Guess now he'll have to get warrants...

[deleted, violation of comment policy]

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DECLARED that the TSP [Terrorist/Democrat Spying Program] violates the Separation of Powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III"

The truth shall set you free!

maybe it needs a regular review by congress to ensure no abuse.

me thinks the solicitor general could sucessfully argue to SCOTUS that no US district judge has standing to render any judgement.

Why is the American Left so determined for us to lose the war on terror?

Yeah, what the American Left should do is just sit back and let you Republicans keep on losing the war on terror on your own.

Wait, you mean that the government has to follow the constitution? Since when?!? This is a deep hit for the neocons, I hope they don't get discouraged and start following OTHER laws.

The ACLU (ultra-liberal) filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists (mostly liberals), scholars (the far left liberal elite) and lawyers (more liberals). Any guess about the judge?

All the more reason we need to clean every last one of the [activist] liberal judges from the legal system.

Hopefully the appeals process and ultimately the Supreme Court will overturn the "ruling". We still need to remove a couple more of the liberal law-giver judges there too!

All the more reason we don't need liberals in decision or policy making positions -- anywhere!

Still gotta' wonder why the liberal left and Dimocrats are so worried about people knowing information about the anti-Americans and where the terrorist and anti-American money is going -- overseas as well as in America.

Conservatives should start doing all of the necessary preparatory work now so that when the next terrorist attack occurs, we can get the laws and amendments in place to fix the problems -- permanently!!! Let terrorist blow up a few more planes, buildings, and an occasional mall and Americans will toss the liberal views in the trash where they belong!

AAR

Academicians have a “Constitutional right” to communicate with "overseas contacts (that) are likely targets of the program”? A “right” to speak with our enemies! This is an absurd argument.
Q. What do you call a “C” student in Law School?
A. Your Honor.

Let me see if I get this: a judge that takes a strict non-interative reading to the bill of right is a liberal judge that needs to be gotton rid of. Seems in the CON's view an activist judge is not based on how the ruling is made but rather if the CONS agree with the ruling. Has she taken an Activist view and said that the right to search no longer needs a warrant (clearly not that the BOR says) you would have all cheered her.... WOW

Matt,

I didn't realize the Constitution was a terrorist document. (I guess I must have a pre-9/11 mindset.)

You say that warrantless wiretapping (oops, I mean the Terrorist Surveillance Program) has stopped terrorist and saved lives. Can you back that up with some evidence?

AAR, so you're hoping for more terrorist attacks on the US? Next time you get ready to rant about terrorist-loving liberals, remember that you've just advocated blowing up Americans in support of your political party. Who's the terrorist now???

AAR,

There's already a place where the president has all the powers you suggest. All you have to do is move there...oh, and learn Russian.

By the way, wishing for more terror attacks so you can change the constitution and rule of law? Sounds like you should work for the administration. Maybe in the DOJ.

I honestly think the left hates America, the America that has existed. They are bound and determined to change America to being totally PC, socialist, you name it. They scream about wire tapping and then they abuse the freedoms we do have making PC their rule of what is permitted. It makes me sick, they make me sick.

Georgia,

Are you purposely ignoring the 6782 FISA warrants the Bush Administration has gotten from Jan 02 to Dec 05? Or the hundreds, or thousands, that they have gotten since Dec 05?

Or are you ignorant of these facts?

You are probably also ignorant of the fact that when the terrorist and their supporters in the US are using disposable cellphones, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get a warrant. You don't know who has the cellphone or where the cellphone is located. So it is IMPOSSIBLE to get the warrant. So we should just let the terrorists, and their supportive journalists, scholars, and lawyers to continue their plans to kill us?

I am not happy the judge ruled that the program be stopped - I would think there would have been some loop hole or quick fix could have been applied to continue to collect information - but I am happy that ruling will force the program and the administration to comply with the law.

And please don't call me a liberal. I am not. I voted for the president. I voted for his father back in `92 when I turned 18. I agree with the administration on most issues. But, this is one that I do not agree on like many conservatives. With may the exception of Harriet Miers - remember "Bush 'picks' Miers"?

I love the use of the term "wiretapping", it is such a 30's term something out of Al Capone. You have an image of some FED in a telecom closet with snippers cutting into a phone line. It is very quaint. What we are doing is called "data-mining". Looking for key words and then digging deeper when there are trends. This is just one of the ways that we are going to beat the enemy. A great judge said' The Bill of rights is not a suicide compact" and he was correct.

The reality is that the ACLU went judge-shopping and came up with a doozie. He will be overturned on appeal. This ain't over until the fat lady sings, and the fat lady's name is SCOTUS. But it may never make it there because this is such a bad decision it won't likely get that far before it is overturned and the "grounds" so destroyed that further appeal by those who think terrorist rights are really, really important will be so obviously futile even they will give up.

Whats wrong with Bush getting a Warrant, like the Constitution states???

I see this ruleing as a protection of our rights and that Bush needs a warrant to spy on us.

Reverend Scaramonga

Please tell me in detail, just how a very conserative strict reading of the 4th amendment is "such a bad decision". Would you have rather an activist judge that would 'interpet" the 4th?

It's a little thing called the Constitution. The men who wrote the Constitution had the silly idea that unchecked executive power is a bad idea. Are you so afraid of "the terrorists" that you would replace the Constitution with an unaccountable executive? In some countries they call that guy a "strong man" or a "dictator."

President Bush took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the CONSTITUTION OF the United States..." He isn't defending it, he's trashing it. It amazes me that people who call themselves "conservatives" not only approve, but cheer while he does it. I think that your blind fear of "the terrorists" is making you lose your way.

