NSA Wiretap Program Must Stop

This decision will be overturned in due course.

 

http://levin.nationalreview.com/

There are four things that strike me most about Taylor’s opinion. First, she grants standing to such plaintiffs as the ACLU, CAIR, Greenpeace, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Christopher Hitchens, and others, without a shred of information showing any connection between the plaintiffs’ assertions of constitutional violations and any harm to them. However, Taylor reveals herself in this excerpt from her ruling:

"… [T]he court need not speculate upon the kind of activity the Plaintiffs want to engage in – they want to engage in conversations with individuals abroad without fear that their First Amendment rights are being infringed upon. Therefore, this court concludes that Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirement of alleging “actual or threatened injury” as a result of Defendants’ conduct"

Taylor writes later:

"Although this court is persuaded that Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient injury to establish standing, it is important to note that if the court were to deny standing based on the unsubstantiated minor distinctions drawn by Defendants, the President’s action in warrantless wiretapping, in contravention of FISA, Title III, and the First and Fourth Amendments, would be immunized from judicial scrutiny. …"

In other words, if Taylor had ruled properly and found that the Plaintiffs had no standing to bring their lawsuit, she would have denied herself the ability to strike down the NSA intercept program by throwing out the lawsuit.

Second, Taylor fails to address adequately that which has been debated here and elsewhere for months, i.e., the president’s inherent constitutional powers as commander-in-chief, and the long line of court cases (and historical evidence) related to it.

Third, in many places, the opinion reads like a political screed.

Fourth, Taylor insists on the immediate implementation of her decision, meaning that the NSA must stop intercepting enemy communications at this very moment, unless it succeeds in getting judicial relief elsewhere.

 

I agree with Levin/carpro, it'll get overturned. I think this judge is wrong. I have no problem with this wiretapping. As I've said before, if it is being used to wiretap political enemies then the President, of whatever party, should be impeached, but I believe the President is using the technological means available to intercept and monitor the communications of those identified as threats. If this saves some lives and the only people whose "rights" being violated are terrorists, no loss. Though I respect the Left's (and some on the Right who disagree with these wiretaps) constitutional scruples here, but disagree with them, I believe that when lives are lost because we did not avail ourselves of such means to prevent it, the Left might then think this worthwhile, too.

 

It isn't wiretaps that is at issue, it is the lack of warrants.

 

Warrants are not needed now or during any previous administration, until this activist judge inserted her two cents. Oh well it won't stand.

 

No, it was them dern activist founding fathers who just had to insert that pesky 4th Amendment to the Constitution.

 

Reading through Judge Taylor's opinion now. I do agree with the judge that the plaintiffs had standing, but I believe that the national security, and the lives of Americans, outweighs some reporter's right to get a story or even attorney-client privilege.

 

I think a compromise on this issue is possible.

If data is being gathered without a warrant it will be okay if it is not going to be used in criminal case.

If it is later decided to use the data in criminal case, then the appropriate court must issue a warrant or else the data cannot be used in a court.

 

I think that this is a game of semantics.

Warrants were not needed to wiretap for national security . . .

The constitution prevents legal search and seizure - it does not prevent the military from protecting against enemies foreign and domestic.

The difference is whether or not the wiretap can later be used in court of law . . .

 

See my post above. The compromise has always been there.

 

And for all of you that want to practice that freedom you so casually brag about:

Go to DC walk over to 2650 Wisconsin Avenue, NW and wave till your arms are tired, tired, tired of living in a free country.

Same thing if you go to the American Embassy in Moscow . . . And probably even London.

But, if you really must have a totally free day and not be surveilled - go to Baghdad and tell the men and women how proud you are of their sacrifice.

 

If you are on a public street, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy (except search of your person and seizure of your property). If you are in your own home, you do expect not to be spied on by your own government - without a warrant and probable cause.

 

The wire tapps had plenty of probable cause. And while no warrants were issued congress was made aware of this on a regular basis. I think that is a great compromise.

 

You pays your money and takes your choice.

The people in Stalan's USSR never had to worry about terrorists.

 

Don't worry, carpro, as well as anyone else who so willingly relenquishes their Constitutional rights, this will be reversed on appeal.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14416571/

BiR

 

All that had to be done was to go to the FISA courts. Former President Clinton didn't seem to have any trouble staying within the guidelines of the law.....

 

First, dwelling on your ommission of his impeachment, President Clinton did not have to deal with 9-11.

Further, had President Clinton dealt with Osama better - we would not be having this discussion.

President Clinton has said that he would have done what President Bush had done in starting the war on terror . . .

Lastly, I think we as americans need to be realistic - American Airlines is still one of the top terror targets of the islamic terrorists.

Therefore - wiretapping conversations outside of one's home (transmissions go into the public domain) that go to people on terrorist watch lists:

Must be monitored to prevent a second 9-11.

 

Willingly?

No one willingly went into the twin towers to be murdered by terrorists that hide behind the Constitution of the USA.

Willingly?

Take up your Constitutional Right to protect your country. There is no right for an American to be a traitor. There is no Constitutional protection of cowards, traitors, and terrorists.

Show us where in the Constitution that it says, "And by the way - terrorists and their sympathizers have the protection of our country to wage a war of terror."