NSA Wiretapping Ruled Illegal - Federal judge in Detroit finds U.S. domestic wiretapping program unconstitutional.

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: spidey07
the wiretapping is completely legal. This will be overturned. Stop saying it's illegal when you know full well that it isn't.

How do you figure?

Fox News said so!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: spidey07
the wiretapping is completely legal. This will be overturned. Stop saying it's illegal when you know full well that it isn't.

Bullfvckingsh!t. You don't know your head from your ass if you think that. It is a clear violation of the Constitution and an abuse of Presidential authority. The FISA court allows a backdated warrant to be obtained in the case of an emergency, and in those cases instant wiretapping can begin. The whole problem is that they wanted to wiretap US Citizens without a warrant. Completely 100% against the precedence the courts have set in interpreting the Constitution regarding matters of privacy and US Citizens. A warrant is REQUIRED. Period. US Citizens have protection under not only the Constitution but a plethora of laws. Hell, it is still illegal in many states for private citizens to record one another without two party consent, and private wiretapping is certainly not legal without consent.

Settle down, before the FISA law was enacted Presidents wiretapped people they deemed hostile or spies. FDR did this to hundreds, probably thousands of US citizens during WWII.
Hell he even had /gasp military tribunals for US citizens who were caught spyuing for Germany. They were of course hung after being found guilty.

This will get settled in a court of law.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: spidey07
the wiretapping is completely legal. This will be overturned. Stop saying it's illegal when you know full well that it isn't.

Yes, yes and the insurgency in Iraq is in it's last throws and the hat on my head isn't tin foil, it's an interstellar communication receiver.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Settle down, before the FISA law was enacted Presidents wiretapped people they deemed hostile or spies. FDR did this to hundreds, probably thousands of US citizens during WWII.
Hell he even had /gasp military tribunals for US citizens who were caught spyuing for Germany. They were of course hung after being found guilty.

But FISA was enacted, so therefore what the Admin is doing is in clear violation of that law, a law crafted specifically to prevent these types of abuses.

Originally posted by: Genx87

This will get settled in a court of law.

Yeah it just was, I wouldn't hold my breathe for the appeals court to overturn it.

 

[Genx87]

But FISA was enacted, so therefore what the Admin is doing is in clear violation of that law, a law crafted specifically to prevent these types of abuses.

Right except before FISA it wasnt deem unconstitutional, so why after a federal law, not constitutional amendment is it suddenly unconsitutional. That was what I was trying to allude to by making a reference to FDR.

Yeah it just was, I wouldn't hold my breathe for the appeals court to overturn it.

Anybody who thinks anything is settled in a court of law until the supreme court denies or accepts the motion is being naive.

afaik they are working on a stay as we speak and will move it up the ladder. Eventually this will make it to the Supreme Court. So no, it isnt settled yet.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: spidey07
the wiretapping is completely legal. This will be overturned. Stop saying it's illegal when you know full well that it isn't.

I thought it was secret. What law or Constitutional provision authorizes it? What court reviewed its legality?

 

[spidey07]

I guess that's what I was trying to say.

Hopefully this will move to the supreme court where it will be swiftly struck down by our judges. Ones that aren't on a liberal activist agenda and who judge by what is right/constitutional.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: spidey07
I guess that's what I was trying to say.

Hopefully this will move to the supreme court where it will be swiftly struck down by our judges. Ones that aren't on a liberal activist agenda and who judge by what is right/constitutional.

Which one . . . right or Constitutional? You have to remember these are the Bush years so that's a distinction with real difference.

 

[spidey07]

right and constitutional of course.

But reading some of this judges remarks it is very clear she's on the agenda. She doesn't even try to hide it, hoping I guess that people are too stupid to see right through it.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: spidey07
right and constitutional of course.

But reading some of this judges remarks it is very clear she's on the agenda. She doesn't even try to hide it, hoping I guess that people are too stupid to see right through it.

Your analysis is very well researched. I suppose you will share your proof and I'm sure your Constitution credentials are highly regarded.

 

[spidey07]

Thanks. I have reviewed her rulings. Definately has a far left liberal agenda.