I would give odds that there are some CONS on this board that would not only approve of Bush trashing the 4th in the name of the GWOT, but would whole-heartly agree with him if he wanted to suspend elections for a few (say 10) years!!!

There is hope, afterall, that the Constitution may yet be saved from Republican shredders.

Oh, and Republicans need no assistance in losing the war on terror. Bush himself said it cannot be won:

In an interview on NBC-TV's "Today" show (8/2004), Bush replied to the question "Can we win [the war on terror]," with "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

Wade

All afluff over nothing folks. They don't have to stop anything. They just have to follow the law. Pretty simple thing to do. Especially when you have so many lawyers working for you.

I mean why should a little CONSTITUTIONAL requirement for representative, senatorial and presidential elections get in the way of the GREAT WAR ON TERRORISM

3moreyears,

Perhaps you should take some courses in English, you know, the language most Americans speak, and that you liberals don't want as our official language.

Re-read my words. I said nothing about "wishing" for another attack on America. The fact is, there will be more terrorists attacks on America. Contrary to what you libbies want the American public to believe, it is not physically impossible to stop all of them -- no matter who is in power. Terrorists only have to be right once; we have to be right an absolute 100% of the time to stop them. It's against the law to kill people, and police can do all the can to stop it, but it will happen one way or the other -- no matter what is done. But... we must do all we can to try!

The goal is to do EVERYTHING humanly POSSIBLE to stop and minimize the attacks. Liberals do all they can to stop those efforts. Until Americans learn and understand the facts, liberals can lie and mislead Americans about the threat, about what can be done, and what must be done. Unfortunately, since it hasn't happened, it is very simple for the Dimocrats to mislead the American public and cause them to make decisions in support of the liberal Dimocrats that, in all probability, will cost many of them their lives.

Since American's cannot understand what is likely and probable, but not yet happened, and since they listen to the lying liberal rhetoric and propaganda -- liberal brain-candy -- we must wait until the unthinkable happens in order for them to understand that the liberal message WILL GET THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES KILLED! No exaggeration! No hyperbole! Just a statement of fact based on reason, logic, and very real probabilities! Mark it in your book. (Based on my past experiences, if I were making a guess, my guess would be probably within 3 years -- coincidentally 3-more-years.)

When those attacks come, it is up to Conservatives and Republicans to have the laws and Constitutional amendments in hand and ready to go while the voters understand the real threat to their lives. At that time, we stand a good chance of making the changes needed to better protect America.

AAR

Please tell me in detail,

No need. Just look at history. Lots of "rights" guaranteed by the Constitution were suspended, restricted, or otherwise curtailed in time of war - and rightfully so. I realize that liberals don't even recognize that there is a war going on, but there is. The fact that they can't see it is proof positive that America was wise to disallow them from the reins of power and assigned them a spectator role in times of danger like this.

Like I said, this ruling will easily be overturned on appeal and anybody but the clueless liberals (and the equally clueless judges they appoint when they have a chance) will understand that.

So try to get that knot out of your panties and have a good day. Oh, and don't make or receive any phone calls from terrorists and you should be in pretty good shape.

This will be overturned on appeal interesting that the anti-American ACLU went to this judge.

Ohiogolfer: A few comments.

First, the Constitution protects against UNREASONABLE search and siezures. The bolded word is one that obviously calls for interpretation. The conservative unhappiness is not because we want an "activist" ruling it is because we believe the Judge blew her interpretation of "unreasonable".

Second, and this applies to a few other posts as well, the Constitution does not require that all search and siezures be accompained by a warrent. Think about "Terry searches" or sobriety checkpoints or airport screenings.

Third, if you want to play the strict constructionist game the 4th Amendment protects aagainst "search AND siezures"-what is being siezed much less searched?

Fourth, the 4th Amendment protects against searches of "persons, houses, papers and effects". how is that happening?

Fifth, for the people that may respond and talk about reasonable expectation of privacy-do you really when talking on a cell phone. Many lawyers used to be very leary about talking on cell phones for concerns that doing so might result in a waiver of the attorney client privilge if the conversation were intercepted. Certianly, if you are talking to suspected terriosts-I think common sense might tell you that
your being listned to.

Does anybody here think that this is just a joke? I don't. Our libbie "friends" must.

Reverend

last time I checked the United States are "in a time of war" is when the Congress, by the way per the constution the only body that can declare war,in fact does. Please tell me when the congress declared war.

OhioGolfer,

You mean like: why should the Constitution get in the way of the activist liberal judges who believe they were Constitutionally designated as the nations law-givers?!!!

How many law suits has the ACLU filed on this issue around the country -- judge shopping -- a common strategy and well known tactic! File enough lawsuits -- in locations known for their activist liberal judges -- and wait for that one suit out of hundreds to "hit the legal lottery jackpot" and get a judge to rule as they want. And who says that judge has any better understanding of the law than another judge who would have ruled otherwise? Who's to say that judge should make the decision of the lives of the rest of the 300,000,000 Americans? Liberals believe that the sun -- AND OUR LIVES -- rises and sets on their liberal law giver judges!

AAR

Conservatives should start doing all of the necessary preparatory work now so that when the next terrorist attack occurs, we can get the laws and amendments in place to fix the problems -- permanently!!!

Not necessary--when the next one occurs, those who are still alive will be living under martial law. Hopefully, I'll survive, because I want to be one of the ones who is appointed to round up the dissenters.

