Gun years.

Creep.

.. it's blatantly unconstitutional and illegal...

.. and the court has ruled against it...

.. yet it's allowed to go on.

Upsidedown Bushworld continues.

Pension Protection Act = Pension Destruction Act

Illegan NSA spying = Safeguarding America from Terrorists = Safeguarding BushInc from Liberal Activists

Ugggggghhhhhhhh


Sue

is put into place until an appeals court looks at it. This is out of the norm for the illegal act to be allowed to continue...

This one reads like a rw hit piece.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-nsa18aug18,0,7908302.story?coll=la-home-headlines


Taylor, an appointee of President Carter, specifically rejected the contention that the president had inherent authority to create such a wiretapping program. "There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution," she said in her 44-page decision.

Taylor said that if the program were allowed to continue, it would irreparably harm the rights of the plaintiffs, which included the American Civil Liberties Union, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Greenpeace, and individuals, including scholars and attorneys. "The public interest is clear in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote.

snip

The government has attempted to have the suit in Detroit and the other challenges thrown out on two grounds. First, Justice Department lawyers maintain that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they have been injured by the program. Second, the government argues that even if the plaintiffs could show they are entitled to sue, the case should be barred because of the state-secrets privilege.

snip

The judge said that if she were to accept the government's contention that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue, a host of illegal acts by the government "would be immunized from judicial scrutiny. It was never the intent of the Framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights."