PDA

View Full Version : BREAKING: Federal District Court Rules NSA Wiretapping Program Unconstitutional


Pureracket
Aug 17th, 2006, 08:33 PM
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/foxww.jpg

Fox News reports a federal district court in Detroit has ruled that the Bush administration’s NSA warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

A separate federal district court in San Francisco had previously rejected the administration’s argument that the court could not hear the case due to a “state secrets” privilege. The lawsuit alleged that the NSA program violated the First and Fourth Amendments, as well as a number of federal statutes, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The defendants included AT&T and the federal government.


http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/17/nsa-unconstitutiona... (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/17/nsa-unconstitutional) /


Update/AP
Judge nixes warrantless surveillance By SARAH KARUSH
Associated Press Writer

DETROIT - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_on_go_pr_wh/warr... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_on_go_pr_wh/warrantless_surveillance)

Direct link to Judge Taylor’s judgment and order for permanent injunction:
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/eGov/taylorpdf/06%2010204.... (http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/eGov/taylorpdf/06%2010204.pdf)

SelesFan70
Aug 17th, 2006, 08:36 PM
Why are you watching FoxNews? :eek:

This liberal, Carter-appointed judge will be quickly corrected by the 6th Circuit court. :wavey:

Pureracket
Aug 17th, 2006, 08:38 PM
Why are you watching FoxNews? :eek:

This liberal, Carter-appointed judge will be quickly corrected by the 6th Circuit court. :wavey:Isn't FoxNews fair and balanced?

Pureracket
Aug 17th, 2006, 08:45 PM
Why are you watching FoxNews? :eek:

This liberal, Carter-appointed judge will be quickly corrected by the 6th Circuit court. :wavey:
Nah, not just a "liberal, Carter-appoint[ee]"

an African American Woman Carter appointee.

The racist sexist repuke lynch mob will be out in full force.

LOL!!!!!

(Don't worry, Selesfan, they'll keep wiretapping your calls. It was already against the law in the first place).

SelesFan70
Aug 17th, 2006, 08:46 PM
Isn't FoxNews fair and balanced?

Yes, of course! I'm just surprised you watch it. :p

SelesFan70
Aug 17th, 2006, 08:47 PM
Nah, not just a "liberal, Carter-appoint[ee]"

an African American Woman Carter appointee.

The racist sexist repuke lynch mob will be out in full force.

LOL!!!!!

(Don't worry, Selesfan, they'll keep wiretapping your calls. It was already against the law in the first place).

Oh, I didn't know she's AA. Doesn't make her decision any less :retard:.

I'm not a terrorist, so they can listen all day if they want. I don't make a lot of calls or receive a lot of calls. They'll be bored. ;)

Pureracket
Aug 17th, 2006, 08:48 PM
Now, it's just a matter of Matt Drudge finding a bad picture of her, digging up a drug charge or two about a distant family member or two, questioning her sexuality and her position on gay marriage, and the whole Repuke machine will be rolling along rather nicely.

SelesFan70
Aug 17th, 2006, 08:49 PM
Now, it's just a matter of Matt Drudge finding a bad picture of her, digging up a drug charge or two about a distant family member or two, questioning her sexuality and her position on gay marriage, and the whole Repuke machine will be rolling along rather nicely.

I bet www.dilby.com has beaten him to it. :tape:

Pureracket
Aug 17th, 2006, 08:50 PM
Oh, I didn't know she's AA. Doesn't make her decision any less :retard:.

I'm not a terrorist, so they can listen all day if they want. I don't make a lot of calls or receive a lot of calls. They'll be bored. ;)I'm glad I didn't tell my friend to call you and whisper sweet nothings in your ear, then. . .lol!

RVD
Aug 17th, 2006, 09:01 PM
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/foxww.jpg

Fox News reports a federal district court in Detroit has ruled that the Bush administration’s NSA warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

A separate federal district court in San Francisco had previously rejected the administration’s argument that the court could not hear the case due to a “state secrets” privilege. The lawsuit alleged that the NSA program violated the First and Fourth Amendments, as well as a number of federal statutes, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The defendants included AT&T and the federal government.


http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/17/nsa-unconstitutiona... (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/17/nsa-unconstitutional) /


Update/AP
Judge nixes warrantless surveillance By SARAH KARUSH
Associated Press Writer

DETROIT - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_on_go_pr_wh/warr... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_on_go_pr_wh/warrantless_surveillance)

Direct link to Judge Taylor’s judgment and order for permanent injunction:
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/eGov/taylorpdf/06%2010204.... (http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/eGov/taylorpdf/06%2010204.pdf)Let's see now...
http://deephousepage.com/smilies/scratchchin.gif

That makes like approximately 760 laws that Bush has broken.
But G.W. Teflon will simply bumble his way through another excuse and the lemmings of America will give him another pass. However, if someone were to sue the federal government and get the Federal Supreme Court to hear the case, the federal agencies may get that long overdue smacking they so deserve. :cool:

Oh, who am I fooling...?
Judge Anna Diggs is a very brave woman to go up againsnt BushCo, but I fear for her career. :sad:

samsung101
Aug 17th, 2006, 09:49 PM
Shall we thank Jimmy Carter again.
Who appointed this judge?
Which only reminds us why judge appointments
are so important.

As we now know Britain did in fact break up the
latest plot w/wiretapping techniques, assisted
by US info through tapped 'chatter', and even
Pakistans efforts followed this.



Well, nice to know our enemies have far more
free reign in the USA.



Sorry, the average internet geek can find out more
about any of us w/Radio Shack equipment than our
federal govt. Homeland Security has the right to.


I hope the Feds push this through to the Supreme
Court in some form.

Pureracket
Aug 17th, 2006, 10:00 PM
It takes a lot to overturn a decision like this. And until the appeal is heard, absent an order from a higher court, they have to obey it. This should be gooooood.

CJ07
Aug 17th, 2006, 10:03 PM
It'll be overturned. It might have to go all the way to the Supreme Court, but it will be overturned.

drake3781
Aug 17th, 2006, 10:04 PM
Of course it is unconstitutional. That is not a surprise. The fact that the ruling was actually made does surprise me. If it goes any farther than that I will also be duly surprised, in a welcome sort of way. :)

*JR*
Aug 17th, 2006, 10:21 PM
...However, if someone were to sue the federal government and get the Federal Supreme Court to hear the case, the federal agencies may get that long overdue smacking they so deserve. :cool:
Have you forgotten that neither of the 2 Democratic nominees for the Supreme Court in the past year plus were confirmed? Because they were never nominated. Because John F(ucking) Kerry virtually gave away the 2004 election. Any other flights of fancy?

Pureracket
Aug 17th, 2006, 10:36 PM
Have you forgotten that neither of the 2 Democratic nominees for the Supreme Court in the past year plus were confirmed? Because they were never nominated. Because John F(ucking) Kerry virtually gave away the 2004 election. Any other flights of fancy?Your Kerry rants were worth reading @ first, then they became comical. After that, mundane is what they were because of a sorta pathetic but obvious desire for attention. Now, it's kinda sad.:sad:

kiwifan
Aug 17th, 2006, 10:41 PM
I really don't see why Dubya & Co just can't put someone in place just to issue all the damn warrants they desire.

We're talking the minimum of Govt checks and balances. :shrug:

Unless of course they're up to something else...:scratch:

Pureracket
Aug 17th, 2006, 10:42 PM
Has Howard Dean come out with a statement concerning this? If the shoe was on the other foot you know some GOP spin meister would already be clogging the airwaves with "See, I told you so - You have to Elect Us because those darn Democrats want to take away all your freedoms" - I raise the point because even "joe 6-pack" the other half of the Republican base (half being the crazed Religious Right) - understands to a certain extent that he/she doesn't want any less personal freedoms than they already have.

Pureracket
Aug 17th, 2006, 11:39 PM
cheesestix is back!!!!! Yes!!!!!!!!!!!! I got my first negative rep from him today in a long time.

Marjallen
Samsung
Lord Nelson

This is who you should be really trying to emulate. Cheese is crazier than a bedbug and meaner than a junkyard dog, but at least he couches his venomous, mean-spritedness with an ounce of intelligence. Take note.

*JR*
Aug 18th, 2006, 12:16 AM
Your Kerry rants were worth reading @ first, then they became comical. After that, mundane is what they were because of a sorta pathetic but obvious desire for attention. Now, it's kinda sad.:sad:
Let me make it simple 4U:

1) There was one nomination available in '04 to try to beat Bush. Kerry "sold" a Democratic caucus and primary electorate that wanted "someone, (almost) anyone" who could beat Bush that he was that guy. Then he blew it with one of the most pathetic campaigns conceivable.

2) While Kerry (and even Dean) didn't want to withdraw from Vietnam Iraq immediately, he'd have us largely out by now. I doubt that the daily risk of getting killed or maimed there "amuses" young Americans. (And Iraqi's in the civil war our presence now fuels more than it controls).

3) Politics is largely about rhetoric. My repeated wordplay on his middle initial is for emphasis, but reflective of true contempt. I can be mundane, pathetic, whatever and it doesn't put ppl in the ground for what would have been the rest of their lives. Kerry's pathetic '04 campaign vs. Bush has, and continues to do so.

Pureracket
Aug 18th, 2006, 12:19 AM
Let me make it simple 4U:

1) There was one nomination available in '04 to try to beat Bush. Kerry "sold" a Democratic caucus and primary electorate that wanted "someone, (almost) anyone" who could beat Bush that he was that guy. Then he blew it with one of the most pathetic campaigns conceivable.

2) While Kerry (and even Dean) didn't want to withdraw from Vietnam Iraq immediately, he'd have us largely out by now. I doubt that the daily risk of getting killed or maimed there "amuses" young Americans. (And Iraqi's in the civil war our presence now fuels more than it controls).

3) Politics is largely about rhetoric. My repeated wordplay on his middle initial is for emphasis, but reflective of true contempt. I can be mundane, pathetic, whatever and it doesn't put ppl in the ground for what would have been the rest of their lives. Kerry's pathetic '04 campaign vs. Bush has, and continues to do so.I read this post, but you don't understand how this is all transitive? You can find little tidbits, facts, and factoids about any person in history and bring us to the point where we are today. Admit it. . . you are kinda getting off on this whole Kerry bit.

*JR*
Aug 18th, 2006, 12:46 AM
I read this post, but you don't understand how this is all transitive? You can find little tidbits, facts, and factoids about any person in history and bring us to the point where we are today. Admit it. . . you are kinda getting off on this whole Kerry bit.
Yeah. Had the US not toppled a moderately leftist democratically elected government in Iran in 1953 to restore the Shah's power, no Khomeini, no Iran-Iraq War, no invasion of Kuwait, and so on. (Though Saddam would have had nuclear weapons).

No US entry into WW I, the 2 sides would have fought to an approximate draw by 1920 or so. No Treaty of Versailles, no Hitler, no Holocaust, and probably no State of Israel. No German transport of Lenin to St. Petersburg in 1917, no USSR and no Cold War.

Communism would have probably been tried somewhere though. And without Hitler's weird mix of Facism and hate, Mussolini would have been a "typical 30 odd year dictator" after his weak military exposed his bluster about a new Roman Empire as a pure fantasy.

All I know is that when we got to 2004 in "this timeline", the election was Kerry's to lose. He did, many have paid the "ultimate price" for it, and continue to. (Though not Donald "I'm A Survivor" Rumsfeld, etc.)

Pureracket
Aug 18th, 2006, 12:51 AM
Yeah. Had the US not toppled a moderately leftist democratically elected government in Iran in 1953 to restore the Shah's power, no Khomeini, no Iran-Iraq War, no invasion of Kuwait, and so on. (Though Saddam would have had nuclear weapons).

No US entry into WW I, the 2 sides would have fought to an approximate draw by 1920 or so. No Treaty of Versailles, no Hitler, no Holocaust, and probably no State of Israel. No German transport of Lenin to St. Petersburg in 1917, no USSR and no Cold War.

Communism would have probably been tried somewhere though. And without Hitler's weird mix of Facism and hate, Mussolini would have been a "typical 30 odd year dictator" after his weak military exposed his bluster about a new Roman Empire as a pure fantasy.

All I know is that when we got to 2004 in "this timeline", the election was Kerry's to lose. He did, many have paid the "ultimate price" for it, and continue to. (Though not Donald "I'm A Survivor" Rumsfeld, etc.)In this whole timeline of life, why do you use Kerry, then?

*JR*
Aug 18th, 2006, 01:09 AM
In this whole timeline of life, why do you use Kerry, then?
I had a direct line of communication with a very highly placed aide of his from early Sept. '04 to Election Day (after the "Swiftboat Summer" made a few such ppl humble enough to listen to "outsiders"). Had they implemented my "gameplan", it would have swung I'm guessing 2% of the vote from Bush to Kerry, enough for him to have won, including in the Electoral Vote.

But the "serial loser of Presidential races" consulting firm in charge retained control, with predictable results. I had no ability to change any of those other historical forks in the road. This one I did. In a sense Kerry (by giving the race away) is stained with the same blood that's been shed in Bush's 2nd term as the Commander in Chief himself.

Pureracket
Aug 18th, 2006, 01:11 AM
I had a direct line of communication with a very highly placed aide of his from early Sept. '04 to Election Day (after the "Swiftboat Summer" made a few such ppl humble enough to listen to "outsiders"). Had they implemented my "gameplan", it would have swung I'm guessing 2% of the vote from Bush to Kerry, enough for him to have won, including in the Electoral Vote.

But the "serial loser of Presidential races" consulting firm in charge retained control, with predictable results. I had no ability to change any of those other historical forks in the road. This one I did. In a sense Kerry (by giving the race away) is stained with the same blood that's been shed in Bush's 2nd term as the Commander in Chief himself does. You know that this is not cool to say, right?

*JR*
Aug 18th, 2006, 01:13 AM
You know that this is not cool to say, right?
Read my signature, please.

RVD
Aug 18th, 2006, 01:16 AM
Have you forgotten that neither of the 2 Democratic nominees for the Supreme Court in the past year plus were confirmed? Because they were never nominated. Because John F(ucking) Kerry virtually gave away the 2004 election. Any other flights of fancy?Grrr...! Can a brutha dream, for crying out loud? :lol:
At this stage in the game, I'm more concerned about The People than I am with the Supreme Court. I've been noticing a nasty stretch of 'apathy', 'ignorance', ‘disdain’ for the process by the up-and-coming generation of voters. Not that I blame them.
I still undecided as to whether I’ll be taking part this November and in 2008.

Pheobo
Aug 18th, 2006, 01:18 AM
That's such a scary looking building. It reminds me of something out of 1984

Pureracket
Aug 18th, 2006, 01:19 AM
Read my signature, please.I've read it. Your blaming somebody other than the current administration for the mess we're in is exactly like you're one of the people who blindly support him. In fact, you're worst because you've fixated yourself so much on a single person until you ignore the current missteps that the administration is making.

*JR*
Aug 18th, 2006, 01:45 AM
I've read it. Your blaming somebody other than the current administration for the mess we're in is exactly like you're one of the people who blindly support him. In fact, you're worst because you've fixated yourself so much on a single person until you ignore the current missteps that the administration is making.
The current Administration wouldn't BE the current Administration if not for the pathetic campaign run against it in '04 by "the tin man with a tin ear". And thus not able to make those missteps. Goodnight.

Pureracket
Aug 18th, 2006, 01:48 AM
The current Administration wouldn't BE the current Administration if not for the pathetic campaign run against it in '04 by "the tin man with a tin ear". And thus not able to make those missteps. Goodnight.Yea, g'night. I was wondering what time the facility you're in was going to take away your computer privileges for the evening.

darrinbaker00
Aug 18th, 2006, 06:00 AM
cheesestix is back!!!!! Yes!!!!!!!!!!!! I got my first negative rep from him today in a long time.

Marjallen
Samsung
Lord Nelson

This is who you should be really trying to emulate. Cheese is crazier than a bedbug and meaner than a junkyard dog, but at least he couches his venomous, mean-spritedness with an ounce of intelligence. Take note.
He does?

Pureracket
Aug 18th, 2006, 11:58 AM
I mean... he knows it was illegal in the first place. This is like telling a small kid to stop pulling his sister's hair. What will happen next to actually force Bush et al. from doing this?

samsung101
Aug 18th, 2006, 03:22 PM
Again, I once thank former President Jimmy Carter for this
fine judge. What a dope.

As we see Britain and other nations taking advantage of obvious
means to fight terrorism, such as looking at phone records of
certain traits, from certain places, going to and from certain
nations and cities, our Courts once again, thanks to the ACLU,
stand by the side of the terrorists!

As for Mr. Spector's plans - he should have done this long
ago, and not at the expense of Bush. It's The Congress that
is sitting around doing little, but whine. Get to work, and do
something besides discuss amnesty for illegal aliens or how
much more money we can give Egypt or North Korea to make
them like us.

Memo: they won't, they hate you, get over it.

Wow, I'm relieved the terrorists and their sympathizers can
now more freely use our phone and internet and mail system
to communicate. I would not want to infringe upon that.

I hope the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court wipe out
her decision, and her flawed reasoning, in whole or in part
soon.

If any high school computer geek with a few dollars can figure
out my entire life, credit card history, phone records, my social
habits, etc., with little effort, and w/o my knowledge, I think the
feds should be able to, w/Congressional input, go after highly
suspect individual calls and correspondence.

Wannabeknowitall
Aug 18th, 2006, 04:13 PM
The judge noted "there are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution," a federal judge ruled Thursday that President Bush had exceeded his authority when he allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant.

That's right. Tell Governor Bush/King Jackass where he can stick it.