I would give odds that there are some CONS on this board that would not only approve of Bush trashing the 4th in the name of the GWOT, but would whole-heartly agree with him if he wanted to suspend elections for a few (say 10) years!!!

Someone, cue the Twilight Zone music. I would give odds that most trolls on this board have been brain-dead for years.

I mean why should a little CONSTITUTIONAL requirement for representative, senatorial and presidential elections get in the way of the GREAT WAR ON TERRORISM

Music, please, and a straight jacket for OhioGoofy...

During WWII Americans sensed and understood that their very life and livelihood was at stake. They were willing to give up a few right at the present time in order to secure liberty for the future. If we fail that in our time, we will face greater restrictions to liberty in the future. Liberty can only exist when life and limb are secure. Liberty can only be curtailed when people no longer feel secure.

It is clear that Americans feel secure enough not to give up some rights now. It will probably not be until a WMD is set off in the center of an american city that we will then see the seriousness of what we are facing. Apparently 3000 people was not enough to wake us up. Perhaps 3 million will be enough. Who knows?

Yes libbies. That was a typo. It should read "...it is physically impossible to stop all of them -- no matter who is in power."

Hopefully that was the only one. The computer made me do it!

AAR

This decision is typical of liberal Judges, and just the kind of lawsuit that has earned the ACLU its ultra-liberal leftist reputation.

When people feel that they have the "right" to be in contact with terrorists who are trying to kill others they have gone off the deep end. I don't care if the person is a journalist or not. They are communicating with the enemy, and we have the right to monitor those communications. Just as we would have in WWII.

(Hopefully this isn't in "violation" of the comment policy)

Anybody with half a brain could figure out this was unconstitutional. Is it so hard to get a warrant? Bush tramples all over the Constitution and you people --- who claim to be conservative --- don't think twice about it. Yes, it is vital to fight terrorism, but just get a freakin' warrant from a court to do it!!

But Bush is too lazy, or arrogant, or ignorant, or incompetent to figure this out.

Gee- And I thought GW got rid of all the liberal activist judges who are just shills for the ACLU-guess he missed one! How dare she use our Constitution to limit executive power?

Hopefully, I'll survive, because I want to be one of the ones who is appointed to round up the dissenters. Imprison your fellow citizens for disagreeing with your political views? Could we also have summary executions?

Flashback: December 10, 1941 (AP)

A Federal judge has ordered the Roosevelt Administration to cease listening to overseas phone calls and radio transmissions to German and Japanese destinations. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit. comprising of academics, reporters, and other parties stated that they believe their work would be hampered if they could not speak in confidence to members of the Nazi party or the Japanese Imperial Navy.

Its amazing how much a complex subject such as when the President can curtail civil rights can get boiled down to a 30 second catch phrase. The issue with the warrentless wiretaps is not whether they help fight terrorists bu the precedent that it sets.
One of our founding fathers principal reasons for declaring independence was to ensure that the government could no longer arbitraly act without reprecussions. Thats why we not only have seperation of powers, but also a bill of rights. The Founders greatest fear was that we would have an imperial presidency, which is what we have now.
At the same time, America is based on the Common law System meaning that judicial decisions are based on what happened before them. Therefore, if the Supreme Court overturns the Detroit decision it sets the precedent that in the future the president can get more leeway in dealing with "terrorist" threats. Potentially limiting the freedom of the press to express views which are unpopular or oppose the Government. Therefore, during war it is critically important that the courts exercise this power in order to ensure that the balance between liberty and security never swings too far in either direction.
Finally, we are not in a "war" which will be over in the near future, therefore it is particularly important that we find a workable balance and a workable balance should include not violating the Constitution.

To maf53: the fact that the Judge took 43 pages to render her opinion tells me that this is a closer call than you let on. I skimmed the decision and it appears that she ignored about half a dozen cases affirming the power of the executive to gather intelligence on Foreign powers sans warrent. Now we can all argue whether those cases are distinguishable or notor whether the President's power has been clipped by statute-but it hardly make Bush lazy ignorant (or even an unusual president) to push his views of executive power.

Please tell me when the congress declared war.

You libs never cease to amaze me. You go around calling yourselves "progressive" - I assume implying you somehow are always looking to the future and adapting to change if not outright pushing it - and then you come back with a stupid question like that - which indicates you haven't been keeping up.

Who, exactly, would you declare war upon? Saudi Arabia? Iran? The war on terror is global and there is no single country that we can "declare war upon." But it is nonetheless a war. Those smoking holes where the World Trade Center once stood are evidence of that.

This is something that has been evolving since that clown Jimmy Carter stood by and watched the Islamic radicals invade the US Embassy (officially recognized as sovereign territory of the US - which invasion is considered an act of war) and take the entire embassy staff hostage for 444 days, while doing nothing to stop or end it. Only when America got smart enough to send that clown packing and Ronald Reagan made it clear that all Hell would break loose if they didn't release those hostages did they release them - on the day he was sworn in as President. I know, in the alternate universe where liberals inhabit that was just a coinky dinky.

The fact is, the whole idea of a Declaration of War is antiquated thinking in the asymmetrical world of terror. But the congress did the next best thing, passed a resolution authorizing the use of force and funding the war and has not rescinded it, even though some of the faint of heart crowd like J. Fraud Kerry have tried to renege on the deal. Progressive...hahaha! Old-fashioned, unwilling to adapt, and in full denial of the facts that confront you 24/7 whenever the media isn't obsessed with the 10-year old murder of a little girl.

Magnum,

Get this through your head: President Bush, with warrant or without, cannot spy on you.

