NSA eavesdropping unconstitutional?

[GettnHuge 2]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/17/dom...suit/index.html

 

(CNN) -- A federal judge on Thursday ruled that the U.S. government's domestic eavesdropping program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately.

 

In a 44-page memorandum and order, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, -- who is based in Detroit, Michigan -- struck down the National Security Agency's program, which she said violates the rights to free speech and privacy.

 

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

The defendants "are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) in any way, including, but not limited to, conducting warrantless wiretaps of telephone and Internet communications, in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Title III," she wrote.

 

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

 

 

Why don't we just surrender now? Maybe tomorrow it will be unconstitutional to prevent people from coming across the border

or unconstitutional to search bags at the airport.

 

Focking libs

[Red White and Blue 81]

You're surprised to learn that spying on people without a warrant is unconstitutional?

[Korben Dallas 0]

You're surprised to learn that spying on people without a warrant is unconstitutional?

 

I'm surprised anyone thinks it WAS constitutional. That's what all the hoopla was about. It wasn't even CLOSE to constitutional.

[GettnHuge 2]

shocking

 

Suit asks Detroit judge to stop U.S.

June 12, 2006

BY DAVID ASHENFELTER

 

excerpt:

Taylor, 74, a senior judge who handles half the caseload of a regular judge, was appointed in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter.

 

Lawyers described her as smart, fair and liberal.

 

fair and liberal lol.

[John Kerry 0]

None of this would of happened with me in charge

[dcOne 2]

None of this would have happened if they simply wouldn't haved announced to the public that there "may be some evesdropping going on to aid in the prevention of terrorism"

 

Had they never said anything, they'd still be doing it, yet the American public wouldn't be crying about it.

[Red White and Blue 81]

I'm surprised anyone thinks it WAS constitutional. That's what all the hoopla was about. It wasn't even CLOSE to constitutional.

 

Bush supporters don't realize that FISA doesn't require law enforcement to get a warrant before spying on citizens. It just requires them to get one after the fact and to justify the need for it in some way. The problem is that Bush thinks he's a monarch and doesn't want any oversight. So his admin repeats the same lies over and over about how getting a warrant would be too cumbersome, blah blah. And his willing dupes don't ever bother to learn the facts.

 

It amazes me that some people don't read the newspaper or know WTF is going on.

[Guest Davaco]

looks like I finally have a victory vs. the terrosits. i get some of my personal freedoms back

 

shocking

 

Suit asks Detroit judge to stop U.S.

June 12, 2006

BY DAVID ASHENFELTER

 

excerpt:

Taylor, 74, a senior judge who handles half the caseload of a regular judge, was appointed in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter.

 

Lawyers described her as smart, fair and liberal.

 

fair and liberal lol.

 

fair and balanced

 

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/17/dom...suit/index.html

 

(CNN) -- A federal judge on Thursday ruled that the U.S. government's domestic eavesdropping program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately.

 

In a 44-page memorandum and order, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, -- who is based in Detroit, Michigan -- struck down the National Security Agency's program, which she said violates the rights to free speech and privacy.

 

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

The defendants "are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) in any way, including, but not limited to, conducting warrantless wiretaps of telephone and Internet communications, in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Title III," she wrote.

 

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

Why don't we just surrender now? Maybe tomorrow it will be unconstitutional to prevent people from coming across the border

or unconstitutional to search bags at the airport.

 

Focking libs

 

if you dont mind being evesdropped on, post your phone # now

 

If you wont, you a focking hypocrite

[Snuff 10]

I could have cared less if someone was eavesdropping on any of my calls. Big focking deal. If it would help make our country safer, so what? Some of you are uppity little fockfaces, no doubt.

You know we're eventually going to be attacked again. When we do, you little fockers are gonna cry "our government didn't do anything!!!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

Little fockfaces:

"Oh no, the government knows I just called my wife to tell her I'll pick some bread up on the way home!!!"

[Red White and Blue 81]

I could have cared less if someone was eavesdropping on any of my calls. Big focking deal. If it would help make our country safer, so what? Some of you are uppity little fockfaces, no doubt.

You know we're eventually going to be attacked again. When we do, you little fockers are gonna cry "our government didn't do anything!!!"

Little fockfaces:

"Oh no, the government knows I just called my wife to tell her I'll pick some bread up on the way home!!!"

 

The NSA can legally eavesdrop on phone calls without a warrant, provided they report to the FISA court. Nobody is arguing against eavesdropping. They're arguing about the NSA operating without any oversight whatsoever.

 

What is so hard about this to understand?

[Strike 6,006]

I could have cared less if someone was eavesdropping on any of my calls. Big focking deal. If it would help make our country safer, so what? Some of you are uppity little fockfaces, no doubt.

