Court Rules Warrantless Wiretaps Unconstitutional (1 Viewer)

[SofaKings]

Just makes the gov't's job that much harder.

Awwww. Poor wittle government.

Wascally wabbits.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

The argument by the government is rather amusing.

"We have the right to... we just can't prove it to you."

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Not surprised that a liberal judge would make a judgment that weakens our government's ability to combat terrorism.

If the judgment is in line with the law, why would it matter if the judge were "liberal"?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

The argument by the government is rather amusing."We have the right to... we just can't prove it to you."

It's actually a compelling argument that has stood in many many cases, under both republican and democrat administrations.The problem here was the specific facts argued and the nature of the standing conferred to the plaintiffs.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Just makes the gov't's job that much harder.

Which is the whole point of our divided government.

Yeah, we should make things as easy as possible for those who want to blow us up.

Then lets really make things easy-Link

I told all four that there were going to be some times where we don't agree with each other. But that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.

Link

A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it.

The Emperor in his speech to the Senate: "In order to ensure our security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society which I assure you will last for ten thousand years."

Senator Padmé comments: "So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause."

 

[bostonfred]

I'd be interested in hearing how listening in on international calls to suspected terrorists makes it difficult for journalist, scholars and lawyers to do their jobs.

If they are "suspected terrorists" getting a wiretap warrant should not be difficult.

Why would that make it any easier for journalists, scholars, and lawyers to do their jobs? They still wouldn't know whether the people they were talking to were being wiretapped.

It has nothing to do with whether the journalists think their sources are being wiretapped. It's the sources who have something to fear. If you have information about terrorism, and don't want to contact the authorities, you can talk to the press. However, you might be afraid to contact the press if you think the government may be wiretapping you without your knowledge. The press cannot protect their sources if they are being wiretapped, so the sources may not come forward. Now, you could argue that people who have information about terrorism should be going to the police, and not to the press. That's really not your decision. It's the source's. So the argument, as I understand it, is that the press should have the ability to talk to sources who do not have to fear that they are being wiretapped.

 

[pantagrapher]

The argument by the government is rather amusing."We have the right to... we just can't prove it to you."

It's actually a compelling argument that has stood in many many cases, under both republican and democrat administrations.

Do you have a link?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

The argument by the government is rather amusing."We have the right to... we just can't prove it to you."

It's actually a compelling argument that has stood in many many cases, under both republican and democrat administrations.

Do you have a link?

Sure. Go back and actually read the one you posted with the holding.

 

[Viva Tequila]

which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy

Please please please will someone tell me where in the heck in the U.S. Constitution it says that there is a Right to PrivacyWhere do they make this crap up?

It's like we can make tender out any thing we want all over again. Instead of following the constitution:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

I think she's probably referring to the Bill of Rights, Amendment 4:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no 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.

But I'm with you on this one. Sine when is the Bill of Rights non-negotiable? Especially when we're dealing with terrorists who want to kill us to death. It's insane the level of freedom we put up with around here.

Note the 4th amendment says UNREASONABLE SEARCHES. Unreasonable searches of person, houses, papers, and effects. It doesn't say a darned thing about having a right to privacy, or about the right to not have your life snooped about if your under suspicion.I would think that snooping about possible terrorists conversations through wire taps would be more reasonable then going to their houses and turning them inside out. Which under the 4th they are protected against. But if your under suspicion I would think this would be the most reasonable avenue to gain information without disrupting the persons life with CIA FBI and whatever other federal agents on their tail day after day. JMO.

While I agree that rulings like this are good ones

In 1969, the Court unanimously concluded that the right of privacy protected an individual's right to possess and view pornography (including pornography that might be the basis for a criminal prosecution against its manufacturer or distributor) in his own home. Drawing support for the Court's decision from both the First and Fourth Amendments, Justice Marshall wrote in Stanley v Georgia:

"Whatever may be the justifications for other statutes regulating obscenity, we do not think they reach into the privacy of one's own home. If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds."

IMO this is wiretapping issue is way different. Nobody's telling these guys they can't use the phone, how to use the phone, when to use the phone or where to use their phone or what to say while on their phone or who they can contact with their phone, etc, etc. I doubt most of the people under suspicion even know they are being tapped. I could careless what the gov't wants to hear on my phone line. I got nuttin to hide their.The computer........ well that's different

But according to Stanley v Georgia, I'm legal

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

The argument by the government is rather amusing."We have the right to... we just can't prove it to you."

It's actually a compelling argument that has stood in many many cases, under both republican and democrat administrations.

Do you have a link?

I think Yankee was trying to be funny here.

 

[Viva Tequila]

which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy

Please please please will someone tell me where in the heck in the U.S. Constitution it says that there is a Right to PrivacyWhere do they make this crap up?

It's like we can make tender out any thing we want all over again. Instead of following the constitution:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Ahem - you are aware that the Constitutionality of a position depends on 200+ years of court cases in addition to the original document, right? Please tell me you know this. As for where the right to privacy is, you can find you answer here.

HTH.

Yes, yes I'm aware of the previous rulings that truly didn't begin until 1923. Not sure where you get 200+ yrs of court rulings from. Perhaps this Link will help you.In all my research on this subject the actual right to privacy does not exist. It's all inherent and interpretation of the law. Mostly referencing the 9th amendment - Rights Retained by the People - which are not expressly stated but inferred.

I guess my real problem here is what is it that is being violated actually? My private conversations? My conversations get eavesdropped on all the time by strangers, co-workers, patrons. I could careless.

As long my gov't doesn't tell me when, where, how, and with whom I can do something I don't feel I'm being violated. Then again, I'm not under suspicion.

 

[Viva Tequila]

The Emperor in his speech to the Senate: "In order to ensure our security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society which I assure you will last for ten thousand years."Senator Padmé comments: "So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause."

This is actually true and reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:Ben Franklin

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both

Would we be giving up a liberty here? I'm not so sure that I would be. Convince me otherwise.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The Emperor in his speech to the Senate: "In order to ensure our security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society which I assure you will last for ten thousand years."Senator Padmé comments: "So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause."

This is actually true and reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:Ben Franklin

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both

Would we be giving up a liberty here? I'm not so sure that I would be. Convince me otherwise.

Ignoring whether or not a specific right to privacy is enumerated in the constitution, do you believe that in 2006 the general legal opinions of the past fifty years or so has recognized that such a right exists?If you had a recognized right to privacy, whether you personally needed it or cared about it and society willingly allowed the government to violate that right to keep us safe how can you argue you didn't just do exactly what Franklin warned against?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'd be interested in hearing how listening in on international calls to suspected terrorists makes it difficult for journalist, scholars and lawyers to do their jobs.

If they are "suspected terrorists" getting a wiretap warrant should not be difficult.

Why would that make it any easier for journalists, scholars, and lawyers to do their jobs? They still wouldn't know whether the people they were talking to were being wiretapped.

It has nothing to do with whether the journalists think their sources are being wiretapped. It's the sources who have something to fear. If you have information about terrorism, and don't want to contact the authorities, you can talk to the press. However, you might be afraid to contact the press if you think the government may be wiretapping you without your knowledge. The press cannot protect their sources if they are being wiretapped, so the sources may not come forward. Now, you could argue that people who have information about terrorism should be going to the police, and not to the press. That's really not your decision. It's the source's. So the argument, as I understand it, is that the press should have the ability to talk to sources who do not have to fear that they are being wiretapped.

But the sources should still be afraid anyway, right? I mean, okay, let's say Bush gets a FISA warrant to wiretap the source. The source still wouldn't know they were being wiretapped, but if they're aware of the program's existence they would still have to be afraid.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

If you had a recognized right to privacy, whether you personally needed it or cared about it and society willingly allowed the government to violate that right to keep us safe how can you argue you didn't just do exactly what Franklin warned against?

Yeah. But Franklin was wrong.(Actually, Franklin was probably just exaggerating to make a point. Nobody but hard-core anarchists thinks we should never give up liberty for security).

 

[CBus Alex]

explain to me why the gov't can't get a warrant if they rightfully want to wiretap somebody again?

I can't, it's a state secret.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

For the record, I wouldn't be surprised if I ended up agreeing with this ruling. It seems to me that there ought to be some sort of judicial supervision of the wiretapping program, whether it's through a real court, FISA, or something similar. If that's what got this program struck down, fine.

The problem is that some of the arguments mentioned in the article would apply to any kind of wiretapping, whether warrants were obtained or not. That's why I curious as to what people who have actually read the opinion have to say.

 

[whoknew]

Glenn Greewald breaks it down.

