Finally some good news.

[Left of Larry]

NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional
Judge orders immediate halt to program

Thursday, August 17, 2006; Posted: 12:14 p.m. EDT (16:14 GMT)


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.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[Ry]

FINALY it's almost like we have an actual functional court system.

[Dissent]

I started a topic on this w/o looking at this one...

Heres the full article...

Judge: Wiretapping surveillance program unconstitutional

Sarah Karush
Associated Press
Aug. 17, 2006 10:20 AM


DETROIT - 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 as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

“Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution,” Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

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 listening to 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 had already publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule on the case.

“By holding that even the president is not above the law, the court has done its duty,” said Ann Beeson, the ACLU’s associate legal director and the lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

The NSA had no immediate comment on the ruling. Taylor dismissed a separate claim by the ACLU over data-mining of phone records by the NSA. She said not enough had been publicly revealed about that program to support the claim and further litigation could jeopardize state secrets.

Beeson predicted the government would appeal the ruling and request that the order to halt the program be postponed while the case makes its way through the system. She said the ACLU had not yet decided whether it would oppose such a postponement.

[Left of Larry]

thanks expendable youth

[cassanovafrankenstein]

Specter is scheming with Bush/Addington to undermine and do an end run around the courts, but IMO the constitution trumps all.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/17/spe ... -solution/

[Left of Larry]

Specter is scheming with Bush/Addington to undermine and do an end run around the courts, but IMO the constitution trumps all.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/17/spe ... -solution/

The unconstitutionality of this should shut down any further discussion on the subject. At least in theory. But, I guess you're right and teh article is right, they will keep scheming until they find the right loophole.. Or just plain lie and deceive as they have.

[Opened Eyes]

I would put my money on the latter.

[captwasabi]

I hear everyone jabbering away about how this program is "unconstitutional" and yet no one, not even the judge in this case has been able to clearly explain just what right is being violated here. I would really like someone to tell me just what Constitutional right is being violated here.

And I swear to god, if anyone so much as thinks of saying the right to privacy is being violated I'm going to vomit!

[cassanovafrankenstein]

Allah! Are you serious?
You wish to know what all this "jabbering" is about. You obviouslybelieve the founding fathers were "jabbering" in Philadelphia. The constitution was "frivolous jabbering". Anything which stands in the way of the Bush admins' Heinrich Addington is jabbering.
The judge very specifically laid out what rights are being violated thru the FISA & fourth amendment.
You don't spy on the phone calls and e-mails of Americans that haven't been accused of or shown connections with Al-Qaeda. Period. You don't sneak&peak at Amerians personal records or library history. You don't spy on a tea party of Americans who meet regularly to discuss the immorality of the Iraq war, or who mention in a health club that Bush is an asshole that should be tossed in jail, or a student group that organizes an impeach Bush or stop the war protest----all things that have happened. You don't establish sweeping, broad spectrum eavesdropping of millions of Americans' phone calls. I guess you need a barf-bag every time you see this.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/cons ... endment04/

If this makes you ill, I suggest you emigrate.

[Ry]

Im courious to the neocon just what DOES violate the right to privacy if not spying on people who have done nothing wrong?

Can I tap your phones and read your emails?