You know we're eventually going to be attacked again. When we do, you little fockers are gonna cry "our government didn't do anything!!!"

Little fockfaces:

"Oh no, the government knows I just called my wife to tell her I'll pick some bread up on the way home!!!"

 

If our gov't had been doing what it should have been doing, and still isn't doing in the first place, it wouldn't need to trample on my rights in the name of making us safer. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If necessary, I'm willing to give up some of my rights in the name of safety. However, I refuse to do so in the name of safety when the gov't isn't doing the simple things, like stopping terrorists from walking across the border, before asking me to give up some of my rights. Because one thing is certain - if you allow the gov't to take ANYTHING from you, it's very rare that you get it back.

[cday 0]

a comment from fark i liked:

 

"It's sad to think that this country has gotten to the point where it's necessary to have a Federal court rule against the Executive Branch in order for it to realize that unwarranted phone taps on citizens is unconstitutional."

 

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/9329/noproblemyx0.gif

[Snuff 10]

However, I refuse to do so in the name of safety when the gov't isn't doing the simple things, like stopping terrorists from walking across the border

 

You think stopping people from crossing a border is easy? It's not, and it's pretty expensive I would believe. Moreso than tapping a phone line anyways.

[Red White and Blue 81]

You think stopping people from crossing a border is easy? It's not, and it's pretty expensive I would believe. Moreso than tapping a phone line anyways.

 

Hey Snuff, you do know that Bush's NSA program is going to continue conducting surveillance, only with oversight from FISA, right? You seem to think that because of this ruling the feds aren't allowed to tap phone calls or something.

[torridjoe 48]

I could have cared less if someone was eavesdropping on any of my calls. Big focking deal. If it would help make our country safer, so what? Some of you are uppity little fockfaces, no doubt.

You know we're eventually going to be attacked again. When we do, you little fockers are gonna cry "our government didn't do anything!!!"

Little fockfaces:

"Oh no, the government knows I just called my wife to tell her I'll pick some bread up on the way home!!!"

 

what does any of that have to do with them eavesdropping without a warrant?

[mulletia 0]

I am amazed and ashamed that people are actually willing to give up rights and freedoms that men better than ourselves fought and died to protect.

[Snuff 10]

Hey Snuff, you do know that Bush's NSA program is going to continue conducting surveillance, only with oversight from FISA, right? You seem to think that because of this ruling the feds aren't allowed to tap phone calls or something.

 

And what would make you think that exactly? I'm curious.

[Strike 6,006]

You think stopping people from crossing a border is easy? It's not, and it's pretty expensive I would believe. Moreso than tapping a phone line anyways.

 

How do we know? We've never tried, and it can't be any more expensive than what we've spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems to me we'd do a lot more to making our country safer by securing it's borders than going halfway around the world spending billions. And no, I don't think it would be that tough, or expensive, to secure our borders.

[torridjoe 48]

How do we know? We've never tried, and it can't be any more expensive than what we've spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems to me we'd do a lot more to making our country safer by securing it's borders than going halfway around the world spending billions. And no, I don't think it would be that tough, or expensive, to secure our borders.

 

how does one secure a border against people arriving legally?

[Snuff 10]

How do we know? We've never tried, and it can't be any more expensive than what we've spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems to me we'd do a lot more to making our country safer by securing it's borders than going halfway around the world spending billions. And no, I don't think it would be that tough, or expensive, to secure our borders.

 

Agreed...until the border part. No border in history has proved to keep people out. Or in for that matter.

[Red White and Blue 81]

And what would make you think that exactly? I'm curious.

 

Because this is exactly what the FISA courts were designed to do: To let law enforcement conduct surveillance for national security purposes without having to wait for a warrant. The big question is Why is the Bush admin so insistant on conducting the NSA without any oversight at all?

[GettnHuge 2]

I am amazed and ashamed that people are actually willing to give up rights and freedoms that men better than ourselves fought and died to protect.

 

the right to conduct terrorist activities without being spied on is in the constitution!

[Strike 6,006]

how does one secure a border against people arriving legally?

 

That would be another issue, and out of the scope of this discussion. Not to mention that the border is just one area our gov't has been deficient in fighting terrorism. How pathetic was their intelligence pre 9/11, and how much is the budget for those agencies? There are numerous examples of areas our gov't could improve upon before it starts asking us to sacrifice our rights.

[Snuff 10]

Because this is exactly what the FISA courts were designed to do: To let law enforcement conduct surveillance for national security purposes without having to wait for a warrant. The big question is Why is the Bush admin so insistant on conducting the NSA without any oversight at all?

 

No shat.