It's a shame she had to rule with her agenda instead of the constitution. One could even draw the conclusion that the ACLU picked this district because of her, knowing she would follow the agenda.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Thanks. I have reviewed her rulings. Definately has a far left liberal agenda.

It's a shame she had to rule with her agenda instead of the constitution. One could even draw the conclusion that the ACLU picked this district because of her, knowing she would follow the agenda.

Name some of her rulings that prove a clear liberal bias. I'd like to look them up on Lexis-Nexis. Case names, please.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Genx87

But FISA was enacted, so therefore what the Admin is doing is in clear violation of that law, a law crafted specifically to prevent these types of abuses.

Right except before FISA it wasnt deem unconstitutional, so why after a federal law, not constitutional amendment is it suddenly unconsitutional. That was what I was trying to allude to by making a reference to FDR.

Yeah it just was, I wouldn't hold my breathe for the appeals court to overturn it.

Anybody who thinks anything is settled in a court of law until the supreme court denies or accepts the motion is being naive.

afaik they are working on a stay as we speak and will move it up the ladder. Eventually this will make it to the Supreme Court. So no, it isnt settled yet.

I'd like to see your proof of what you say about FDR. It has been awhile since I looked at the whole FISA debacle, but I'm pretty sure those Newsmax allegations were discredited. Care to provide a link?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: spidey07
right and constitutional of course.

But reading some of this judges remarks it is very clear she's on the agenda. She doesn't even try to hide it, hoping I guess that people are too stupid to see right through it.

"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," she wrote. "

So the Framers intended to give the President unfettered control? Funny . . . I wonder why they even bothered with that whole Bill of Rights thing?:roll:

. . . There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution."

The President has Constitutional powers that don't come from the Constitution??

The Justice Department argued in court that the program is well within Bush's authority as president, but said proving it would require revealing state secrets.

Well we all know the program exists . . . so what's the secret . . . oh yeah . . . the secret is the justification for Bush's authority. Where did these DOJ lawyers come from? They should ask for a refund from their law schools b/c somebody missed a class (or year) or two.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Wow. I just read the entire opinion and she kicked ASS.

"IT IS SO ORDERED"

BOOM! HEADSHOT.

You can read the opinion here:

http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/_opinions/judgeOpin.cfm?e_jd_ID=4531

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: spidey07
I guess that's what I was trying to say.

Hopefully this will move to the supreme court where it will be swiftly struck down by our judges. Ones that aren't on a liberal activist agenda and who judge by what is right/constitutional.

Kind of like the Gitmo ruling, or Tom Delay. You aren't doing very well lately with "your" judges.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Edit: Oops - blank post.

Here's a letter sent to the Judiciary Committee from the President of the ABA (American Bar Association) and I quote from his letter below. That the ABA has expressed reservations about the wiretapping speaks volumes about it's legallity.

Those of claiming it is legal - what justification do you have? On what legal basis do you claim it is legal? Get your head out of the sand before it's too late.

Over the past several months, the ABA has urged your Committee to conduct a more thorough inquiry into the nature and extent of electronic surveillance being conducted outside of the process set forth in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (?FISA?). Although your Committee has attempted to gather more information on this topic, it appears that the Administration has not been forthcoming in providing you with additional details of its intelligence activities. We continue to believe that comprehensive oversight is essential to ensure that the appropriate checks and balances on executive power are in place. However, we also appreciate the Committee?s determination that, despite having imperfect information, it is better to move forward with legislation to bring the domestic electronic surveillance program into compliance with FISA rather than to stand by and allow the status quo of unsupervised surveillance to continue.


Chairman Specter, the ABA commends you and Senator Dianne Feinstein for introducing S. 3001. We believe that the involvement of Senator Feinstein, who as a member of the Intelligence Committee has been more fully briefed on the operational aspects of the classified program, has been highly beneficial. We particularly welcome the provisions in the bill that reiterate that FISA and Title III of the criminal code are the exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance and that prohibit the use of funds for surveillance being conducted outside of this framework.

