SwiftVets.com :: View topic - Judge: Wiretap Program Unconstitutional

SwiftVets.com
Service to Country

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Judge: Wiretap Program Unconstitutional
Goto page Previous 1, 2

SwiftVets.com Forum Index -> Geedunk & Scuttlebutt

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

shawa
CNO

Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004

Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:41 pm Post subject:

Quote:

The Judge's ruling might just hold. The only thing she's violated is common sense

The judge's ruling won't hold. Her opinion reflects totally sloppy reasoning:

Quote:

Amateur Hour?
A judge’s first-year failing-grade opinion.

By Bryan Cunningham
August 18, 2006, 3:47 a.m.

The Honorable Anna Diggs-Taylor probably means well. The lone judge in American history to order a president to halt in wartime a foreign-intelligence-collection program that has undoubtedly saved lives probably sympathizes with the journalists, and others, who are suing to stop the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) in which NSA intercepts foreign-U.S. terrorist communications. She probably feels in her heart the program is wrong, and undoubtedly hears the footsteps of the federal judicial panel moving towards taking this case away from her and consolidating it with others.

We can sympathize with her motives, and even share some of her gut feelings of uneasiness about the program. But we cannot accept the stunningly amateurish piece of, I hesitate even to call it legal work, by which she purports to make our government go deaf and dumb to those would murder us en masse. Her bosses on the Court of Appeals and/or the United States Supreme Court will not accept it.

Much will be said about this opinion in the coming days. I’ll start with this: I wouldn’t accept this utterly unsupported, constitutionally and logically bankrupt collection of musings from a first-year law student, much less a new lawyer at my firm.

Why not? Herewith, a start at a very long list of what’s wrong with Judge Taylor’s opinion.......

Continued at:
National Review
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776)

Me#1You#10
Site Admin

Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503

Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 5:02 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Ruling for the Terrorists
New York Sun Editorial
August 18, 2006

The administration plans to appeal, and, while we hope it will prevail, it's clear the hard-left is going to play the courts for all it's worth. Let it be a warning in election season. It was President Carter who signed FISA, botched the Iranian hostage stand-off, and appointed Judge Taylor. So we get a glimpse in this ruling of what a Jimmy Carter war on terror would look like. Senators Kerry and Kennedy both issued statements lauding the ruling.

NY Sun - cont'd

And the Democrats are supposed to be a shoo-in for regaining the House in Nov.? With THIS nonsense on their plank? I'm beginning to sleep better at night...

dusty
Admiral

Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 1264
Location: East Texas

Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 6:10 pm Post subject:

Me#1You#10 wrote:

Quote:

And the Democrats are supposed to be a shoo-in for regaining the House in Nov.? With THIS nonsense on their plank? I'm beginning to sleep better at night...

And now we have Carter redoux coming. Jimmuh's son is running for the Senate.
Oh joy.

Dusty
_________________
Left and Wrong are the opposite of Right!

fortdixlover
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy

Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 1476

Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 2:34 am Post subject:

Re: Judge Taylor's decision in ACLU, et. al. v. National Security Agency, et. al.,

Quote:

Plaintiffs here contend that the TSP [”Terrorist Surveillance Program”] has interfered with their ability to carry out their professional responsibilities in a variety of ways, including that the TSP has had a significant impact on their ability to talk with sources, locate witnesses, conduct scholarship, engage in advocacy and communicate with persons who are outside of the United States, including in the Middle East and Asia. Plaintiffs have submitted several declarations to that effect. For example, scholars and journalists such as plaintiffs Tara McKelvey, Larry Diamond, and Barnett Rubin indicate that they must conduct extensive research in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, and must communicate with individuals abroad whom the United States government believes to be terrorist suspects or to be associated with terrorist organizations. In addition, attorneys Nancy Hollander, William Swor, Joshua Dratel, Mohammed Abdrabboh, and Nabih Ayad indicate that they must also communicate with individuals abroad whom the United States government believes to be terrorist suspects or to be associated with terrorist organizations, and must discuss confidential information over the phone and email with their international clients. All of the Plaintiffs contend that the TSP has caused clients, witnesses and sources to discontinue their communications with plaintiffs out of fear that their communications will be intercepted.

Whoa. These "plaintiffs" have been communicating with people whom the United States government believes to be terrorist suspects or to be associated with terrorist organizations?

(BTW, how do you "believe someone to be a terrorist suspect"?? - FDL)

Translation: these "plaintiffs" have been communicating with terrorists.

All of the opinions on this judicial farce seem to miss one important point. Why would a judge be so eager to reach such a conclusion so as to potentially jeopardize her career? Who is she serving? (The opinion subjects her to considerable ridicule, and deliberately ignoring precedent has been cited by some as grounds for sanctions, for example.)

Here's a good reason:

The leftist "plaintiffs" have admitted they've been communicating with individuals abroad whom the United States government believes to be terrorist suspects or to be associated with terrorist organizations. They know they're dirty, and they suspect or know the NSA has the goods on them and that prosecution is likely.

Having a friendly in-the-pocket leftist federal judge declare the NSA surveillance program unconstitutional, and injunctioning it to stop immediately, is about the only way for the "plaintiffs" to avoid being ruined and going to jail.

-- FDL
_________________
"Millions For Defense, Not One Cent For Tribute" - Thomas Jefferson on paying ransom to Muslim corsairs (pirates).

Schadow
Vice Admiral

Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama

Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 4:56 am Post subject:

fortdixlover wrote:

Re: Judge Taylor's decision in ACLU, et. al. v. National Security Agency, et. al.,

Quote:

.....Having a friendly in-the-pocket leftist federal judge declare the NSA surveillance program unconstitutional, and injunctioning it to stop immediately, is about the only way for the "plaintiffs" to avoid being ruined and going to jail.