This seems very weak to me:Second, the court ruled that the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the legality of the NSA program even though they cannot prove they have been eavesdropped on, because they have suffered actual harm merely from knowing that the Government is eavesdropping. They all allege that they have extensive communications with the Middle East by telephone and fear that the administration is listening in without a warrant. Some are attorneys who fear the administration is eavesdropping on their conversations with their clients and witnesses, and they allege that these clients and witnesses have ceased communicating with them openly as a result.

Thus, the court held that these plaintiffs are suffering actual harm in their ability to carry out their professional duties as a result of the administration's warrantless eavesdropping program. That actual harm confers on them standing to challenge the legality of the program. The court also emphasized, in an excellent section I will quote shortly, that it is vital to our democracy that the administration's conduct not remain beyond the reach of judicial scrutiny.

I'd be surprised if this held up to scrutiny.

 

[bostonfred]

I'd be interested in hearing how listening in on international calls to suspected terrorists makes it difficult for journalist, scholars and lawyers to do their jobs.

If they are "suspected terrorists" getting a wiretap warrant should not be difficult.

Why would that make it any easier for journalists, scholars, and lawyers to do their jobs? They still wouldn't know whether the people they were talking to were being wiretapped.

It has nothing to do with whether the journalists think their sources are being wiretapped. It's the sources who have something to fear. If you have information about terrorism, and don't want to contact the authorities, you can talk to the press. However, you might be afraid to contact the press if you think the government may be wiretapping you without your knowledge. The press cannot protect their sources if they are being wiretapped, so the sources may not come forward. Now, you could argue that people who have information about terrorism should be going to the police, and not to the press. That's really not your decision. It's the source's. So the argument, as I understand it, is that the press should have the ability to talk to sources who do not have to fear that they are being wiretapped.

But the sources should still be afraid anyway, right? I mean, okay, let's say Bush gets a FISA warrant to wiretap the source. The source still wouldn't know they were being wiretapped, but if they're aware of the program's existence they would still have to be afraid.

Yes, but in that case they would be protected by the checks and balances of the warrant system.

 

[KCC]

America is slowly righting it's course.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'd be interested in hearing how listening in on international calls to suspected terrorists makes it difficult for journalist, scholars and lawyers to do their jobs.

If they are "suspected terrorists" getting a wiretap warrant should not be difficult.

Why would that make it any easier for journalists, scholars, and lawyers to do their jobs? They still wouldn't know whether the people they were talking to were being wiretapped.

It has nothing to do with whether the journalists think their sources are being wiretapped. It's the sources who have something to fear. If you have information about terrorism, and don't want to contact the authorities, you can talk to the press. However, you might be afraid to contact the press if you think the government may be wiretapping you without your knowledge. The press cannot protect their sources if they are being wiretapped, so the sources may not come forward. Now, you could argue that people who have information about terrorism should be going to the police, and not to the press. That's really not your decision. It's the source's. So the argument, as I understand it, is that the press should have the ability to talk to sources who do not have to fear that they are being wiretapped.

But the sources should still be afraid anyway, right? I mean, okay, let's say Bush gets a FISA warrant to wiretap the source. The source still wouldn't know they were being wiretapped, but if they're aware of the program's existence they would still have to be afraid.

Yes, but in that case they would be protected by the checks and balances of the warrant system.

I agree, but that's a seperate argument. They seem to be saying "wiretapping makes it hard to do my job" which is true, but irrelevant. The more important is "The government should have to get approval from a judge to make it harder to do my job." I can agree with second argument; the first is pretty lame.

 

[Viva Tequila]

If you had a recognized right to privacy, whether you personally needed it or cared about it and society willingly allowed the government to violate that right to keep us safe how can you argue you didn't just do exactly what Franklin warned against?

Yeah. But Franklin was wrong.(Actually, Franklin was probably just exaggerating to make a point. Nobody but hard-core anarchists thinks we should never give up liberty for security).

Mark me down for Anarchist then.

 

[NCCommish]

I think it was the right ruling. FISA exists for reason. The AG has admitted that the president has no warpowers based on the AUMF and that was the only card they were holding.

 

[pettifogger]

Glenn Greewald breaks it down.

This seems very weak to me:Second, the court ruled that the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the legality of the NSA program even though they cannot prove they have been eavesdropped on, because they have suffered actual harm merely from knowing that the Government is eavesdropping. They all allege that they have extensive communications with the Middle East by telephone and fear that the administration is listening in without a warrant. Some are attorneys who fear the administration is eavesdropping on their conversations with their clients and witnesses, and they allege that these clients and witnesses have ceased communicating with them openly as a result.

Thus, the court held that these plaintiffs are suffering actual harm in their ability to carry out their professional duties as a result of the administration's warrantless eavesdropping program. That actual harm confers on them standing to challenge the legality of the program. The court also emphasized, in an excellent section I will quote shortly, that it is vital to our democracy that the administration's conduct not remain beyond the reach of judicial scrutiny.

I'd be surprised if this held up to scrutiny.

I agree with this post. The most problematic part about the opinion is that there was no trial, just affadavits containing claims that the plaintiffs suspect they were wiretapped or contending that free speech was impeded. Normally one would think those are triable issues, not subject to summary judgment or injunctive relief. I also missed any discussion of whether injunctive relief was appropriate as opposed to a damages trial after actual testimony and cross examination. But, I am glad that the judge disposed of the absolutely ludicrous argument that the AUMF implicitly gave Bush more power to sidestep FISA than an outright declaration of war would have, and that the President has inherent power to simply ignore the law.

Note also that in his Congressional testimony, Gonzales has refused to testify that the wiretapping is limited to international calls.

 

[bostonfred]

I'd be interested in hearing how listening in on international calls to suspected terrorists makes it difficult for journalist, scholars and lawyers to do their jobs.

If they are "suspected terrorists" getting a wiretap warrant should not be difficult.

Why would that make it any easier for journalists, scholars, and lawyers to do their jobs? They still wouldn't know whether the people they were talking to were being wiretapped.

It has nothing to do with whether the journalists think their sources are being wiretapped. It's the sources who have something to fear. If you have information about terrorism, and don't want to contact the authorities, you can talk to the press. However, you might be afraid to contact the press if you think the government may be wiretapping you without your knowledge. The press cannot protect their sources if they are being wiretapped, so the sources may not come forward. Now, you could argue that people who have information about terrorism should be going to the police, and not to the press. That's really not your decision. It's the source's. So the argument, as I understand it, is that the press should have the ability to talk to sources who do not have to fear that they are being wiretapped.

But the sources should still be afraid anyway, right? I mean, okay, let's say Bush gets a FISA warrant to wiretap the source. The source still wouldn't know they were being wiretapped, but if they're aware of the program's existence they would still have to be afraid.

Yes, but in that case they would be protected by the checks and balances of the warrant system.

I agree, but that's a seperate argument. They seem to be saying "wiretapping makes it hard to do my job" which is true, but irrelevant. The more important is "The government should have to get approval from a judge to make it harder to do my job." I can agree with second argument; the first is pretty lame.

It's not a separate argument. If you have to get a warrant to wiretap, there's two categories of people - people for whom the judge would issue a warrant, and people for whom they wouldn't. If you don't have to get a warrant, there's just one category - people who may get wiretapped at any time. The argument, as I understand it, isn't that wiretapping makes it harder to talk to their sources, but that the threat of wiretapping without having to pass through checks and balances makes it harder to talk to MORE of their sources.

 

[commisholio]

Good. This is obviously the right result.

 

[bueno]

Federal judge orders end to wiretap program

Says governments listening in without warrant is unconstitutional

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.

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.

The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.

The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule.

LINK

Didn't realize their jobs were passing on information to terrorists.

 

[whoknew]

Good. This is obviously the right result.

I disagree. Don't see how there was standing.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I agree, but that's a seperate argument. They seem to be saying "wiretapping makes it hard to do my job" which is true, but irrelevant. The more important is "The government should have to get approval from a judge to make it harder to do my job." I can agree with second argument; the first is pretty lame.

Who is making the first argument. The argument is simply that the administration can not simply ignore the bare minimal constitutional right of due process that FISA preserves. Not requiring a warrant at all, even the retroactive warrants that FISA allows means that the administration has no check at all and can engage in "fishing trips" listening to any call they want.The government being forced to be inefficient by jumping through extra hoops (i.e. due process) before infringing on our rights is a basic principal of our form of government.

 

[pantagrapher]

Good. This is obviously the right result.

I disagree. Don't see how there was standing.

If you ask me, this is just another rash decision by liberal judge with a case of teh Bush Hate.

 

[whoknew]

Good. This is obviously the right result.

I disagree. Don't see how there was standing.

If you ask me, this is just another rash decision by liberal judge with a case of teh Bush Hate.

I know you're being sarcastic, but I was being serious. That standing part of the decision seems wrong.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Good. This is obviously the right result.

I disagree. Don't see how there was standing.

If you ask me, this is just another rash decision by liberal judge with a case of teh Bush Hate.

Actually, if you weren't so blinded by your hate for Bush you would be able to see that the standing issue is a problem here. I don't think the case for standing was very strong at all, and I doubt I'm alone in that assessment.If this gets appealed and overturned, it will likely be on the standing issue. Whether or not the end result was right, if the judge didn't get there the right way, it doesn't matter.

 

[whoknew]

Good. This is obviously the right result.

I disagree. Don't see how there was standing.

If you ask me, this is just another rash decision by liberal judge with a case of teh Bush Hate.

Actually, if you weren't so blinded by your hate for Bush you would be able to see that the standing issue is a problem here. I don't think the case for standing was very strong at all, and I doubt I'm alone in that assessment.If this gets appealed and overturned, it will likely be on the standing issue. Whether or not the end result was right, if the judge didn't get there the right way, it doesn't matter.

Exactly. Standing's the first issue to be decided. No standing, no case.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I know you're being sarcastic, but I was being serious. That standing part of the decision seems wrong.

Every American who ever called 1-800 customer support number should have standing.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I know you're being sarcastic, but I was being serious. That standing part of the decision seems wrong.

Every American who ever called 1-800 customer support number should have standing.

But they don't. And they shouldn't either.

 

[whoknew]

I know you're being sarcastic, but I was being serious. That standing part of the decision seems wrong.

Every American who ever called 1-800 customer support number should have standing.

Pretty sure that's not how standing works.Link

There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative.

Hard to see how this will survive.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I know you're being sarcastic, but I was being serious. That standing part of the decision seems wrong.

Every American who ever called 1-800 customer support number should have standing.

Pretty sure that's not how standing works.Link

There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative.

Hard to see how this will survive.

It could. The judge pigeonholed it, but it could stand up. If I had to bet money though, I'd bet that this will overturned because of the standing issue.

 

[SofaKings]

Thank goodness the SC is on America's side.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Thank goodness the SC is on America's side.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I'm reading this thing again and I can't believe I missed this:

The fed argued that they couldn't hand over evidence or prove their argument because it would be divulging state secrets. The judge actually found in her ruling that the President and the administration had said enough about the program in public to make a ruling.

In other words, she based at least some parts of her ruling on political speeches, press releases and the like. On out of court statements that aren't close to being under oath. So now, political speeches and press releases are admittable evidence to prove the truth of the matter they assert?

Ah, no.

The more I read this ruling, the more I know this will be destroyed on appeal if the fed appeals it.

 

[pantagrapher]

I'm reading this thing again and I can't believe I missed this:The fed argued that they couldn't hand over evidence or prove their argument because it would be divulging state secrets. The judge actually found in her ruling that the President and the administration had said enough about the program in public to make a ruling.In other words, she based at least some parts of her ruling on political speeches, press releases and the like. On out of court statements that aren't close to being under oath. So now, political speeches and press releases are admittable evidence to prove the truth of the matter they assert?Ah, no.The more I read this ruling, the more I know this will be destroyed on appeal if the fed appeals it.

Didn't another judge rule the state secrets defense void in this case? And if so, is this kind of like the government being ruled guilty in absentia?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I'm reading this thing again and I can't believe I missed this:The fed argued that they couldn't hand over evidence or prove their argument because it would be divulging state secrets. The judge actually found in her ruling that the President and the administration had said enough about the program in public to make a ruling.In other words, she based at least some parts of her ruling on political speeches, press releases and the like. On out of court statements that aren't close to being under oath. So now, political speeches and press releases are admittable evidence to prove the truth of the matter they assert?Ah, no.The more I read this ruling, the more I know this will be destroyed on appeal if the fed appeals it.

Didn't another judge rule the state secrets defense void in this case? And if so, is this kind of like the government being ruled guilty in absentia?

No, this is admitting in a holding that the judge used inadmissable hearsay to make her decision for plaintiff's whose standing was murky at best.And the fed won part of this thing as well, and state secrets was a reason why.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I agree, but that's a seperate argument. They seem to be saying "wiretapping makes it hard to do my job" which is true, but irrelevant. The more important is "The government should have to get approval from a judge to make it harder to do my job." I can agree with second argument; the first is pretty lame.

Who is making the first argument.

It's from the original article (first post).

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.

The argument is simply that the administration can not simply ignore the bare minimal constitutional right of due process that FISA preserves. Not requiring a warrant at all, even the retroactive warrants that FISA allows means that the administration has no check at all and can engage in "fishing trips" listening to any call they want.The government being forced to be inefficient by jumping through extra hoops (i.e. due process) before infringing on our rights is a basic principal of our form of government.

I agree with that, but that doesn't seem to be the argument the ACLU was advancing. The more I hear what others are saying, it sound like the ACLU was just using that (really weak) argument to achieve standing. The basic result seems okay if the judge based her ruling on the other stuff.

 

[bueno]

The Emperor in his speech to the Senate: "In order to ensure our security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society which I assure you will last for ten thousand years."

Senator Padmé comments: "So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause."

This is actually true and reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:Ben Franklin

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both

Would we be giving up a liberty here? I'm not so sure that I would be. Convince me otherwise.

Please get the quote right.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Further, Franklin denied he ever said that!

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Please get the quote right.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Further, Franklin denied he ever said that!

Your link says that "Franklin denied he ever said that"?

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of "s": "Thoſe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchaſe a little Temporary Safety, deſerve neither Liberty nor Safety." Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson to be the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

Many variants derived from this phrase have arisen and have usually been incorrectly attributed to Franklin:

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"

"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither"

Where?Oh, and WikiQuotes is a legitimate reference, and Wikipedia is a laughable reference?

 

[Koya]

Detroit Free Press Article on the Judge

What a surprise.

Surprised that a liberal judge would uphold traditionally conservative values?

Not surprised that a liberal judge would make a judgment that weakens our government's ability to combat terrorism.

Yet strengthens our nation by more strongly instilling the values we represent and live by.

 

[Koya]

On page 22 she takes a shot at Bush:his actions blatently disregaurd the Bill of Rights.Sorry, Judge. Many a President have. Just look at the FISA court. This is, quite frankly, political dicta.

Just because others have shouldn't mean we should let it go. And really, there isnt much arguement as to the fact that the statement is correct here.

 

[bueno]

Please get the quote right.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Further, Franklin denied he ever said that!

Your link says that "Franklin denied he ever said that"?

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of "s": "Thoſe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchaſe a little Temporary Safety, deſerve neither Liberty nor Safety." Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson to be the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

Many variants derived from this phrase have arisen and have usually been incorrectly attributed to Franklin:

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"

"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither"

Where?Oh, and WikiQuotes is a legitimate reference, and Wikipedia is a laughable reference?

Reading comprehension down?

This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Please get the quote right.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Further, Franklin denied he ever said that!

Your link says that "Franklin denied he ever said that"?

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of "s": "Thoſe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchaſe a little Temporary Safety, deſerve neither Liberty nor Safety." Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson to be the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

Many variants derived from this phrase have arisen and have usually been incorrectly attributed to Franklin:

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"

"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither"

Where?Oh, and WikiQuotes is a legitimate reference, and Wikipedia is a laughable reference?

Reading comprehension down?

This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served.

Nope! There is a tiny bit of difference between denying he wrote the book other then a few remarks, and saying he denies a specific quote.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I'm reading this thing again and I can't believe I missed this:The fed argued that they couldn't hand over evidence or prove their argument because it would be divulging state secrets. The judge actually found in her ruling that the President and the administration had said enough about the program in public to make a ruling.In other words, she based at least some parts of her ruling on political speeches, press releases and the like. On out of court statements that aren't close to being under oath. So now, political speeches and press releases are admittable evidence to prove the truth of the matter they assert?Ah, no.The more I read this ruling, the more I know this will be destroyed on appeal if the fed appeals it.

Didn't another judge rule the state secrets defense void in this case? And if so, is this kind of like the government being ruled guilty in absentia?

No, this is admitting in a holding that the judge used inadmissable hearsay to make her decision for plaintiff's whose standing was murky at best.And the fed won part of this thing as well, and state secrets was a reason why.

Its not inadmissable hearsay - the plaintiffs submitted affidavit testimony that the Court determined was "undisputed." The state secret doctrine argument is weak on the warrantless wiretapping issue as it is obviously well know that the government has admitted that the program exists (unlike the datamining issue, on whcih Judge Taylor ruled in favor of the government).The government's argument on standing is also a weak attempt to avoid the constitutional merits of their eavesdropping program. I wil be very disappointed if the 6th Cir. punts this case on that basis. There is no question that the mere existence of the TSP constitutes an actual invasion of a legally protected interest. Of course the ACLU can't find someone who was actually wiretapped, because that information is secret. Should that preclude the Court from doing its job?