You and the rest of the liberals have to get past DNC/leftwing talking points about this issue...you look more and more foolish by the day.

Everyone is making this so complicated. It is actually very easy.

If you have nothing to hide. If you are not a terrorist planning to murder others. If you are average Joe Schmo......

THEN YOU HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT!!

Nobody wants to listen to me talking to my MIL about my 2yr old daughter.

Nobody is listening to John Doe talk to his newest girlfriend about their latest escapade.

If any of you are so afraid the Govt wants to listen to YOU on the phone talk about your boring lives, then you need to knock your unnecessarily high ego down a few notches.

The Govt is after people who want to murder YOU. Yes, even you liberals. You should be THANKFUL that we have the means to try and prevent that from happening. You should be supporting our Govt and various agencies who are trying to protect your little liberal booties

This is so typical of most things we hear today that attempt to make the President into something that he isn't. I can see the conversation now. "Mr. President. A U.S. District judge in Detroit just made a ruling about ......." In response the President would say, "OK. Makes sense but that isn't what we were doing so as you were."
Next (in true predictable form) the MSM and Bush haters get whipped into a frenzy thinking that they finally have something on our President and a few weeks later the story goes away because it was at best, a non-story.
But hey, before you continue the rant, just be patient and wait and see. Patience is a virtue and ultimately truth wins.

The fact is, the whole idea of a Declaration of War is antiquated thinking in the asymmetrical world of terror. But the congress did the next best thing, passed a resolution authorizing the use of force and funding the war and has not rescinded it....

Rev., I think the gopher from Ohio and the other ignorant Leftists on this board apparently need a history lesson. Now I realize some of you were in the 4th grade when this was passed, but anyone commenting here that's older than your mid 20's has no excuse other than ignorance (or political bias -- nah, could be that).

The most pertinent part is this:

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- 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. (emphasis - mine)

Comments like "please tell me when Congress declared war", and "Guess now he'll have to get warrants..." have gone beyond the point of wearing thin, and yet you Libs keep repeating them over and over, ad nauseam. Either find some new material or get lost.

This part of the ruling says it best: 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

Now, who knows more about the law ---- this Federal judge, or the wingnuts who post on this site as conservatives? Let's quote AAR:

The ACLU (ultra-liberal) filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists (mostly liberals), scholars (the far left liberal elite) and lawyers (more liberals). Any guess about the judge?

So ... journalists, professors, historians, scientists, and lawyers, and now judges are all "biased liberals." Um, what profession do conservatives make up the majority? Should we have NASCAR fans and farmers ruling on our Constitution instead?

Everybody is interested in killing terrorists. Everybody. It is only the liberals that are concerned with also upholding the Constitution, which is precisely while we will take back the White House in 2008 (Gore/Feingold).

I haven't had a chance to read through all of the posts here, so I apologize if my comments are redunant.

Folks, the president has said it time and time again: we are a nation of laws, not men.

We have an established legal procedure in this country for wiretapping-- FISA. That's the law. The law allows for 3 days of wiretapping before obtaining a warrant, and 15 days of such activities in time of war. Either way, if there was an emergency situation, the government can take immediate, legal action to protect America and its citizens.

The real issue here isn't individual wiretapping. The NSA was tracking ALL telephone calls that ran through the switching stations of those companies participating in the program. This information was reportedly being used to create a database from which analytic modelling of "normal" communications patterns could be developed.

This kind of information can be used for any purpose and is clearly unconstitutional. One of the principal tenets of American conservatism is minimal governmental interference in the lives of American citizens. I don't know about the rest of you. but I don't trust any politician, liberal or conservative, with the power to obtain and use that kind of information.

Maf: Now, who knows more about the law ---- this Federal judge, or the wingnuts who post on this site as conservatives? Let's quote AAR:

Me:
So... judges clearly know more about the law... and you want to leave it at that?

So how do you feel about segregation? how do you feel about children working in factories for 14 hour days...

ALL brilliant judicial opinions by those super smart judges you LOVE...

Don't be stupid dude... the constitutionality of ANYTHING is who can be persuasive enough to get FIVE votes on the Supreme Court... who do you think will win... the United State Government when it goes before Supreme Court on appeal or the ACLU?

And guess what... foreign nationals do not get the protections of the United States Constitution, which just proves how STUPID this Carter appointed judge really is. When you say Carter, do you really need to know anything more?

Maf,

Boy did you nail it! Seems like the voters in Connecticut agree with you.

NOT!!

Lamont down to Lieberman by 12 points and the gap is growing!!!

Bwahhahahahahahahaha!

We are not at war.

A war means sacrifice -- a draft, tax hikes, etc.

Our soldiers are at war. Our nation is not.

Let me get this straight, because Democrats want spying to be done legally, with warrants, and oversight, that means we're in favor of terrorism?

And you wonder why Democrats get angry...

*Sighs*

Why am I not surprised?

Though making a lot of hullabaloo out of this ruling is pointless since it will be immedietly applealed (like this). I await a final decision before I even think of getting worked up.

I always find it fascinating how leftists get up on their hindlegs and bray about the "sanctity of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights" and then get all bent out of shape when SCOTUS rules against them - Boy Scouts, 2nd Amendment cases, States' Rights, etc. Kind of marks them as raging hypocrits.

The truth of this matter is that one little district judge doesn't have the power to declare the terroist surveillance program unconstitional: if I had a nickel for every liberal judge who's been slapped silly by SCOTUS over my lifetime I'd be a millionare.

AAR,

Hit a nerve eh?

maf wrote,
"Anybody with half a brain could figure out this was unconstitutional"
If that's the requirement, I guess you're qualified.

