It’s amazing how many people will accept almost any intrusion to obtain the semblance of safety. I’m glad there are still some judges out there that actually understand the Constitution.

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 as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

“Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution,” Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves wiretapping conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.

The problem is that there is already an appeal in the works from those that would create a new federal Stasi. At which point do we lose so much freedom that we are no longer truly Americans? I wish more in our administration understood and respected the Constitution.



  1. ken says:

    Thank GOD!

  2. Improbus says:

    Don’t thank GOD until it gets by SCOTUS.

  3. Carl Trimble says:

    Most of America Deserves Neither! Also most are blind to what is happening, and what the final result will be.

  4. Mike Knowland says:

    So when is the Bush Administration going to face charges?

  5. Jim W says:

    Isn’t this the program that is supposed to watch international calls into and out of the U.S., trying to “connect the dots” between terrorists outside the country with ones inside? And there by helping us catch them before they can act?

    Yep, we need to stop doing that so as to protect ourselves from evil Republican Presidents.

  6. jim says:

    I didn’t realize out Constitition applied to the rest of the world. Doesn’t that smack of imperial hubris? I don’t think even Bush thinks our Constitution applies to people in a foreign country. I guess anything to bash Bush.

  7. Roc Rizzo says:

    “Those who give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Ben Franklin

    I agree wholeheartedly with those words, and hope that the people start to wake up, lest we lose ALL our liberties, for some temporary security. Once it’s gone, we will have a VERY difficult time getting it back.

    This program was to monitor calls WITHIN the US, not outside the US, as many people think. They need a warrant from the FISA court for that. That’s what Nixon’s resignation was all about. Oh how we forget.

    Either this decision is upheld, or the leaders of this country have become facists, not at the barrell of a gun, but at the misguided false patriotism of not patriots, but loyalists. People who are thinking that by giving up our divine-given rights, we afford our government the power to find those who said government want to harm us.

    I hear noone asking why they wanted to hurt us in the first place. I believe that binLaden, remember him, stated that the attacks on our lands were in retaliation to our having our armies in the Moslem Holy Land of Mecca, in Saudi Arabia. If it was up to me, I would simply take the troops out of Saudi Arabia, and find a new source of energy. Something that President Carter wanted to do. We can get a man on the moon in 20 years, I believe that with the spirit of our people, and the enginuity, resoursefulness, and intelligence of each and every one of us, we can accomplish this in less than ten years. Sacrifices will have to be made, but my parents, and their parents made sacrifices so that I could have a better life, why shouldn’t I?

    Let’s hope that this decision stands, and that the perpetrators of this crime, be peacefully put to justice, and punished for these high crimes they have made to the people of this great Nation.

    Just my dollar three eighty and eleventy two cents.

  8. Gig says:

    And why wouldn’t there be an appeal. The ACLU went out to Detroit to find a liberal Federal Judge to hear the case. There is no way this is going to stand up to higher courts.

    There is no difference between monitoring calls from the US to other counties and checking your luggage when you come through customs from those same countries.

  9. Paul says:

    Awesome. Fourth Amendment FTW!!

    It’s a temporary victory, I’m sure, but I’ll savor it while it lasts.

  10. Tom says:

    Its a start. But I can already see some unconstitutional way they can get out of this one too.

  11. Mike says:

    I’m really finding it hard to see the logic behind the 1st Amendment argument here though.

  12. Improbus says:

    Mike, this isn’t about the 1st Amendment, it’s about the 4th Amendment.

  13. Mister Mustard says:

    >>Yep, we need to stop doing that so as to protect ourselves
    >>from evil Republican Presidents.

    Jim, did you bother to READ THE ARTICLE?? Nobody (not even the commie pinko fag ACLU) is sayint to “stop the wiretapping”. What they object to is the ILLEGAL WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING. In case it escaped your notice, what Bush is doing is illegal; by definition, that is something that you’re not supposed to do. Only Bush (and his puppetmasters Karl and Dick) would have the lack of common sense to say that because Dumbya says it’s OK, it’s OK.

    The NSA can continue as it always has, wiretapping to it’s heart’s delight, getting its warrants (essentially) rubber-stamped by the FISA court. All they have to do is show minimal evidence that there’s some reason, almost ANY reason to think that what they want to do involves national security. And if time is an issue, they can proceed WITHOUT a warrant, and justify it after the fact.

    Are you guys really as thick-headed as you appear to be, or are you just jerking our chains?

  14. Mike says:

    Improbus, the judge clearly states that the wiretaps violated the right to free speech as well as privacy. So again, I don’t see what the 1st Amendment has to do with any of this.

  15. Mike says:

    Obtaining a warrant after the fact is a violation of the 4th amendment also.

  16. Mister Mustard says:

    >>Obtaining a warrant after the fact is a violation of the 4th
    >>amendment also.

    That may well be, but that’s what they’re allowed to do. Getting Dumbya and his puppetmasters to comply with the law (forget about the Consitution, they don’t even know what that is) would be a foot in the door, at least.

  17. Bob says:

    Wake up and smell the burning flesh falling from the World Trade Center. Ask them if they feel their privacy was violated. They are monitoring FOREIGN calls.

  18. Curt says:

    One stupid liberal judge will not prevail. It was only a matter of time before the ACLU found someone to bribe.

  19. John says:

    The problem is our current administration believes that the consitution gives the executive the ability to do what ever it wants, even if it goes against portions of the consitution, laws passed by congress, or judgmetns made by judges as long as they say they are doing it “to protect the people” be that the real reason or not. So of course they will appeal, and even if it get’s to the top and still ruled to be illegal, I realy doubt our administration will fully stop, instead they will just say they are, and keep doing it and hope that no one rats them out again before Bush is out of office.. and hopefully a new administration that will at least try a bit harder to look like they are following the law, will replace them, then maybe someday one that realy will follow it (and not becuase the previous ones got the law changed for the worse of the people and better of the power hungrey)

  20. Mister Mustard says:

    >>Wake up and smell the burning flesh falling from the World
    >>Trade Center.

    Cute. Too bad Dumbya’s moronic grandstanding, misbegotten attempt at playing war games, and generalized ignorance of just about everything a president should know have turned the entire Middle East into a conflagration of death and a breeding-ground for terrorists and terrorism.

    God damn. I never thought anybody could make Tricky Dick or Bonzo look like great presidents, but this nincompoop has done it. In spades.

  21. Improbus says:

    I makes me ashamed I was ever a Republican. Look what my old party has come too. *sniff*

  22. Mr. H. Fusion says:

    For a while now, I have been wondering about something. I encourage all to ponder this weighty thought.

    In 25 to 30 years, what will I say when my grandkid asks, “How did you let it happen”?

    How did we let this mess happen?

  23. Anthony says:

    Mister Mustard – PLEASE tell me you don’t really think the Middle East was not a breeding ground for terrorists before 9/11

  24. voiceof reason says:

    liberty is a funny thing. I give mine up every time i ride into Kentucky, stop…liberty check, put on your helmet, I must be too stupid to protect myself, ride some, go home, stop….take off helmet, breath the liberty of indiana. Oops, get in auto, seatbelts, again too stupid. i must give up liberty.

    I hear excuses every day about why we created the situation of why they want to kill us. It’s really quite simple, not because we are in the holy lands, or killing them first. get it through your heads that we are hated because we are free to discuss, and disagree. As a woman, I am not equal, and shall not be heard. No discussion, I am less than a human. We have equal rights, we are promoted and seen without the proper attire, we are free. Death is seen as a triumph, not a loss in the radial world. They are dedicated to ensuring that freedom is defined by their terms, not ours.

  25. joshua says:

    #7…Roc….Nixon fell because of a coverup of an illegal entry. Not because of monitoring calls.
    Nice to see you again Mister Mustard……but…..Nixon was actually a pretty good President….except for his slight case of paranoia. He got us back to China, gave us the EPA, welfare reform, the 18 y/o vote and was moving us out of Vietnam. Not bad for a supposedly conservative Republican.

    The ACLU shopped for a court they knew they could win in, all they wanted was the first victory to increase contributions. They knew full well that it would be appealed and they will most likely lose in the Court of Appeals. The case dosen’t violate any amendment of the Constitution. The law covering this program was passed in the early 90’s and has never been ruled unconstitutional.

    The only thing wrong here is that Bush didn’t ever bother to get warrants for some of the calls. A technical violation of the law.

  26. Smartalix says:

    Judicial oversight is more than a technicality.

  27. Mister Mustard says:

    >>Mister Mustard – PLEASE tell me you don’t really think the Middle
    >>East was not a breeding ground for terrorists before 9/11

    Oh, sure it was. It was a festering cesspool of intolerance and bigotry (maybe that’s why Bush is so attracted to it). But it was about 1/1000th as virulent as it’s become since Dumbya started his self-aggrandizing, misbegotten, completely bollixed “war on terror”.

  28. James Hill says:

    I was starting to feel that thing called respect for the ACLU until I got to…

    The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs.

    There are three professions we really need to have a telethon for.

    Now, I understand that this will come as a shock to those of you on the left, but those three groups are not what built western civilization, nor are what civilization is designed to serve. At best, all three professions are cogs in a greater machine. At worst, they’re parasites on an otherwise healthy animal.

    The basis of lawsuits like this seem to stem from the idea that the cognisenti is what defends democracy, and deserve some sort of special status.

    I don’t like the idea of internal spying, or the extent to which it is being done. But the arugments against it, and lawsuits like this that stem from the arguments, need to have a stronger basis in fact and rely less on the “trust us, we’re smarter” train of thought to be taken seriously.

    (And to go a step further, 80% of what the left is putting out there needs to meet the same criteria if they expect to be in charge of anything for any extended period of time in the near future.)

  29. Mister Mustard says:

    >>The only thing wrong here is that Bush didn’t ever bother to get
    >>warrants for some of the calls. A technical violation of the law.

    Ummmm, I don’t think so. That’s like saying that FBI agents or police entering your home without a warrant is a “technical violation”. And the FBI or police are held to somewhat of a standard wrt probable cause to get a warrant; the FISA court pretty much rubber stamps requests for wiretapping on very flimsy evidence; the fact that Dumbya “didn’t even bother” to obtain warrants with such a low standard requires (knowing full well that if they were caught, the shit would hit the fan just like it did) suggests to the astute observer that there’s something a lot more malignant that a “technical violation” going on here.

    As to Nixon, I never thought I’d say it, but you’re right. It just goes to show the depths to which the presidency has sunk that I would agree. I’m even looking back fondly on Bonzo. One was evil, the other one stupid. With the Brush-Clearer from Crawford, we’ve got the worst of both worlds.

  30. bac says:

    Monitoring calls can infringe on the First Admendmant because if you know you are being monitored you may end up choosing your words wisely.

    Any one who thinks monitoring phone calls without a warrant is fine must also think house searches without warrants are fine too. If you have nothing to hide then everything you do and say should be completely open to the policing authorities. You probably also think that no citizen has the right of privacy.

    Terrorist can not take away your freedoms and liberties, the government can and will. Terrorist can only take your life but then again all Amercian citizens will die in time. How you die is just semantics.

    Do you want to die as a person with freedoms or as a person owned by the government?


1

Bad Behavior has blocked 3896 access attempts in the last 7 days.