NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional

[AirPo]

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.

Full story here.

 

[kermit]

This judge obviously hates freedom.

 

[BlessedMan]

This judge obviously hates freedom.

Oh the political games groups and judges will play...

I love this country, but the fact that an entire program designed to protect 300 million people's safety can be derailed by one judge in eastern michigan is utterly ridiculous.

 

[ElvisFan42]

Oh the political games groups and judges will play...

I love this country, but the fact that an entire program designed to protect 300 million people's safety can be derailed by one judge in eastern michigan is utterly ridiculous.

The fact that one man puts himself above the law by ordering warrantless spying on American citizens, and then gets support from some of those citizens, is utterly ridiculous.

I'll ask again, though I never get an answer

What is the problem with obtaining warrants? If warrants were obtained, this would never be an issue.

 

[kermit]

Oh the political games groups and judges will play...

I love this country, but the fact that an entire program designed to protect 300 million people's safety can be derailed by one judge in eastern michigan is utterly ridiculous.

No the program was derailed because it didn't follow the law.

This program could have easily operated well within the law. The fact that it did not is the fault of the NSA and the Whitehouse, not this judge.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

Oh the political games groups and judges will play...

I love this country, but the fact that an entire program designed to protect 300 million people's safety can be derailed by one judge in eastern michigan is utterly ridiculous.

The first rule of democracy is: all power must have a check.

Warrantless wiretapping is a power that is just begging to be abused. Even if it were never systematically abused by a future administration, then it could certainly be abused by rogue agents. That is far too high a price to pay for security.

Wiretaps with a warrant or even with a retroactive warrant are more than sufficient for the NSA to do its job.

 

[burrow_owl]

I love this country, but the fact that an entire program designed to protect 300 million people's safety can be derailed by one judge in eastern michigan is utterly ridiculous.

It was actually prohibited by our elected representatives in Congress.

 

[BlessedMan]

The first rule of democracy is: all power must have a check.

Warrantless wiretapping is a power that is just begging to be abused. Even if it were never systematically abused by a future administration, then it could certainly be abused by rogue agents. That is far too high a price to pay for security.

Wiretaps with a warrant or even with a retroactive warrant are more than sufficient for the NSA to do its job.

I 100% agree...seems though that 535 members of congress would be a better check...or a another alternative would be the 9 members of the supreme court is such an important decision...as opposed to one judge in eastern michigan who has "deep democratic roots"...regardless of how unbiaed "people who know her" think she is...IMHO.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006608070381

 

[CaligulaNero]

" 100% agree...seems though that 535 members of congress would be a better check..."

Yes, and they passed a law that the President didn't comply with, hence the program was illegal. What part of this do you not understand?

 

[ElvisFan42]

" 100% agree...seems though that 535 members of congress would be a better check..."

Yes, and they passed a law that the President didn't comply with, hence the program was illegal. What part of this do you not understand?

The part where I stand up for the president no matter what!

 

[burrow_owl]

" 100% agree...seems though that 535 members of congress would be a better check..."

Yes, and they passed a law that the President didn't comply with, hence the program was illegal. What part of this do you not understand?

Some people have a hard time understanding democracy, I suppose.

 

[CaligulaNero]

Also, this judge is constitutionally required to make decisions that comply with the constitution. This case was brought before her, not the SC. What is she supposed to do, render an opinion contrary to the constitution just to make folks happy?

 

[ElvisFan42]

The check system is already set up and has been working well for a long time. Why change it? Just use it. Again, what is the problem with getting a warrant. The only problem that exists is an elected member of our government operating above the law.

 

[AirPo]

Also, this judge is constitutionally required to make decisions that comply with the constitution. This case was brought before her, not the SC. What is she supposed to do, render an opinion contrary to the constitution just to make folks happy?

I'm suprised she hasn't been called an "activist" judge yet.

 

[steelerguy99]

This will got to Scotus, and I have a feeling they will reverse the ruling.

 

[eldermike]

I'm suprised she hasn't been called an "activist" judge yet.

Ok, I'll do it. She's an activist Judge

Here is why I say that. She could have rulled either way it's always been on it's way to the SC.

 

[AirPo]

We all knew this was coming.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales defends eavesdropping program as effective, adding "We believe that the program is lawful."

Justice Department says it will appeal judge's decision

Full story here.

 

[kermit]

Ok, I'll do it. She's an activist Judge

Here is why I say that. She could have rulled either way it's always been on it's way to the SC.

Actually by ruling either way just because it the case in on its way to the SC would be judicial activism.

 

[burrow_owl]

The result was correct, but the opinion itself is sloppy. Parts of the opinion (the First & Fourth Amendment sections) will definitely be overturned on appeal.

 

[s_gunter]

We all knew this was coming.



Full story here.

Of course! Mr. Gonzales gets paid to defend his boss.