Full letter here:
http://www.abanet.org/poladv/letters/109th/natlsec/DomSurvLtr6806.pdf

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Genx87

But FISA was enacted, so therefore what the Admin is doing is in clear violation of that law, a law crafted specifically to prevent these types of abuses.

Right except before FISA it wasnt deem unconstitutional, so why after a federal law, not constitutional amendment is it suddenly unconsitutional. That was what I was trying to allude to by making a reference to FDR.

Yeah it just was, I wouldn't hold my breathe for the appeals court to overturn it.

Anybody who thinks anything is settled in a court of law until the supreme court denies or accepts the motion is being naive.

afaik they are working on a stay as we speak and will move it up the ladder. Eventually this will make it to the Supreme Court. So no, it isnt settled yet.

I'd like to see your proof of what you say about FDR. It has been awhile since I looked at the whole FISA debacle, but I'm pretty sure those Newsmax allegations were discredited. Care to provide a link?

This one is far right

Every international phone call, cable, and mail intercepted during WWII in Bermuda

btw I have no opinion on this topic yet, I am simply replying to reply.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: spidey07
I guess that's what I was trying to say.

Hopefully this will move to the supreme court where it will be swiftly struck down by our judges. Ones that aren't on a liberal activist agenda and who judge by what is right/constitutional.

Kind of like the Gitmo ruling, or Tom Delay. You aren't doing very well lately with "your" judges.

Liberal Judges. Once they pack the USSC with a few cloned version of Rehnquist's corpse all will be well.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Thanks. I have reviewed her rulings. Definately has a far left liberal agenda.

It's a shame she had to rule with her agenda instead of the constitution. One could even draw the conclusion that the ACLU picked this district because of her, knowing she would follow the agenda.

Probably, but who cares? As everyone has stated, the point is simply to move the case up the ladder and potentially get the SCOTUS to weigh in on this issue.

 

[ayabe]

If she was such a liberal activist, why then:

"While siding with the ACLU on the wiretapping issue, Taylor dismissed a separate claim by the group over NSA data-mining of phone records. She said not enough had been publicly revealed about that program to support the claim and further litigation would jeopardize state secrets."

Text

 

[alien42]

spidey07, have you considered moving to north korea?

it seems you would lover their style of government.

 

[mrCide]

The U.S. Department of Justice has announced that it will appeal a federal judge's ruling that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

If you read the opinion in its entirety (as I have done) you will see that the REASON she was able to rule is because all the facts she needed were already public info. In other words, no secrets were compromised because Bush and others have already confirmed all she needed to make her ruling.

As for the ruling itself, she found that it was against the first and forth amendment to wiretap w/o a warrant, and that it was also against the FISA, which clearly makes wiretapping w/o a warrant illegal.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Genx87

But FISA was enacted, so therefore what the Admin is doing is in clear violation of that law, a law crafted specifically to prevent these types of abuses.

Right except before FISA it wasnt deem unconstitutional, so why after a federal law, not constitutional amendment is it suddenly unconsitutional. That was what I was trying to allude to by making a reference to FDR.

Yeah it just was, I wouldn't hold my breathe for the appeals court to overturn it.

Anybody who thinks anything is settled in a court of law until the supreme court denies or accepts the motion is being naive.

afaik they are working on a stay as we speak and will move it up the ladder. Eventually this will make it to the Supreme Court. So no, it isnt settled yet.

I'd like to see your proof of what you say about FDR. It has been awhile since I looked at the whole FISA debacle, but I'm pretty sure those Newsmax allegations were discredited. Care to provide a link?

This one is far right

Every international phone call, cable, and mail intercepted during WWII in Bermuda

btw I have no opinion on this topic yet, I am simply replying to reply.

Frankly all that says to me is that FDR did wiretap not that it was Constitutional at the time. You can't have a judge rule on something as Constitutional or not unless someone brings it to their attention. This speaks more to the secrecy of the program than the general Constitutionality of warrantless wiretapping.

I think that's a major reason why FISA was enacted, so that this sort of stuff would never have to be vetted in public as it is now.