-- FDL

This is sureal.

Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54

fortdixlover
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy

Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 1476

Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 11:45 am Post subject:

Schadow wrote:

fortdixlover wrote:

Re: Judge Taylor's decision in ACLU, et. al. v. National Security Agency, et. al.,

Quote:

-- FDL

This is sureal.

Schadow

Hey...it may get us all killed, but what's a little death and destruction of oppressive Judeo-Christian civilization to good, dyed-in-the-wool, malignant-narcissist leftists in pursuit of their Marxist utopia?

-- FDL
_________________
"Millions For Defense, Not One Cent For Tribute" - Thomas Jefferson on paying ransom to Muslim corsairs (pirates).

Me#1You#10
Site Admin

Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503

Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:50 pm Post subject:

Turn out the judicial lights Judge Taylor...the party's over.

Dissed in the Washington Post...a liberal kiss of death...

Quote:

A Judicial Misfire
The first federal court opinion on warrantless NSA surveillance is full of sound and fury.
Friday, August 18, 2006

THE NATION would benefit from a serious, scholarly and hard-hitting judicial examination of the National Security Agency's program of warrantless surveillance. The program exists on ever-more uncertain legal ground; it is at least in considerable tension with federal law and the Bill of Rights. Careful judicial scrutiny could serve both to hold the administration accountable and to provide firmer legal footing for such surveillance as may be necessary for national security.

Unfortunately, the decision yesterday by a federal district court in Detroit, striking down the NSA's program, is neither careful nor scholarly, and it is hard-hitting only in the sense that a bludgeon is hard-hitting. The angry rhetoric of U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor will no doubt grab headlines. But as a piece of judicial work -- that is, as a guide to what the law requires and how it either restrains or permits the NSA's program -- her opinion will not be helpful.

Washington Post - cont'd

Schadow
Vice Admiral

Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama

Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 3:15 pm Post subject:

I think there's no doubt of an overturning by the 6th Circuit, and a subsequent refusal by the Supremes to even hear the case, but the ACLU's trump card is to delay the hearing by the 6th Circuit until after November 7. There's all sorts of ways to do this. The effect would be to have the decision stand (and make great Dem campaign ads) until after the congressional elections. Schadow _________________ Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54

dusty
Admiral

Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 1264
Location: East Texas

Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 3:35 pm Post subject:

fortdixlover wrote:

Quote:

That reminds me of the saying "Dead Right" where someone sees a car coming at high speed at an intersection but pulls out into it's path anyway because they have the 'right of way' and are killed.
They were in the 'right'.....but dead.
While the basic tenents of freedom are worth dying for and many have and will.
But our Constitution is a work in progress and the words in it in many places have little or no effect on the basic tenents of what being free means and are certainly not worth trading the lives of many to make sure that every little jot is abided by.
Especially this is true when it is so ambigous in so many areas. Such as the one under discussion.

Dusty
_________________
Left and Wrong are the opposite of Right!

Schadow
Vice Admiral

Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama

Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 6:43 pm Post subject:

I was shocked this morning to see, in our own Huntspatch paper, about the best writing I've seen on Taylor's looney and dangerous decision. Of course it was preceded by the paper's own editorial position which was the usual "seek the middle ground" approach for which the paper is infamous. I won't bother to post that. (emphasis mine)

Quote:

Acquiescing to leftists

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Huntsville Times

Judge Taylor's ruling is both perverse and dangerous

By striking down the Terrorists Surveillance Program, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor has, one hopes, opened the eyes of the American public to the leftist political insurgency that is undermining the United States' ability to defend itself against future terrorist attacks.

In a ruling that many legal experts are broadly agreeing is poorly reasoned, Judge Taylor, a federal district judge for Eastern Michigan appointed by Jimmy Carter, has ruled that the TSP violates the First and Fourth amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Title III and the Separation of Powers Doctrine.

The lawsuit was filed by the ACLU on behalf of scholars, lawyers, journalists and nonprofit groups that communicate with people in the Middle East that they fear might be targets for surveillance. Given that the TSP is only conducting surveillance on individuals and groups that have ties to Islamic terrorist groups, it raises some suspicion that the ACLU and the groups they represented in the suit might be communicating with people whose mission is to kill and maim as many American men, women, and children as they can.

It's reasonable to believe most people would expect to have their phone calls monitored by the government if they were talking with extremists that have taken a vow to destroy our country. And the vast majority of Americans would also expect our government to constantly monitor the conversations and activities of suspected terrorists in this country and around the world.

Prior to Taylor's ruling, no American court had ever ruled that a U.S. president did not have the authority to conduct such surveillance programs. Even though not a single specific abuse of the TSP has been found, and despite the fact that it has proven successful in helping to stop terrorist attacks, Taylor took the unprecedented step to terminate the program.

Aside from the national security implications of the ruling, from a scholarly legal perspective, Taylor's ruling is an embarrassment.

While there is no way to hold Judge Taylor or any other liberal activist federal judge accountable to the voters, the voters can hold the politicians and parties accountable for putting them in the federal courts. It may turn out that this ruling makes millions of voters acutely aware that it matters who they elect to appoint and confirm federal judges and how vitally important the November elections will be in this regard.

Unfortunately, this ruling puts liberal political interests above protecting the lives of American citizens from future terrorist attacks. It is perhaps the worst example of the political wars that are being waged by radical leftists blinded by their hatred of President Bush.

(By Gary Palmer, president of the Alabama Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization.)

Source

Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54

Display posts from previous:

	SwiftVets.com Forum Index -> Geedunk & Scuttlebutt	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum