The ACLU has convinced a federal judge that monitoring overseas communications of terrorists is against the constitution. Despite the fact the preamble lists defending the nation as an acceptable federal government function, the ACLU and US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said that the risk "innocent" communications could be intercepted far outweighed the risk of Al Qaeda attacking the United States. Despite programs such as ECHELON, CARNIVORE, and others that existed happily (albeit controversially) under the Clinton Administration, the possibility that George Bush might actually defend the country is a threat the Constitution cannot bear.
Despite the evidence, the media still calls the case a matter of "warrantless wiretapping" despite the fact that the clear intention is to monitor international calls. This ongoing deception is an attempt to create hysteria that the US is becoming a "police state" and that the treats are from Republicans, not terrorists. This is the same political quarter that brings you the idea (despite all evidence to the contrary) that George Bush and not Al Qaeda is behind 9/11.
The judge in this case, an appointee of Jimmy Carter, doesn't seem to understand the difference between overseas surveillance and domestic surveillance. Will the CIA start needing warrant the next time the spy on a terrorist overseas?
According to the ruling:
The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well.
Let's skip past the FISA court idea, one that is still in dispute publicly and in the courts (other district courts either ruled for the government or declined to rule at all) and discuss the First Amendment issue. Debating what due process should exist for wiretapping is something that can and will take place, however, the idea that plotting terror attacks against the citizens of the United States of America could even possible be protected by the First Amendment should make everyone who cares about the safety of their family cringe. What other possible meaning is there to that phrase?
Many scoffed at the idea of framing resistance to the Patriot Act and the "warrantless wiretapping" programs as an attempt to establish an "Al Qaeda Bill of Rights", however, with Judge Taylor's ruling and the help of the ACLU, the shroud of the First Amendment has been extended to protect those who plot to kill Americans.
.jpg?t=20120209092158)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Matthew T. Sussman
Headline made me laugh.
Not for the reason you'd like though.
2 - gonzo marx
oh my... some fun with John , straw men, and ad hominem...
let's start where John sez...
*The ACLU has convinced a federal judge that monitoring overseas communications of terrorists is against the constitution.*
the very first line of his argument is a prime example of "framing"... in actuality, the Court ruled that wiretapping without a warrant is illegal
duh
see the difference?
now, i'm all for protecting the US... but NOT at the cost of giving in to that which is being fought, allowing Fear to push aside the Principles that make US who we are... you know, like the Constitution...
it appears this Judge agrees
for all the bluster and spin.. it really IS just that simple
the Judge sez ya gotta get a warrant before you can bug someone...
you know... the Law
like the FISA law which John is so quick to dismiss as an inconvenient Fact in his Article
all that being said, i can Appreciate the Concern expressed in the Article, i just think much of it is misplaced
and ANYTIME you hear or read a GOP partisan on the topic, ponder this little memo from the RNC on the topic...
*To: GOP Campaigns
From: NRCC Communications
Re: Vigilance in the Global War on Terror
Date: August 11, 2006
__________________________________________________
Recent events have reminded us that we continue to operate in a pivotal phase in the Global War on Terror.
In the days to come, you should move to question your opponent's commitment to the defeat of terror, and in turn, create a definitive contrast on the issue.
You will certainly benefit from bringing into stark focus the cut-and-run, surrender message that Democrats coast to coast are currently -- and foolishly -- embracing.
To aid you in this effort, we are including three key votes related to the War on Terror as well as materials provided by the RNC.
As always, please feel free to contact the NRCC Communications Division at (202) 479-7070 if you have any questions. *
just sharing...
Excelsior?
3 - John Bambenek
Gonzo, remind me again, how is wiretapping suspected terrorists a breach of the First Amendment?
4 - John Bambenek
I'm not a GOP partisan by the way... (see this as the latest example)...
But hey, whatever makes it easy to stereotype your opponents...
