Judge rules warrantless wiretapping illegal

[TheGoat]

So should national security continue to trump Constitutional rights? I don't think that warrantless surveillance is a reasonable search, especially when secret courts exist that rubberstamp just about every warrant request placed before them.

I don't think this will change much, if anything the secret courts will just have more warrants to rubberstamp so the NSA can listen in on people's telephone calls.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060817/D8JI9A281.html

By SARAH KARUSH

DETROIT (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.

[Eomer]

So should national security continue to trump Constitutional rights? I don't think that warrantless surveillance is a reasonable search, especially when secret courts exist that rubberstamp just about every warrant request placed before them.

I don't think this will change much, if anything the secret courts will just have more warrants to rubberstamp so the NSA can listen in on people's telephone calls.

You realize that they can get the warrant AFTER they do the tap? Something like 72 hours later. The fact of the matter is, they wanted to be able to snoop on who they wanted, when they wanted, outside judicial oversight. Their excuse that they couldn't afford to wait for approval is total bullshit.

[TheGoat]

Originally Posted by Eomer

You realize that they can get the warrant AFTER they do the tap? Something like 72 hours later. The fact of the matter is, they wanted to be able to snoop on who they wanted, when they wanted, outside judicial oversight. Their excuse that they couldn't afford to wait for approval is total bullshit.

No, I wasn't aware that they could get the warrant after they conducted the wiretap. That doesn't make sense to me. It seems an ex post facto warrant is pointless when the NSA doesn't need probable cause to conduct the tap in the first place.

[Duppin]

No, national security shouldn't trump constitutional rights.

This is a great ruling if it can continue to be held up, unfortunately it's probably dead once it reaches the current SCOTUS. But occasionally, they can be surprising.

The FISA court process is both secret, and retroactive, which directly addresses both of the reasons the Bush administration gave (publically) for establishing this program. Ten minutes of reading can pretty much clue you into the fact that the public line on this warrantless spying program was a load of hogwash.

The reality is, that even after the fact, the FISA court wants real evidence that the tapping was justified, and that's not something the Bush administration is real big on.

[Eomer]

No, I wasn't aware that they could get the warrant after they conducted the wiretap. That doesn't make sense to me. It seems an ex post facto warrant is pointless when the NSA doesn't need probable cause to conduct the tap in the first place.

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. As Duppin explained, prior to the Bush administrations end-around attempt, they could conduct a wiretap without a warrant, so long as they proved probable cause later. There was a specific court set up for that purpose. One of their excuses for the new program was that they couldn't "wait" for warrants, when the reality is that they never had to to begin with.

[Bralkan]

after the fact warrants may seem silly, but at the very least they are on record and allow the NSA to be accountable at some point.

Removing any attempt at getting warrants breaks down the checks and balances.

[TheGoat]

Still doesn't make sense though, because it seems they'd only obtain a warrant in cases in which they had probable cause. Certainly the NSA is not obtaining after the fact warrants for every tap, so it seems to me they get to pick and choose which cases go before the court.

All in all, the shit ain't kosher.

[Algrinon]

Originally Posted by Duppin

No, national security shouldn't trump constitutional rights.

This is a great ruling if it can continue to be held up, unfortunately it's probably dead once it reaches the current SCOTUS. But occasionally, they can be surprising.

The FISA court process is both secret, and retroactive, which directly addresses both of the reasons the Bush administration gave (publically) for establishing this program. Ten minutes of reading can pretty much clue you into the fact that the public line on this warrantless spying program was a load of hogwash.

The reality is, that even after the fact, the FISA court wants real evidence that the tapping was justified, and that's not something the Bush administration is real big on.

Hehe, this is DOA. A stay is already in place and the current program will continue. Liberals will continue to complain and once again, the government does not spy on its citizens. It is spying on people who call people outside the US to known numbers. Wait, you all know this, you just want to rant. Have at it!

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Duppin

No, national security shouldn't trump constitutional rights.

Funny, you said the exact opposite in the racial profiling thread.

