F.U. right wingers. NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Actually Marbury v. Madison established the compromise that the judicial wouldn't actively attempt to write law but would act as final inerpreter of constitutionality. That of course doesn't excuse the executive and legislative from upholding the constitution and likewise interpeting their range of powers.

[chequita guevara]

Congress could strip the courts of that ability, but even the GOP mostly seems to recognize this would not be in the national interests. It's a power the Courts took upon themselves, and everyone else said, seems like a good idea. There's no authority in the Constitution for the Courts to act as the final arbiter. It procedes from logical principles, but that doesn't mean it has a basis in the law. I think a Constitutional Amendment should be passed to grant that power, lest Congress try to take it away or the President decide to ignore it.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Agreed. We are saying the same thing.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by NeOmega


Let me get this strait, you are trying to sell us this program as legal, under the logic that since past presidents have taken it upon themselves to define the constitution (which, is clearly the domain of the judicial branch) that this president can do it too?

Is that what you are trying to say?

A couple misconceptions. It is not merely the province of the judicial branch to interpret/define the constitution it is the responsibility of the executive, legislative, and judicial to interpret the constitution. This is the reason why they all are sworn to uphold and defend the constitution.

By virtue of Marbury v. Madison the precedent was set that the judicial would grab the authority to be the last word on such interpretations but at a cost of not actively writing law. This has been the case since. But that in no way relieves the legislative from forming laws that are unconsitutional by nature or the executive from implementing/executing or not implementing/executing those laws if he believes them unconstitutional and has been advised as such.

This is why there was such a hue and cry regarding McCain Feingold. Bush abdicated his responsibility saying he thought the law was unconstitutional and said I'll let the Supreme Court decide the matter and proceded to sign anyway. (The Supremes eventually upheld McCain Feingold in a narrow 5-4 decision IIRC) That kind of decision making is an abdication of his oath and is not in keeping with an officer of the constitution. It just so happened that SCOTUS in this case ruled such that he did not make a mistake (at least according to the controversial SCOTUS interpretation that is).

This is your typical partisan... "well, uhh.. THEY DID IT TOO!", just framed with better vocabulary and a much nicer dance around the facts.

Actually partisanship has little to do with the matter. I happen to be one of those few people that beleive in the OFFICE of the president, and the powers described inthe constitution and judicial precedents defining those powers. Likewise I believe in the same powers for the judicial and Legislative. WRT the OFFICE of the president being damaged that was the reason I was so outraged at the Repugs for the damage I saw being done to the OFFICE of the president when repugs were atttacking Clinton.

All this opinion is doing, if this argument flies in the supreme court, is setting legal precedent for the next president, to claim the authority to defy the law, and say, their AG just didn't interperet the law that way.

One does risk that I'll admit. But the case law was so established up until the Diggs Taylor ruling that is that it was well understood that the President had such authority. In the immortal words of Tennet it was a "slam dunk."

And why would the NSA want to watch me? All I do is read at least 50% of media reports, as well as 90% of American casualty reports, both fatal and wounded, on icasualties.org. I mean, what regular person does this?

Then I spout "anti-american" stuff on message boards. Data mining, especially with web tracking habits included, could definitely have me defined as dangerous... especially to those who think "the president is always right"*

I won't presume to make personal arguements for or against.

We'll see. One day, painful as it may be, a Democrat will take the oval office. And then right wingers will denounce all these rights being abused, rights they joyfully pissed away to George Bush.








*Steve Bradbury, Active Deputy Attorney General, in response to Sen. Leahy, July 12, 2006

Hey everyone wants it there way at that respective time. I can't prevent others from being twofaced (Dems and GOP alike). I simply presented my arguements straightforwardly and if in the future they get thrown back in my face I'll deal with it.

[chequita guevara]

The problem with the program is where the wiretaps originate. They are tapping American citizens in the hopes that AQ will call them and divulge some information. Such unwaranted conduct is clearly illegal unless the government has probably cause that a call will be made. They can't simply intiate a tap and wait months or years for such an event to take place. In such a case, they need to present their evidence to a judge, who will 99.9% likely grant them the legal authority to spy on an American. If 72 hours isn't enough time to be able to repsent a case to a judge, the President should have gone to Congress to ask them to change the law to allow more time.