Lord Nelson
Aug 18th, 2006, 06:47 PM
Yeah. Had the US not toppled a moderately leftist democratically elected government in Iran in 1953 to restore the Shah's power, no Khomeini, no Iran-Iraq War, no invasion of Kuwait, and so on. (Though Saddam would have had nuclear weapons).

No US entry into WW I, the 2 sides would have fought to an approximate draw by 1920 or so. No Treaty of Versailles, no Hitler, no Holocaust, and probably no State of Israel. No German transport of Lenin to St. Petersburg in 1917, no USSR and no Cold War.

Communism would have probably been tried somewhere though. And without Hitler's weird mix of Facism and hate, Mussolini would have been a "typical 30 odd year dictator" after his weak military exposed his bluster about a new Roman Empire as a pure fantasy.

All I know is that when we got to 2004 in "this timeline", the election was Kerry's to lose. He did, many have paid the "ultimate price" for it, and continue to. (Though not Donald "I'm A Survivor" Rumsfeld, etc.)
You have a point except that colonialism would have lasted longer. It is thanks to WWII that colonialism collapsed. With regards to Hitler coming to power, i would put more blame on the unjust Versailles Treaty than in the U.S. altering the balance of power.

I have to disagree with Mossadeq. Look what happened in Afghanistan when the Shah was deposed by his cousin who changed the monarchy into a republic. He was assassinated 5 years later. Samthing can eb seen in Iraq where kasseem was killed in 58 after deposing the King. Of course here are exceptios with Libya and Egypt. Both those countries have conservative societies, probably as much as that of Iran. Though it is obligatory for women to wear veils over 95% of them do so in Libya and Egypt. In ran they war in general lihhter clothes than in these nations wear they usually wear all black.

Mossadeq was an unstable man. He would not have lasted long and I think that shiism clergy would have still prevailed since this is part of shiite culture. It may be a matter of time until Azerbaijan, a shiite nation has the clergy rule the country.

Pureracket
Aug 19th, 2006, 04:52 AM
Again, I once thank former President Jimmy Carter for this
fine judge. What a dope.

As we see Britain and other nations taking advantage of obvious
means to fight terrorism, such as looking at phone records of
certain traits, from certain places, going to and from certain
nations and cities, our Courts once again, thanks to the ACLU,
stand by the side of the terrorists!

As for Mr. Spector's plans - he should have done this long
ago, and not at the expense of Bush. It's The Congress that
is sitting around doing little, but whine. Get to work, and do
something besides discuss amnesty for illegal aliens or how
much more money we can give Egypt or North Korea to make
them like us.

Memo: they won't, they hate you, get over it.

Wow, I'm relieved the terrorists and their sympathizers can
now more freely use our phone and internet and mail system
to communicate. I would not want to infringe upon that.

I hope the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court wipe out
her decision, and her flawed reasoning, in whole or in part
soon.

If any high school computer geek with a few dollars can figure
out my entire life, credit card history, phone records, my social
habits, etc., with little effort, and w/o my knowledge, I think the
feds should be able to, w/Congressional input, go after highly
suspect individual calls and correspondence.the biggest thing that gets me here is that the admin. is claiming that they don't need to get warrants, ever for thier "terrorist surveillance program".

Well, that's just great, but if warrants are NOT required, what's to prevent a corrupt president, (let's call her "hillary" just to pick a name) from wiretapping her political opponents in secret? There's no independent check or balance on her activities. THAT's my big problem. That's why we have a 4th amendment, a FISA court, and separation powers. Bushco is disregarding all 3.

Now, all you have is his word that he's not violating your rights. Some may trust him on this, but there will not always be a president in office whom you trust.

Mother_Marjorie
Aug 19th, 2006, 05:15 AM
Well, well, well.

Look who is watching Fox News.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I don't even watch that trash journalism.

Pureracket
Aug 20th, 2006, 02:44 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I don't even watch that trash journalism.What are you saying about yourself here, Julia?

Pureracket
Aug 20th, 2006, 02:52 AM
The GOP is pissing their pants over this.

This is great! I love how Cheney and Hatch are saying that Dems winning will help the terrorists. I don't think people are going to give in to that fear mongering anymore. People clearly want change. Everybody can see how corrupt and incompetent the GOP is. We all know what Cheney and Hatch are really afraid of. I don't even need to say it, because you already know.

Infiniti2001
Aug 20th, 2006, 04:03 AM
funny yet scary video :eek:

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-wh-nsawiretapping,0,1906650.flash