[Bralkan]

Originally Posted by Algrinon

Liberals will continue to complain and once again, the government does not spy on its citizens. It is spying on people who call people outside the US to known numbers. Wait, you all know this, you just want to rant. Have at it!

How do you know that is what they are doing? On good faith (hi2u watergate)? what the fuck is wrong with a paper trail? Does it offend you in some way? Jesus Christ. Anyone with any rationality and isn't a reactionary pos wants nothing more than a paper trail of who did what. Shit on the record - you know, government transparency; accountability?

And I think you misunderstand, Goat. They have to apply for the warrant after the fact. That doesn't mean they will get one. If they fail to get the warrant after the fact, then the evidence gathered on the tap can not be used in a court of law. If they fail or succeed, there is still written record that the NSA taped so and so.

Once again, ample evidence that expanding the franchise was the worst decision this country has ever made.

[Vorph]

Originally Posted by Algrinon

Hehe, this is DOA. A stay is already in place and the current program will continue. Liberals will continue to complain and once again, the government does not spy on its citizens. It is spying on people who call people outside the US to known numbers. Wait, you all know this, you just want to rant. Have at it!

1. I am not a liberal--registered republican for 17 years now. Having some respect for the Constitution shouldn't be something that is a party line, ffs.

2. If you think the government doesn't spy on its citizens, you must be the most naive mofo to ever walk the earth.

[Duppin]

Originally Posted by Vorph

2. If you think the government doesn't spy on its citizens, you must be the most naive mofo to ever walk the earth.

Pretty much!

[xeg_IS]

Spying is a slightly inappropriate word here. The government doesn't just say, "hey, let's monitor Mike Brown because he looks funny." They need to be able to prove that monitoring a particular civilian is within their jurisdiction. If I were in a law enforcement agency dealing with terrorism, I would definitely not want to wait 2-3 days to get a warrant from a judge before I could begin my investigation because you aren't always going to catch these guys weeks in advance.

The last thing the US wants to do is stand in front of the world, crippled from another attack ala 9/11 and say, "Well, we knew about the terror plot, but we didn't know where it was going to take place because we were still in the process of obtaining a warrant. Sorry families of 10,000+ innocents." What’s more important? The government having the resources it needs in order to protect the freedom of it's citizens or the civil liberties of people who might begin to draw a little bit too much attention to themselves.

[Duppin]

Originally Posted by xeg_IS

Spying is a slightly inappropriate word here. The government doesn't just say, "hey, let's monitor Mike Brown because he looks funny." They need to be able to prove that monitoring a particular civilian is within their jurisdiction. If I were in a law enforcement agency dealing with terrorism, I would definitely not want to wait 2-3 days to get a warrant from a judge before I could begin my investigation because you aren't always going to catch these guys weeks in advance.

The last thing the US wants to do is stand in front of the world, crippled from another attack ala 9/11 and say, "Well, we knew about the terror plot, but we didn't know where it was going to take place because we were still in the process of obtaining a warrant. Sorry families of 10,000+ innocents." What’s more important? The government having the resources it needs in order to protect the freedom of it's citizens or the civil liberties of people who might begin to draw a little bit too much attention to themselves.

I hate to sound condescending here, but your post makes it clear that you have no idea how the FISA court procedure works. It is both secret, and retroactive.

THEY DID NOT HAVE TO WAIT FOR A WARRANT. THIS IS NOT WHY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION CHOSE TO CIRCUMVENT THE FISA COURT PROCESS.

Please, please, PLEASE do some research before you post.

[Algrinon]

The judge was a Carter Election Worker in the 1980 re-election campaign of the worst president, hands down, of the 20th century. Yes, Bill Clinton was 87272 times better than Carter. Anyways, after Carter lost she got appointed. Total political hack.

And no, the government is not spying on you Duppin. It is spying on people who call known al Qadea numbers. But you don't want to hear that. You don't even call it by the name it has.

BUSH LIED! PEOPLE DIED! BURN BUSH!

Feel better?