But, to the larger point, courts routinely make stupid decisions, this one will also be overturned.

We are not at war.

The scary part is the fact you libs actually swallow that swill.

The scary part is the fact you libs actually swallow that swill.

By your logic, we have been "at war" with the "Islamofascists" for the past 30 years or so ... and the Decider is the only one to figure this out?

What the airline plot foiled by the Brits shows us is that the "terra war" is best fought by dilligent police work. The best thing about that plot being foiled? Not a single American had to die for it, including our soldiers.

phnxbmed,

"Boy did you nail it! Seems like the voters in Connecticut agree with you.
NOT!!
Lamont down to Lieberman by 12 points and the gap is growing!!!"

Those votes represent Republicans who are turning away from their own candidate to vote for an (ex)Democrat.

Oh, and regarding the topic:
IS there any target out there that has been monitored by the warrentless wiretaps that can not be monitored just as easily, just as secretly, and just as effectively, with a warrented wiretap?

Hasn't any of the liBS, who have commented here about the violations of the Constitution, the FISA, etc. etc. etc., actually read the FISA documents?

FISA allows for warrantless wire taps! Surprise! Conditions exist where surveillance can be placed without a warrent even on American citizens!

Now, who pushed and passed the FISA? Liberals! Jimmy Carter and the Democrats in Congress! Who used the FISA on American citizens that had nothing to do with American Security??? Why, none other than Bill Clinton. He used the act to spy on Americans in order to broker trade deals with foreign nations, when those US CITIZENS worked for foreign corporations that were looking do business with the United States.

What happened? Bill of course got a pass....while those who are trying to thwart terrorism get obstructed....

Go figure........now tell me that there is no agenda on the liBS. What if we had a lib president?

SSSHHHUUUDDDEEERRR......

phnxbmed,

"Boy did you nail it! Seems like the voters in Connecticut agree with you.
NOT!!
Lamont down to Lieberman by 12 points and the gap is growing!!!"

Those votes represent Republicans who are turning away from their own candidate to vote for an (ex)Democrat.

Oh, and regarding the topic:
IS there any target out there that has been monitored by the warrentless wiretaps that can not be monitored just as easily, just as secretly, and just as effectively, with a warrented wiretap?

Carter appointee in the largest Muslim population in the USA.

Nothing more need to be said

Imprison your fellow citizens for disagreeing with your political views? Could we also have summary executions?

If I'm in charge of the rules committee, I'll see to it that you get your wish. Besides, it'll save money, not having to feed your sorry ass down at Git'mo...

maf53,

A liberal left winger "educated" by the nutty ultra liberal professors wouldn't know what the Constitution meant or intended in the first place. Lefties still believe that the Constitution sets activist liberal judges up as the nation's law givers!

RE: "It was never the intent of the Framers..."

Where in the Constitution does it say that the government can not listen in on telephone calls and cell phone calls from overseas terrorists? Where does it say that requires a warrant?

It's interesting that you and your liberal judge now suddenly believe in the "intent" of the Constitution rather than what it says! How come you liberals and your activist judges don't believe it was never the "intent" of the frames to remove God from public view? How come you liberals and activist judges don't believe it was never the "intent" of the framers to remove crosses, Christmas carols, and all symbols of Christianity from public view? How come you liberals and your activist liberal judges don't believe it was never the "intent" of the framers to recognize homosexual relationships as "gay marriages"?

How come? Because you liberals and activist judges want to interpret the Constitution to suit your beliefs and agenda and not what was intended by the Constitution and its Amendments at the time they were written. Liberals protecting the Constitution? Liberals and activist judges are the biggest abusers of the Constitution!!!

I know... but, but, but, but, but... Da warrant, Da warrant, Da warrant! (Thinking back to another fantasy show.)

Does the Constitution require a warrant for all searches and seizures? Can you think of any that do not? Give it a try! Think hard and I think you can come up with some!

Who knows more about the law? Then why are so many judge's rulings overturned if they are the ultimate source of all knowledge and all knowing? Let's follow the three strikes rule for judges. Any judge whose decisions are overturned three times is outta' there and on the street! If they don't know the law, they shouldn't be in the job!!!

If it's only the lives of the other 299,999,999 million Americans and their families, sure you would say go with some liberal judge whose opinion is not shared by all judges! On the other hand, if it were your life and the lives of your family that were about to be wiped out by terrorists, I'll bet you would go with the B4B'ers and those judges who do not believe "your" judge. Are you willing to say a warrant is more important to you than the lives of your family?

If it's so important that a judge be involved, then tell your Dimocrats to stop blocking President Bush's appointments. Let's also remove any pacifist pro-terrorist's rights judges from any decisions involving warrants and replace them with some appointed by Conservatives who are pro-American lives!

Haven't other courts already ruled on behalf of the government? I thought Fox News said something about five other rulings that are contrary to your liberal judge; although, I haven't checked back through the news to verify that yet.

RE: "Anybody with half a brain could figure out this was unconstitutional." That about sums it up. Liberals believe it is unconstitutional -- half full.

Liberals are for killing terrorists? Bring on keefer's Twilight Zone music!

3moreyears,

Hit a nerve? Nope! Gets on my nerves listening to (reading) more liberal insanity, irrational thinking, and propaganda? Yep! Gotta' get those school vouchers so our children can get out of the liberal brainwashing and indoctrination mill and get a real education.

AAR

Carter appointee 1979. Detroit jurisdiction, largest Muslim population in the USA.

Nothing more needs to be said.

