TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Judge orders NSA wiretapping program shutdown

Judge orders NSA wiretapping program shutdown

quote:

NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional Judge orders immediate halt to program DETROIT, Michigan (AP) -- 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. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly taping conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries. 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. Source

Let the "activist judges" rhetoric commence. Wonder how long it'll take for the full opinion to become public?

I'm sure this will get half-ignored by the mainsream media due to the Ramsey arrest, though.

i really doubt the NSA gives two shit what some judge orders them to do.

Re: Judge orders NSA wiretapping program shutdown

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy Wonder how long it'll take for the full opinion to become public?

Not long - http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/...nsa.lawsuit.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp i really doubt the NSA gives two shit what some judge orders them to do.

You might be right, but isn't that a sign of a dictatorship?

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy You might be right, but isn't that a sign of a dictatorship?

Given the self-serving expansion of executive powers under this president, you don't think we're pretty close to that stage already? And that's the trouble, really: as happy as I am to see this ruling made, it's not going to make any difference so long as the administration sees itself as being above the law. If they want to continue with this program, then they're not going to allow some silly breach of the fourth ammendment of the US Constitution to get in their way.

Also, I'm loving their defence:

quote:

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

"Hey, we have a good reason to defy the US constitution! Huh? What is it? Well, we can't tell you what it is obviously, but just trust us when we say that we're abusing executive power for a really good reason, okay guys?"

Is there actually any way the courts can force the president to end this program, or will it be like the Guantanamo Bay thing all over again?

EDIT:

Good analysis of the ruling:

quote:

I have read the opinion. Here is my immediate analysis of it. It is a very strong opinion in some places, weak in others, but is rather straightforward -- and sometimes eloquent -- in its almost always unequivocal rejection of the Bush administration's arguments: First, the court rejected the administration's assertion of the "state secrets" doctrine with regard to the NSA eavesdropping program on the ground that the program has already been publicly confirmed by the administration, and that all of the known facts necessary to rule on the plaintiff's claims -- namely, that the administration is eavesdropping without warrants -- are already publicly known. The court adopted upon the reasoning of Judge Walker who, as noted above, rejected the administration's invocation of this doctrine on the same ground. (The court here did, however, grant the administration's motion to dismiss the part of the case challenging the constitutionality of the data-mining program, on the ground that it has not yet been confirmed, and litigation of its legality would therefore require disclose of state secrets). 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. Third, the court ruled -- rather emphatically and without much doubt -- that warrantless eavesdropping violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures (generally speaking, searches undertaken in the absence of a probable cause warrant). Citing the 1972 Supreme Court decision in the Keith case (more on that here) -- which held that warrantless eavesdropping is unconstitutional in the context of investigating domestic terrorist groups -- the court held (admittedly without much reasoning or even explicit arguments) that the same reasoning applies to make warrantless eavesdropping unconstitutional in the context of investigating international terrorist groups. Fourth, the court ruled independently -- again, without all that much reasoning -- that the NSA program violates the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights, apparently because it chills (deters) their free expression. Since the plaintiffs know the Government can eavesdrop without warrants on conversations of those groups and individuals deemed "subversive," the program abridges free expression in a way that the First Amendment prohibits. Fifth, the court relied upon Youngstown to hold that the Executive's powers in the national security area do not entitle him to act beyond the law or the Constitution, and that courts are empowered under our Constitution to enjoin and restrict the exercise even of national security powers, even in times of war, when the President's conduct violates the law or the Constitution. Sixth, the court swiftly and dismissively rejected the administration's claim that the AUMF constitutes authorization to eavesdrop in violation of FISA, noting that FISA is an extremely specific statute while the AUMF says nothing about eavesdropping. In any event, as the court noted, since the court found warrantless eavesdropping unconstitutional, Congress could not authorize warrantless eavesdropping by statute. Seventh, the court made its scorn quite clear for the administration's Yoo theory of executive power because, as the court put it, "there are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution." Citing Youngstown again, the court made clear that even in time of war, and even with regard to the President's Commander-in-Chief powers, the President is subject to constitutional restrictions -- a proposition long unquestioned in our system of government until the Bush administration began inventing radical theories of executive power. Finally, and really quite extraordinarily, the court (a) declared the NSA program to be in violation of FISA, the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment and (b) issued a permanent injunction enjoining the Bush administration from continuing to eavesdrop in violation of FISA. This is not the most scholarly opinion ever. It has argumentative holes in it in several important places. But it is correct in its result and it is an enormous victory for the rule of law. It took real courage for Judge Diggs Taylor to issue this Opinion and Order -- it is hard to overstate how much courage it took. It will obviously be appealed. But as of right now, it is illegal, according to this federal court, for the Bush administration to continue to implement its "Terrorist Surveillance Program," and since it is grounded in constitutional conclusions, nothing -- such as Arlen Specter's dreaded bill -- could change that.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/...arrantless.html

As expected, the Justice Department has already announced their appeal, stating that the program is

quote:

a critical tool that ensures we have in place an early warning system to detect and prevent a terrorist attack.

and

quote:

In the ongoing conflict with al Qaeda and its allies, the president has the primary duty under the Constitution to protect the American people," the Justice Department said. "The Constitution gives the president the full authority necessary to carry out that solemn duty, and we believe the program is lawful and protects civil liberties.

whew..

I just pray the US Supreme Court is made up of good people who believe in the constitution, because that's where this is going.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Given the self-serving expansion of executive powers under this president, you don't think we're pretty close to that stage already? And that's the trouble, really: as happy as I am to see this ruling made, it's not going to make any difference so long as the administration sees itself as being above the law. If they want to continue with this program, then they're not going to allow some silly breach of the fourth ammendment of the US Constitution to get in their way.

I tend to agree on this. It says a great deal about the magnificence of the US system, that all it took was six years with a monkey at the helm, before all the democratic safeguards were in ruins.

Anyway, as I read this thread, I came to think of the latest story/theory among left-wing Bush haters, of Israel being bought off to fight Iran instead of the US. I wonder how conspiracy theorists buying into both stories conciliate the "I don't give a flying fuck about what people may say"-Bush with the "I hide behind Israel, and pretend I'm not the bad guy"-Bush. Seems like consistency would require at least one of the stories to be false.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Anyway, as I read this thread, I came to think of the latest story/theory among left-wing Bush haters, of Israel being bought off to fight Iran instead of the US. I wonder how conspiracy theorists buying into both stories conciliate the "I don't give a flying fuck about what people may say"-Bush with the "I hide behind Israel, and pretend I'm not the bad guy"-Bush. Seems like consistency would require at least one of the stories to be false.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I tend to agree on this. It says a great deal about the magnificence of the US system, that all it took was six years with a monkey at the helm, before all the democratic safeguards were in ruins.

I don't want to derail this thread into the abject bashing of American democracy, but I think this is one of those problems that has been brought about directly by the fact that the American democratic system is one of the oldest in the world and that it really hasn't changed much in that time. It's a system in which too much power has vested in one man (which is the cause of the problem in this case), which only really allows for the existence of two political parties (has there been a political party to genuinely challenge the Republicans or the Democrats since independence?) and in which most of the most important individuals within the prevailing government (i.e. the president's cabinet) are not democratically elected by the people. I can't think of too many other democracies around the world that these sorts of shortcomings, or, indeed, of too many other democracies around the world in which the president could deliberately break the constitution with impunity, both from the courts and his own people.

Anyone from from the US want to comment on this?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I don't want to derail this thread into the abject bashing of American democracy, but I think this is one of those problems that has been brought about directly by the fact that the American democratic system is one of the oldest in the world and that it really hasn't changed much in that time. It's a system in which too much power has vested in one man (which is the cause of the problem in this case), which only really allows for the existence of two political parties (has there been a political party to genuinely challenge the Republicans or the Democrats since independence?) and in which most of the most important individuals within the prevailing government (i.e. the president's cabinet) are not democratically elected by the people. I can't think of too many other democracies around the world that these sorts of shortcomings, or, indeed, of too many other democracies around the world in which the president could deliberately break the constitution with impunity, both from the courts and his own people. Anyone from from the US want to comment on this?

I think your assessment of the US democratic system is pretty incorrect, but I'm guessing that's because you don't live here. There is a lot of separation of powers in the US, between Congress, the Supreme Court, and the President.

Cheney, Rove, and other members of the Bush administration have long sought to increase the power of the President, who they have seen as too weak. Cheney, as a senator during the Reagan administration, claimed that congressional oversight of the Reagan's Contra workings was unconstitutional (even though he'd have been involved in the oversight). It seems that their goals are coming to fruition not because of how the system is, but because of how easy the people are to manipulate right now.

The reason that they've been able to accomplish this takeover in power so easily is a result of their great marketing campaign. They understand the red state voters and realize that they can get majorities there by appealing to aspects like religion, homophobia, subtle racism, etc. Add in the fear aspect caused by the terror alerts every couple of months and the "war on terror." As a result, they've been able to hold both houses of congress through this "war" (god, I hate seeing that war used the way that they do), as the Republicans have always been seen as more tough on defense and military use.