If, however, the tap is on the terrorist's phone, and he calls an American, no law has been violated.

I will note that in 2002, when Congress offered to change FISA to allow the tapping of phones on reaonable suspicion, the Administration argued against it saying that it would be an unconstitutional intrusion upon the rights of Americans.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Court Temporarily OKs Domestic Spying
By DAN SEWELL, Associated Press Writer

Wednesday, October 4, 2006


Printable Version
Email This Article




(10-04) 15:16 PDT CINCINNATI (AP) --


The Bush administration can continue its warrantless surveillance program while it appeals a judge's ruling that the program is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.


The president has said the program is needed in the war on terrorism; opponents argue it oversteps constitutional boundaries on free speech, privacy and executive powers.


The unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals gave little explanation for the decision. In the three-paragraph ruling, judges said that they balanced the likelihood an appeal would succeed, the potential damage to both sides and the public interest.


The Bush administration applauded the decision.


"We are pleased to see that it will be allowed to continue while the Court of Appeals examines the trial court's decision, with which we strongly disagree," Deputy White House press secretary Dana Perino said in a statement.


The program monitors international phone calls and e-mails to or from the United States involving people the government suspects have terrorist links. A secret court has been set up to grant warrants for such surveillance, but the government says it can't always wait for a court to take action.


U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit ruled Aug. 17 that the program was unconstitutional because it violates the rights to free speech and privacy and the separation of powers.


The Justice Department had urged the appeals court to allow it to keep the program in place while it argues its appeal, claiming that the nation faced "potential irreparable harm" and would be more vulnerable to a terrorist attack. The appeal is likely to take months.


"This program is both critical to preventing terrorist attacks and fully consistent with law," said Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse.


The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in January seeking to stop the program on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say it has made it difficult for them to do their jobs because they believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets. Many said they had been forced to take expensive and time-consuming overseas trips because their contacts wouldn't speak openly on the phone or because they didn't want to violate their contacts' confidentiality.


The ACLU contends that the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which set up the secret court to grant warrants for such surveillance, gave the government enough tools to monitor suspected terrorists.


"We are confident that when the 6th Circuit addresses the merits of this case, it will agree that warrantless wiretapping of Americans violates the law and is unconstitutional," Melissa Goodman, an ACLU attorney, said in a news release.


Similar lawsuits challenging the program have been filed by other groups, including in New York and San Francisco. The issue could wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

This stay of injunction is a fairly good indication that the 6th circuit court will likely slap down this decision.

AP wire story

[chequita guevara]

One should hope not.

[Drake Tungsten]

You guys who are all about destroying Mark Foley based on information gleaned from his private emails and IMs are still staunchly pro-privacy in this case, right?

[Pekka]

"What good is liberty if you are too dead to use it?"

Classic Never really thought about it this way..

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You guys who are all about destroying Mark Foley based on information gleaned from his private emails and IMs are still staunchly pro-privacy in this case, right?

Information released to the public by the recipients of those emails.

[Drake Tungsten]

Wasn't the NSA information released to the government by the phone companies?

[chequita guevara]

The law prevents the telecoms from releasing our information without a warrant. It does not prevent one party in a conversation from sharing it.

[Drake Tungsten]

The NSA program didn't have any access to the actual conversations. It used the information about who called who, which belongs to the telecom corporations.

edit: I'm speaking about the second NSA program that came out, in case that isn't clear.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You guys who are all about destroying Mark Foley based on information gleaned from his private emails and IMs are still staunchly pro-privacy in this case, right?

Except Folley was using a government computer. Every employer has the right to access information on their own computer system. That is established law. I just don't want people going after e-mails I send on my own computer system or after phone calls which are protected by duly passed laws.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Wasn't the NSA information released to the government by the phone companies?

It's hard for the phone companies to claim they're just common carries and then to find out they selectively release phone information when it suits them.