I read that this wrong decision by a wacko judge has been stayed. Is that correct?

"Lamont down to Lieberman by 12 points and the gap is growing!!!"

Those votes represent Republicans who are turning away from their own candidate to vote for an (ex)Democrat. small town hick

small town, so what are you saying...those republican votes don't count?? Its the ELECTORATE (comprised of Dems Republicans, and Independent) that decides the direction of the country not just the Dumocrats.

Guido, you write:
"The real issue here isn't individual wiretapping. The NSA was tracking ALL telephone calls that ran through the switching stations of those companies participating in the program. This information was reportedly being used to create a database from which analytic modelling of "normal" communications patterns could be developed.
This kind of information can be used for any purpose and is clearly unconstitutional."

Wiki writes:
"The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) was passed in 1984 (Pub. L. No. 99-508, 100 Stat. 1848). There were three main provisions or Titles to the ECPA. Title III created the Pen Register Act, which included restrictions on private and law enforcement uses of pen registers. Private parties were generally restricted from using them unless they met one of the exceptions, which included an exception for the business providing the communication if it needed to do so to ensure the proper functioning of its business."

So, the Constitution has room for businesses to be able to spy on their own people, but the government is banned by that same Bill of Rights when its own "proper functioning" is in jeopardy? Where is that in the Bill of Rights?

Liberals use the slippery slope argument when it comes to rights, that there need be no balance because if any liberties are ever lost they will never return, despite wartime liberties under FDR and Lincoln returning once the threat had passed. Then liberals deny the slippery slope when it comes to violence from terrorists, saying that just because a few bad apples made some religious choices we may not all be in favor of, we can't take away their right to worship by blowing up infidels.

If the company I work for can spy on me to make sure I don't call my girlfriend ten times a day, then why can't my country make sure I don't call Al Queda?

If the company I work for can spy on me to make sure I don't call my girlfriend ten times a day, then why can't my country make sure I don't call Al Queda?

Because you work for your company --- they are paying for your services. If you want to call your girlfriend 10 times a day, then they can say: do it on your dime, not ours.

We do not work for our government. In fact, it is (supposed to be) the other way around.

Just get the freakin' warrant!! What is so hard about that?! More stubborness from the right side of the aisle.

The NSA program monitors phone calls for key words, not content. Once key words have reached a threshold a FISA warrant is applied for to investigate the detail of the converstations to follow. I just don't see this as a violation of the constitution, or an infringement on rights.

Additionally I do not see what the problem is with monitoring phonecalls from or to the US with know terrorists overseas.

Perhaps you leftists can elighten me.

maf53,

RE: "What is so hard about that?!"

Don't need no liberal warrant! The Constitution does not require a warrant for all searches. If it did, we would need warrants for all legal searches -- which we do not. You didn't do that thinking, did you?

RE: "More stubbornness from the right side of the aisle."

More irrational lunacy from the left.

Can someone find a copy of an old warrant somewhere and send it to maf53... to have and to hold... to touch and admire... to frame and to keep... or whatever else maf53 wants to do with it!

AAR

"Just get the freakin' warrant!"

OK..on who? If you know who is making the calls and to where they are going, then a warrant will be gotten. BUT...in the billions of data elements that are being scoured electronically you come across something that is suspicious to which you then drill down on and determine reasonable suspicion, then a warrant is sought.

Everything I have read and heard about the truth of this situation boils down to pretty much that statement.

I never cease to be amazed at the heights of extremism, alarmism and paranoia that constitutes so many.

I am glad that there are more people in America that actually get this for what it really is than the empty and baseless rhetoric we keep hearing from the persons who base most of their logic on the fact that they hate our President. How sad.

Don't need no liberal warrant!

Um, not according to a federal judge. Must be the "liberal bias" interpretation of the law.

Maf,
If my company can spy on me to your line of reasoning because they're paying me, then there's no absolutist Constitutional requirement for a search warrant to collect information about who I'm calling. And if there's no absolutist Constitutional requirement that a search warrant is necessary in all cases to collect information about who I'm calling, then it is up to the discretion of the Supreme Court to decide when I can or cannot have my information collected. Since this was allowed during the Clinton and Carter administrations, and we have had no Constitutional collapse of liberties, why is it Bush can't do it? Wait, I know the answer, it's because when Bush does it it's bad for the country, not like when Clinton or Carter did it. When Bush does it, it's about controlling people with fear of terrorism instead of controlling them with fear of losing their liberties, and that's just wrong. Your arbitrary, personalized hatred isn't a theory of government, so why are you trying to pass it off as one?

I did a little research on this federal judge. She was born in 1932, which means she's 74 years old - pretty old to still be sitting on the federal bench. Especially after 1997, a year in which she became the first African-American woman to be named chief judge of Eastern District of the United States District Court. But one year later, in 1998, she stepped down as chief judge in order to reduce her workload. That was 8 years ago.

Prior to being appointed to the bench by Jimmy Carter in 1979, she worked on the political campaigns for Detroit mayor Coleman Young and then Jimmy Carter's presidential campaign. She was also heavily involved in the Civil Rights movement. In 1964 she spent the summer in Mississippi as part of the National Lawyers Guild civil rights program to provide legal services for civil rights activists, arriving on the day that three civil rights workers disappeared in Philadelphia, Mississippi.

She was working for her husband, US Representative Charles Diggs, Jr., in his Detroit office until 1971, when they divorced. He was forced to resign from the US House in 1980 after being censured by the House after earlier conviction for mail fraud and salary kickback. Diggs was the first chairman of the congressional black caucus.

So what we have here is an ultra-liberal, Jimmy Carter appointee, whose former husband was convicted of mail fraud and salary kickbacks while she was working in his offices. A Black activist and campaigner for one of Detroits more "colorful" mayors read more about him here (and scroll down to the quotes because they're too raunchy for this site), and of course the peanut farmer from Plains.

This is obviously an ACLU judge-shopping expedition and a payback by the tottering old judge who owed so much to the liberal left. This "decision" will be overturned on appeal for certain.

Guys might as well chill out, this will be overturned.

maf53,

The Constitution does not require a warrant for a search to be legal and Constitutional. Perhaps your liberal judge can explain why warrants aren't required for some legal searches if the Constitution requires it for all. The fact is, it doesn't!

No search warrant is required when a person is stopped for a traffic violation and the officer has reason to believe that other illegal activities or items are involved.

No search warrant is needed when police capture a criminal in the act of breaking the law, e.g. robbery, shooting.

A drug sniffing dog is can search a car, baggage, or a person without a warrant, and if an illegal substance is found, that person can be arrested and jailed without a warrant.

No warrant is required for random drug testing of school athletes and those in extra-curricular activities.

No warrant is required to search a prisoner or his (her) cell.

A typical condition of probation, parole, and supervised release is that law enforcement agents are allowed to search your person, vehicle, home, and/or workplace without probable cause

People are searched, ran through metal detectors, checked with hand wands, and their luggage and belongings x-rayed or searched at the airports without warrants, and depending on what is found, they can be arrested and jailed.

People entering a court house, various events, and controlled buildings may be required to walk through a metal detector and their briefcases, purses, and other items searched without a warrant.

No search warrant is required for people coming through customs, which may include strip searches and more, and depending on what is found, the person can be arrested and jailed without a warrant having been issued.

Packages and mail coming into the U.S. can be opened, searched, and inspected by Customs without a warrant.

Trade act in 2002, 107 H.R. 3009, Section 344, expanded the Custom Service's ability to open international mail. -- "(1) In general. For purposes of ensuring compliance with the Customs laws of the United States and other laws enforced by the Customs Service, including the provisions of law described in paragraph (2), a Customs officer may, subject to the provisions of this section, stop and search at the border, without a search warrant, mail of domestic origin transmitted for export by the United States Postal Service and foreign mail transiting the United States that is being imported or exported by the United States Postal Service."

And so on...

As to the decision of your liberal judge... the final outcome of that remains to be determined.

AAR

Powerline aka, lawyers opinion on this arsehole decision - wonder how many hours it will take to overturn

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DECLARED that the TSP [Terrorist/Democrat Spying Program] violates the Separation of Powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III"

What a stupid, ignorant liberal SOB...

JudgeObvious, Obviously thinks little of his own freedoms or the future of our freedoms.

Rev,

It's obviously past the time for this judge to retire or to be retired!

AAR

Remember everyone, Bill Clinton's Echelon program was ok.

What a joke.

This will be overturned very quickly as this liberal, Carter appointed judge is just flat stupid.

Federal Judge Rules In Favor of Terrorists

Islamic mass murderers want to behead us, blow us up, and worse, and we make it easier for them to kill us.
/U.N.B.E.L.I.E.V.A.B.L.E.!

Federal Judge Rules In Favor of Terrorists

God forebid that our Chimperor-in-Cheif should follow the Constitiution! After all in his eyes, it's just a "damned piece of paper!"

The Terrorist Surveillance Program has prevented terrorist attacks and saved lives...

Prove it, Matt.

Why do Democrats oppose preventing terrorist attacks and saving American lives?

If the Chimp is going to spy on us, fine, but he better have

a. probable cause

and/or

b. get a damn warrant

Why is the American Left so determined for us to lose the war on terror?

Matt, quit blambing us for your president's 'stay the course' failed foreign policy in Iraq and in the Middle East and admit that what the president did was ILLEGAL.

Freedom1,

Have you even given thought to why they're pised off at us? It's sure not the old "they hate us for our freedoms" bs line.

You asked: Why is the American Left so determined for us to lose the war on terror?

I ask: Provide a single quotation from anyone who has said any such thing.

You claimed: The Terrorist Surveillance Program has prevented terrorist attacks and saved lives.

I ask: Provide any evidence other than conclusory Administration claims to that effect.

You ask: Why do Democrats oppose preventing terrorist attacks and saving American lives?

I ask: Quote any single member of the Democratic Party who has said anything like that.

What you have is rhetoric and assertion, not an argument.

Warrior,

That is about it - and it shows why we have to figure out some expedient to remove all Carter-appointed judges from their positions...the worst President in American history shouldn't be mucking things up a quarter century after we booted him from office...

Diana,

Well, we've got Ned Lamont, Michael Moore, John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy, Cindy Sheehan, etc, etc, etc on record as advocating American defeat in the war - that they don't say, "I want America defeated" is unimportant - the policies they advocate are de-facto a desire for American defeat. You won't "what is the definition of 'is'" your way out of this.

As for the TSP saving lives - you ask us to prove the impossible - anything that has been done by TSP must necessarily remain highly classified for decades.

Teenie,

Do something constructive!

Get out and campaign for school vouchers so others can get the good education you missed.

We don't need more institutions for liberal indoctrination. At least schools could teach better English and common sense which are obviously lacking in many of today's children! A little knowledge of real history would definitely help -- not the sanitized, liberalized, revisionist version which some children have obviously been taught.