The other branch, the judicial, is the only one working to protect any liberties in this country. These people aren't politicians and don't have to pander the general public to keep their jobs. They just have to get confirmed by showing some semblance of impartiality if the houses of Congress are somewhat evenly packed. This is the reason why the Bush administration and the Republican marketing machine have been on a tirade against activist judges. In the last election, the reason that they made gay marriage such an issue was for those Repbulican voters who realized that there would be replacements made (Roberts and Alito). They basically told voters that if you get us elected, we'll put in people who have your values and who will support our efforts in the "war on terror." I get these spam emails from Ken Mehlman every once in awhile and also ones from The Alliance for Marriage (I think because I registered as a Republican when I turned 18 and before they turned their backs on all the principles that I liked them for). Anyhow, every time there's a marriage issue brought up in the courts, I get an email either celebrating a victory or criticizing those "activist judges" again.

Let me add that if you look at polls, there are a lot of people out there who support losing their liberties in order to support the war on terror. They don't realize that, one, this war won't be won, because it's not a war, and two, even if we did win, many liberties will be gone and it'll be a lot harder get them back once they are lost. It seems enough people are getting fed up with Bush to restore somewhat of a balance of power this fall, but we'll see how things pan out. If there's a terror attack or more scares like last week's plan incident in the next 3 months, while campaigns are going on, we could see them hold both houses yet again. It's simply because people are afraid of the risk of fighting strategies while in the midst of battle, especially when the new strategies don't have proven results.

I think that if you had the combination of elements that we have in this country, you'd find that most democracies can be as easily manipulated as ours in a short period of time. Look at what Hitler did in Germany. He was able to accomplish his rise to power as a result of the Great Depression and used fear and scapegoating to get more power. While I'm not saying Bush is Hitler like some will, they both have some similarities in how their spin machines worked and how they used the circumstances of their time to increase their personal power.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy I think your assessment of the US democratic system is pretty incorrect, but I'm guessing that's because you don't live here. There is a lot of separation of powers in the US, between Congress, the Supreme Court, and the President.

I'm familiar with the doctrine of "separation of powers" (which I think you'll find is a facet of every democratic system) and I'm also aware that the powers of the executive branch - in practice, if not in any formal capacity - have been expanded to unprecedented levels under the current administration. However, my argument is that no system should permit this sort of exploitation in the first place: when you vest the executive branch with this much power, it is to be expected that there will be individuals who - under the right circumstances - will seek to abuse this power for their own means. Power should be thinly spread in a democratic system so that the potential for corruption is diluted. Apart from expediency, I can't understand how it could possibly be considered beneficial in any political system to grant so much power to any one man.

quote:

Cheney, Rove, and other members of the Bush administration have long sought to increase the power of the President, who they have seen as too weak. Cheney, as a senator during the Reagan administration, claimed that congressional oversight of the Reagan's Contra workings was unconstitutional (even though he'd have been involved in the oversight). It seems that their goals are coming to fruition not because of how the system is, but because of how easy the people are to manipulate right now.

But again, while an indifferent, complicit congress doesn't help matters, it stands to reason that the head of state should not have the power at any time to subvert domestic law - let alone the constitution! In the Australian democracy, for instance, the Prime-Minister has basically no more official power than any other member of parliament: he still dictates party (and therefore, governmental) policy and is therefore central to the legislative process, but his constitutional power is officially no greater than that of the man sitting next to him. While the Westminster system is certainly not without flaw, this sort of scenario (the leader of a nation breaking constitutional law to spy on his own citizens) could not realistically occur here under this system.

quote:

The other branch, the judicial, is the only one working to protect any liberties in this country.

And the judicial branch (at the highest level, anyway) is appointed by the executive branch! While the president can't get away with appointing just anyone to the Supreme Court (as he found out with Harriet Miers) the fact that he has the power to appoint someone with his own ideological bent into the branch that is meant to exist as a "check" on his power makes absolutely no sense. That he should have the inherent power to, alone, appoint people into such influential positions (and I'm not just talking about SCOTUS judges here - I'm also talking about cabinet members that, in practice, wield huge amounts of power) is a failure of the system and we're just now beginning to see why this failure should be cause for concern.