[torridjoe 48]

Because this is exactly what the FISA courts were designed to do: To let law enforcement conduct surveillance for national security purposes without having to wait for a warrant. The big question is Why is the Bush admin so insistant on conducting the NSA without any oversight at all?

 

that's not quite true. FISA was designed to allow warrant requests to be heard on a secret basis, as opposed to open court. They are very much supposed to come for a warrant beforehand, but there is a 72 hour window that can be used if shown to be necessary.

[Red White and Blue 81]

the right to conduct terrorist activities without being spied on is in the constitution!

 

Moron: For the millionth time, this court case was not challenging the NSA's ability to spy on people. It was challenging Bush's ability to conduct the NSA with no judicial oversight whatsoever. I realize you're sticking to your talking points here but regurgitating the same bullsh1t you heard on Rush Limbaugh over and over doesn't make it any more true.

[Snuff 10]

that's not quite true. FISA was designed to allow warrant requests to be heard on a secret basis, as opposed to open court. They are very much supposed to come for a warrant beforehand, but there is a 72 hour window that can be used if shown to be necessary.

 

Thats what he said.

[GettnHuge 2]

unconstitutional is not a crime!

[torridjoe 48]

That would be another issue, and out of the scope of this discussion. Not to mention that the border is just one area our gov't has been deficient in fighting terrorism. How pathetic was their intelligence pre 9/11, and how much is the budget for those agencies? There are numerous examples of areas our gov't could improve upon before it starts asking us to sacrifice our rights.

 

How is it out of the scope of the discussion? I thought the discussion was preventing terrorism, and the solution was securing the border. That won't necessarily work, since 'terrorists' can come in legally, just like around half of all undocumented persons. "Securing the border" isn't a solution.

[Red White and Blue 81]

that's not quite true. FISA was designed to allow warrant requests to be heard on a secret basis, as opposed to open court. They are very much supposed to come for a warrant beforehand, but there is a 72 hour window that can be used if shown to be necessary.

 

But that is a main purpose of the FISA court - to allow law enforcement to conduct warrantless surveillance when time is of the essance, provided they justify that action in some way afterward.

[Michael Sieger 0]

"We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no power not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent power' must derive from that Constitution."

 

-- Judge Anna Diggs Taylor

 

what a novel concept!

[torridjoe 48]

Thats what he said.

 

No, it's not. He said it was set up to let surveillance occur without a warrant. That's not why it was set up; it was set up so the hearings could be secret.

[Red White and Blue 81]

No shat.

 

So if you know that the NSA could legally conduct this kind of surveillance under FISA, why are you so fired up about this court ruling?

[FranksTanks 0]

I could have cared less if someone was eavesdropping on any of my calls. Big focking deal. If it would help make our country safer, so what? Some of you are uppity little fockfaces, no doubt.

You know we're eventually going to be attacked again. When we do, you little fockers are gonna cry "our government didn't do anything!!!"

Little fockfaces:

"Oh no, the government knows I just called my wife to tell her I'll pick some bread up on the way home!!!"

 

How does it make the country safer if information that is obtained illegally doesn't hold up in court and a known terrorist walks? That is why it is important to get a warrant and then you can do what you want.

[GettnHuge 2]

Moron: For the millionth time, this court case was not challenging the NSA's ability to spy on people. It was challenging Bush's ability to conduct the NSA with no judicial oversight whatsoever. I realize you're sticking to your talking points here but regurgitating the same bullsh1t you heard on Rush Limbaugh over and over doesn't make it any more true.

 

 

you're either with Bush or you're with the terrorists.

[Red White and Blue 81]

No, it's not. He said it was set up to let surveillance occur without a warrant. That's not why it was set up; it was set up so the hearings could be secret.

 

I said without having to WAIT for a warrant.

[Strike 6,006]

How is it out of the scope of the discussion? I thought the discussion was preventing terrorism, and the solution was securing the border. That won't necessarily work, since 'terrorists' can come in legally, just like around half of all undocumented persons. "Securing the border" isn't a solution.

 

LOL. Like there's a SINGLE solution. Hey, maybe we can go back to debating whether military action or police work is THE solution too. It's part of a comprehensive solution you idiot. Dumbfock.

[dcOne 2]

you're either with Bush or you're with the terrorists.

 

Yep.

 

[mulletia 0]

you're either with Bush or you're with the terrorists.

ok I found this exceptionally hilarious

[torridjoe 48]

But that is a main purpose of the FISA court - to allow law enforcement to conduct warrantless surveillance when time is of the essance, provided they justify that action in some way afterward.

 

Not really, no. It's only supposed to be used that way in emergencies. The purpose of FISA had little to nothing to do with timing of the warrant, originally.