AAR

Interesting article on Judge Taylor

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWVlOGNiZmIyMmZkYTg2OGFiYzM3ZGU4Nzc0MjFjNzQ=

And we've got pretty much the entire Republican party on record as advocating for bigotry against gays, hatred and disdain for poor people, death and destruction with no end in sight, and subjugation of women. That they don't say, "We hate gays, poor people, foreigners (especially brown-skinned ones), and women" is unimportant--the policies they advocate are a de facto desire for hatred of gays, poor people, foreigners (especially brown-skinned ones), and women. You won't "definition of is" your way out of this.

Lemme guess--the above paragraph sticks in your craw, right Noonan? Perhaps--just perhaps--you'll consider why that is and come to some sort of realization about your stupid, stupid rhetoric. But then again, one can lead a horse to water, but one can't force it to drink. And you, being shown water, aren't much for drinking. But hope springs eternal....

At any rate, Diana is right, and that you are categorically unable to provide the very basic evidence for your assertions that she requested, preferring to hide behind meaningless assertions, shows not only how craven and sorry your little speech is, but the fact that you know how craven and sorry your little speech is.

Judge-shopping and court-shopping -- which can affect the lives of every Americans -- is practiced all the time by the ACLU in their efforts to use activist liberal judges to impose the Liberal agenda on American. Doctor-shopping -- which can harm only one person -- is illegal. It's time we put a stop to the ACLU's liberal judge-shopping!

From PowerLine: 

"...the federal courts have held on a number of occasions that the President has the constitutional power under Article II to order warrantless surveillance for national security purposes. The Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Circuits have so held, as has the special FISA Court of Review. And those cases dealt with domestic warrantless intercepts, as opposed to the international communications that fall within the NSA program."

"One of the serious weaknesses of our federal judicial system is that in many cases, plaintiffs can forum-shop for a favorable district or judge. ... The ACLU naturally avoided the circuits that had already upheld warrantless surveillance as an executive power ... The ACLU was able to get its case before Judge Taylor, a 1979 Jimmy Carter appointee ... 'a liberal with Democratic roots.'"

"... Judge Taylor was involved in a judge-shopping controversy in connection with her effort to preserve race discrimination at the University of Michigan, where her husband is a regent: [Judge Taylor] ... tried to take the suit against the law school away from Judge Bernard Freedman, who had been assigned it through a blind draw..."

"Consistent with unanimous precedent in the Federal Courts of Appeal, I would expect the 6th Circuit to reverse Judge Taylor's ruling and uphold the NSA program ... in the meantime the ACLU and the Democrats got the headlines they wanted from one of their own."

AAR

"get a damn warrant"

"Guess now he'll have to get warrants..."

"Just get the freakin' warrant!!"

"Democrats want spying to be done legally, with warrants"

Anyone detect a trend? Are all you liberals deliberately ignoring the 6782 FISA warrants the Bush Administration has gotten from Jan 02 to Dec 05? Or are you just ignorant? They are getting the "freakin' warrants".

The warrantless intercepts are used when the NSA does not know the identity of who the terrorist are calling. And remember, the NSA is only intercepting calls from a terrorist overseas and someone here in the US. They can't get a warrant when the terrorist is calling someone with a "throw-away" cell phone. Three face terror charges after 1,000 cell phones seized. Three guesses what the cell phones were going to be used for.

So, if I correctly understand you liberals, you do not want the NSA to be able to intercept terrorist communications with someone with "throwaway" cell phones. Based on the link above, that's exactly what the terrorists are using now. So you want the terrorists to be able to talk to their supporters in the US. And we are supposed to trust you with our national defense?

Interesting article on Judge Taylor

To get some sense of how bad Judge Taylor's "ruling" is and how quickly it will be overturned, the author of the NRO article, Bryan Cunningham, describes a 2002 FISA court decision:

Here’s what it said (in 2002): “[A]ll . . . courts to have decided the issue, held the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.’

How did it figure into Taylor's bogus decision? It didn't:

Utterly ignoring this 2002 FISA Court of Review opinion, as well as the numerous 1970s-’80s federal appeals and district court decisions directly opposed to her position, Judge Taylor offers instead an extended discussion of a 1765 case from England.

Cunningham also makes a strong case for disciplinary action against the judge for several reasons. You will have to go read the whole thing at the NRO.

He also gives us some indication of the motive of Taylor to make such and outrageously incorrect decision and what its impact might be if left standing:

She is decidedly not an amateur. So, how to explain her first-year failing-grade opinion? Regrettably, the only plausible explanation is that she wanted the result she wanted and was willing to ignore and misread vast portions of constitutional law to get there, gambling the lives and security of her fellow Americans in the bargain.

Whatever Judge Taylor’s motives, it is critical to understand the impact of her decision, were it allowed to stand. Among many damaging results, the Terrorist Surveillance Program, publicly credited not 72 hours ago with helping to prevent the “9/11 Part 2” British airline bombings, will be shut down and our enemies will know it. Worse, neither politically accountable branch of government (even working together) would be able to modify FISA in a way that did not require prior judicial warrants based on probable cause and particularity as to the person targeted. In other words, there would be no lawful way, short of amending the Constitution, to ever collect catastrophic-terrorist-attack warning information unless we knew in advance it was coming, and the identities of the precise individuals who were going to communicate it.

She's on a mission and that mission is to promote the Leftist agenda and damage the ability of the US government's ability to protect Americans. This is no hypothetical matter - people like her will get you and me killed. Her ruling will easliy be overturned - that's assured. But she needs to be forced from the bench for incompetence or malfeasance. Write your congressman/woman. Demand an impeachment hearing to get rid of this blight on American jurisprudence