5 - gonzo marx
again, you miss the salient Point when you are trying to "frame" the discussion the way you want it
i will NOT co-operate in such
instead i will state again, that it is against the 4th Amendment to wiretap/search ANY american citizen without a warrant
those are the cases being objected about, the purely domestic incidents, as well as those involving an american on his phone inside the US
what you leave out are the journalists whose calls were monitored without a warrant, among others (the Journalists being the basis of the 1st Amendment part of the legal battle)
say it again..."innocent until proven guilty"
now try "you need a warrant"
and even obeying the Law, when it comes to the FISA laws... for all that you would like to toss that Law aside as irrelevant, it IS a Federal Law, and everyone is subject to it... even the White House.. especially the White House, since the Law was conceived and written to prevent just this kind of egregious abuse by an Administration
so, tell me... how does it harm any investigation to get at least preliminary paperwork into a secret court up to 72 hours after you have set your "emergency" wiretap?
how does it impede or harm an Investigation to show their work and probable cause AFTER they are allowed to gather said information for up to 72 hours before even being asked for it?
and finally, how is it NOT the fault of the Administration, who controls both Congress and Senate, to legally re-work these Laws into what is desired by the Invesitgators and within the parameters of Constitutionality?
i know these are tough Questions... but they are MUCH more accurate and relevant than the simple quip from you in comment #3 , John...
reroll IRL and take both Int runes... heh
you know i'm kidding there...
Excelsior?
6 - gonzo marx
oh John, you may not want to be currently Identified as such, but your writing and positions clearly mark you
are you stating that you are not a registered Republican?
how about your own voting record? anything other than Republicans voted for?
how many Independant or Democratic or Libertarian positions have you written about?
be all that as it may, i did not refer to you specifically as a partisan, read more carefully... you will see i say it generically abotu reading or hearing a GOP partisan, and then quoted the memo from the RNC on the topic...
just trying to keep it all straight
Excelsior?
7 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
I'll say it again for you gonzo... gonzo has not at any point in this thread referred to you as a GOP partisan. So stop the indignant victim act.
8 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
What you fail to acknowledge in this article is that the case was filed on behalf of U.S. citizens who make frequent international calls to the middle east - not on behalf of terrorists as you would have us believe. The ruling is solely on the issue of the domestic spying, U.S. citizens making international calls. I dont know about you but I thought the terrorist threat was almost entirely from foreigners so what does spying on the calls made by U.S. citizens have to do with fighting terrorism? Although the thesis of your article is that a ruling preventing spying on calls by U.S. citizens without a warrent would aid terrorists you offer no evidence of this whatsoever. Is it ourselves (U.S. citizens) we have to fear, or foreign terrorists? If it's me you are afraid of, I can only offer your my sincerest promise that I am not a terrorist.
9 - Mark Schannon
the idea that plotting terror attacks against the citizens of the United States of America could even possible be protected by the First Amendment should make everyone who cares about the safety of their family cringe
This statement demonstrates that you haven't a clue what the First Amendment is for let alone what the case was about. There is no one with even one sane brain cell who would claim that known terrorists have first amendment protection.
The issue is that the president is not a king who can blithely ignore the Constitutionn and the Bill of Rights. There are legal ways to accomplish what he wants--he just doesn't care about legality.
All of us want an aggressive war on terrorism--something this administration has bungled consistently--but it can and must be done within the framework of our core values as a nation or we're no better than those we seek to destroy.
In Jameson Veritas
10 - Lumpy
This post is so remarkably wrongheaded I almost thought a democrat made it.
The first amendment and this ruling suppprting it aren't about protecting the rights of terrorists they're about protecting all our rights. Information gathering software and blanket searches can't tell the innocent from the guilty because that hasn't been determined yet. So we have the presumption of innocence.
This ruling doesn't to anything to stop the FBI from going and getting a regular wiretap on an actual terror suspect.
11 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
O right because all democrats are stupid..
12 - IgnatiusReilly
and now you know a conservative wrote it, lumpy.
13 - JustOneMan
Oh..no...more denial from the fringes on the left...
Gonzo...are you that paranoid that the government will be listening to your phone calls? If they are as enlightening as your posts they can sell the tapes to insomniacs...
ITS FUCKING WW III...you can deny it but it wont go away...
What ever happened to belief in God and Country? We have slid into the 3rd world!
Just my opinion of course
14 - gonzo marx
well, it appears that somebody needs a nap...
Excelsior?
15 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
Are you sure your are even talking about the ruling made by Taylor? Taylor's ruling refers only to the validity of the defendent's claim that
1) Plaintiffs do not have standing to file the case because they have not sufferred specific loss due to NSA activities (Taylor says they have standing because they have sufferred specific damages caused by NSA for which they have legal standing to file grievance against (Taylor also notes the government itself has made it difficult for defendents to establish a specific effect on them because NSA does not provide pior or retroactive notification to the spying subjects as would be the case with warrants))
2) To establish standing would require the disclosure of state secrets which are protected by legal precedent (Taylor ruled that the majority of Plaintiff's claims do not require the revealment of state secrets - Plaintiffs were, not are not and will not request state secrets because they have sufficient information drawn solely from press releases by gov officials concerning the actions of NSA. Taylor did however dismiss Plaintiff claims of data mining because a trial of these claims would reveal state secrets.)
3) The defendents (NSA) cannot establish a defense without the disclosure of state secrets. (Taylor ruled this claim disingenuous because after reviewing the state secrets herself she found that known of them could be used in any viable defense - furthermore the defendents claim that the President's authorization of a warrantless wiretapping of international calls is legal under current law and thus have a viable defense based on their own public statements).
and to the Plaintiff's claim that
1) They suffer irreperable damage because of the existence of the NSA's spy program, and that this damage would be relieved by the closure of the program.
2) The NSA program violates their first and fourth constitutional rights and statutory law (FISA). This is clearly established. Their rights under the 4th and FISA requiring the gov. to obtain a warrant before wiretapping have clearly been established and acknowledged by BOTH sides. Since you clearly need a refresher on the fourth i will quuote it for you:
"The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
As this is an eavesdropping program on U.S. citizen phone calls the 4th is obviously applicable. As no warrants have been obtained previously or retroactively, the 4th is obviously in violation. You claim that this is not a domestic surveillance program. That claim is irrelevant, true or false. The phone calls are being made by U.S. citizens and are thus protected by the U.S. Constitution and current law. The violation of the citizens 4th ammendment rights has obviously incurred on their 1st ammendment rights since many of the people the Plaintiffs communicate with have refused to do so because of NSA warantless wiretapping. (Your claim that it is not warantless wiretapping is bogus, the Defendents, the Plaintiffs, the Courts, and the Bush whitehouse all acknowledge it is a warrantless wiretap program).
3) The NSA program violates the doctrine of seperation of power established by the constitutionally granted powers to the executive branch. All decisions by the president must also be ratified by the U.S. Congress. The president claims he recieved authorization from Congress for warrantless wiretapping through Congress's enactment of the Authorization for Use of Military Force follwing 9/11 (AUMF is also used to justify invading Iraq). AUMF DOES NOT however provide for warrantless wiretapping of international calls from the U.S. Furthermore AUMF has no legal standing over FISA which is the exclusive means of establishing legality of electronic surveillance.
By authorizing the monitoring of international calls made by U.S. citizens over 30 times since 9/11 Bush has repeatedly violated the first and fourth ammendment rights of the citizens, as well as overstepped his bounds of authority to make said secret authorization in the first place w/o Congressional ratification as required by the constitution.
Clearly Judge Taylor is upholding the constitution in ruling with Plaintiff's claims 1,2 and 3. She is also following legal precedent in dismissing Plaintiff claims against data mining. It is also obvious that the Defendent's claims that the proceding of the case would require revealment of state secrets is bogus. Finally it is obvious that the defendents have legal standing in the issue at hand as the NSA spy program has had obvious direct impacts on their careers and ability to communicate with clients etc.
Now where have I gone wrong?
If Judge Taylor is following legal precedent and upholding the constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs what more can be expected of her? What legal code would you have her follow?
16 - DMD
The intellectually dishonest arguments by the poster are amazing. (That is the charitable explanation--willful ignorance or outright stupidity the lesser one.)
This fear-mongering about hair gel explosives and WWIII is friggin ridiculous. You guys are outright *aiding and abetting* the terrorists by doing the job of spreading terror for them! Then you turn around and accuse those who are uncowed by their *actual* accomplishments of being traitors? Seriously, WTF is wrong with you all? Do you not see this? Are you really that blind?
The adherence to the system of checks and balances enshrined in the Consitution even in the face of adversity is exactly what makes us a civilized 1st world country worth being proud of. Throw that away and we have "slid into the 3rd world".
17 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
JOM - all this Judge has done is uphold the constitution of this country - read my preceding post. How can you complain she has abandoned God and Country?
18 - JustOneMan
Judicial activism is an usurption of the legislative powers of the legislature. This is just one part of the US's slipping and sliding into the third world this ruling (WHICH WILL BE OVERTURNED)leads to the demise of the rule of law and democracy.
19 - lori
Judicial activism is an usurption of the legislative powers of the legislature.
Sorry, but the legislature (you know, Congress) passed a law requiring a warrant (even after the fact, in certain cases).
The president, not a part of the legislative branch, decided he didn't need to follow the law. If anyone usurped the legislative powers of the legislature, it was the executive branch, not the judge in this case. The judge merely said the executive branch doesn't get to decide which laws to follow and which to ignore.
Checks and balances -- hey, it really does work!
20 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
JOM - what the hell are you talking about? Which law or part of the constitution has this judged ignored or misinterpreted? Did you read my post above or was it too long and complex for you? It's pretty straightforward. FISA and the 4th require a warrant and reasonableness in all searches. The NSA is not using searches. The judge ruled they need searches. It's a little more complex than that... but that's what it boils down to. So where the hell do you get off saying she is exercising activism?
21 - JustOneMan
"So where the hell do you get off saying she is exercising activism?"
"The judge merely said the executive branch doesn't get to decide which laws to follow and which to ignore"
The voice of those who are in denial that we are at war...too bad you are still delusional that things will return to pre-911 world...sad but it will not happen..
In addition this is an activist Judge...the ruling will be overturned on appeal...how can a Judge tell the President how to conduct a war...where will it end...
Hmmmm...So where the hell do you get off being such a niaeve moron?
22 - lori
I don't know about anyone else, but I sure feel a LOT safer knowing my president thinks he can suspend the Constitution and, more specifically, the Bill of Rights any time we're at war, whether it be with a nation or a dispersed group of terrorists. [/sarcasm]
This war on terror will basically last forever. It will never be over, even if we succeed in stifling it quite a bit. According to JOM's logic, this president and those that follow him can unilaterally decide that any part of the Constitution is moot, and all s/he needs to do is say we're still at war in order to justify it.
23 - John Bambenek
A bit paranoid, are we? No one... NO ONE... has suspended the Bill of Rights. That simply is not reality.
If you can't deal with the facts, please tear up your voter's registration card.
24 - gonzo marx
again John, you remain factually inaccurate...
indeed, if the Adminstration ordered the wiretaps deliberately bypassing FISA (which they admitted) and there was an American on the domestic side fo the call (or e-mail, etc) then they indeed did violate the 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights by very definition
and that is exactly what the Judge in this case wrote in her Opinion...
so, just stick to the Facts, eh?
you might disagree with the Judge's ruling...as the AG does ( especially since he wrote the legal opinions justifying these taps and so much else)
in which case it may be SCOTUS who decides the final outcome, but the Judge did indeed rule that the 4th Amendment was violated by definition because no warrants were isued as per federal law
so, rather than being snarky and wanting someone to tear up their voter registration card, i might suggest you go over to the math department, or even the Philosophy professor, and learn about Logic and recognizing facts
just a Thought
Excelsior?
Excelsior?
25 - John Bambenek
Shredding FISA, which is debateable, at worst is shredding one statute, not the entire Bill of Rights.
Try again.
Also, this judge also ruled that it violated the **FIRST** Amendment. Explain to me how that works again?
We'll skip past the fact that this judge is one of the more overturned ones in the districts and that this is only one judge's opinion of many judges who have ruled on it.
Why don't we hold off on impeachment until the Supreme Court decides.