Any political system that facilitates even the nascency of despotism is a flawed one: I believe this to be very much the case with regards to Jeffersonian democracy.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I'm familiar with the doctrine of "separation of powers" (which I think you'll find is a facet of every democratic system) and I'm also aware that the powers of the executive branch - in practice, if not in any formal capacity - have been expanded to unprecedented levels under the current administration. However, my argument is that no system should permit this sort of exploitation in the first place: when you vest the executive branch with this much power, it is to be expected that there will be individuals who - under the right circumstances - will seek to abuse this power for their own means. Power should be thinly spread in a democratic system so that the potential for corruption is diluted. Apart from expediency, I can't understand how it could possibly be considered beneficial in any political system to grant so much power to any one man. But again, while an indifferent, complicit congress doesn't help matters, it stands to reason that the head of state should not have the power at any time to subvert domestic law - let alone the constitution! In the Australian democracy, for instance, the Prime-Minister has basically no more official power than any other member of parliament: he still dictates party (and therefore, governmental) policy and is therefore central to the legislative process, but his constitutional power is officially no greater than that of the man sitting next to him. While the Westminster system is certainly not without flaw, this sort of scenario (the leader of a nation breaking constitutional law to spy on his own citizens) could not realistically occur here under this system. And the judicial branch (at the highest level, anyway) is appointed by the executive branch! While the president can't get away with appointing just anyone to the Supreme Court (as he found out with Harriet Miers) the fact that he has the power to appoint someone with his own ideological bent into the branch that is meant to exist as a "check" on his power makes absolutely no sense. That he should have the inherent power to, alone, appoint people into such influential positions (and I'm not just talking about SCOTUS judges here - I'm also talking about cabinet members that, in practice, wield huge amounts of power) is a failure of the system and we're just now beginning to see why this failure should be cause for concern. Any political system that facilitates even the nascency of despotism is a flawed one: I believe this to be very much the case with regards to Jeffersonian democracy.

I think the main thing you're underestimating is how many people sadly either support or don't care about what the Bush administration is doing.

Also, the judges are lifetime appointments. There are people on there now who have been nominated by both Republican and Democratic presidents. Bush has only put 2 of the current ones on there, which is why there are a lot of close decisions.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy I think the main thing you're underestimating is how many people sadly either support or don't care about what the Bush administration is doing.

No, I fully appreciate the political climate in the US right now. I agree that Bush's transgressions can be traced back, in part, to an apathetic congress or to a similarly apathetic (or perhaps underinformed...?) populace. My point, however, was that under a system where the balance of power was spread more evenly (that is to say, with less power vested in the executive branch) this abuse of power could not have occurred. The intentions of Bush or the idiocy of those who support these intentions shouldn't matter: the system itself should protect against such abuses.

quote:

Also, the judges are lifetime appointments. There are people on there now who have been nominated by both Republican and Democratic presidents. Bush has only put 2 of the current ones on there, which is why there are a lot of close decisions.

Presuming each party spends an equal amount of time in power over the period of a couple of decades, the sitting president might only need to make one or two appointments to the supreme court during his time in power to tilt the ideological balance of the court in his favour. Considering that the judicial branch exists as the major "check" on executive power under the US system, it makes no sense - in a supposed system of "checks and balances" - for the executive to be able to influence its composition so directly.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy I think the main thing you're underestimating is how many people sadly either support or don't care about what the Bush administration is doing. Also, the judges are lifetime appointments. There are people on there now who have been nominated by both Republican and Democratic presidents. Bush has only put 2 of the current ones on there, which is why there are a lot of close decisions.

Q: What do you think we can do about ignorance and apathy in America?
A: I don't know and I don't care.

That, sadly, is the state of affairs.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I don't want to derail this thread into the abject bashing of American democracy, but I think this is one of those problems that has been brought about directly by the fact that the American democratic system is one of the oldest in the world and that it really hasn't changed much in that time.

While the system's age is definitely the concrete problem, I think that the utter brilliance of it, when it was first put into place, is the actual problem. The culture of uncritical awe, which most US citizens seem to meet their governance system with, is keeping people from questioning the system and - gasp - maybe even become inspired by developments that have taken place in the rest of the world in the two hundred years. As an example, I saw some member of congress, who chaired the 911-commission, on the Daily Show. At one point he was talking about how Bush had met with him and his colleagues in the oval office and answered questions. The representive commented this, with what appeared to be a lumb in his throat, as "Nowhere else in the world you could have the same situation: A leader of a country sitting down with ordinary citizens to answer their questions. Nowhere else in the world!". And of course the audience was applauding wildly. Besides being concerned that a professional politician could be so ill-informed, I was thinking "There's no helping these guys". How can you even begin to reform a system when you precieve it as flawless?

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp i really doubt the NSA gives two shit what some judge orders them to do.

Correct.

I am also scared.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.