Judge May Decide if Eavesdropping Is Legal

[cal04]

The National Security Agency's domestic spying program faces its first legal challenge in a case that could decide if the White House is allowed to order eavesdropping without a court order. Oral arguments are set for Monday at U.S. District Court in Detroit at which the American Civil Liberties Union will ask Judge Anna Diggs Taylor to declare the spying unconstitutional and order it halted.

The case goes to the heart of the larger national debate about whether President Bush has assumed too much power in his declared war on terrorism. Bush said he authorized NSA intercepts soon after the September 11 attacks, allowing the NSA to monitor the international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens without first obtaining warrants if in pursuit of al Qaeda suspects. The ACLU sued the NSA on behalf of scholars, journalists and attorneys, claiming that warrantless wiretaps violate the U.S. Constitution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA.

`The NSA has the capability of eavesdropping on anyone, anywhere, anytime,'' said James Bamford, an NSA expert and author who is supporting the ACLU suit. Justice Department lawyers have asked the judge to dismiss the suit because it would reveal state secrets. Regardless of how the judge rules on state secrets, the government lawyers say Congress granted Bush surveillance privileges by authorizing the use of force against al Qaeda following the September 11 attacks, and that he has the inherent right to order the wiretaps under presidential war powers.

``That is a total misunderstanding of the way the separation of powers are supposed to work in our democracy,'' said Ann Beeson, the lead ACLU lawyer in the case. ``It is very clear that when the framers (of the Constitution) set up the three branches of government they gave Congress the power to regulate what the president can do even during wartime and emergencies. If they hadn't done that we'd be back to the days of King George III,'' she said.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-security-eavesdropping.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Just Me]

1. *fingers crossed* K & R. eom

[cal04]

2. to hear the governments motions after June 12th hearing(older article)

Federal judge refuses to halt suit against U.S. spy agency
(snip)
Diggs Taylor also criticized the Justice Department for failing to respond to the Jan. 18 legal challenge, The Detroit News reported on June 2.

(snip)
The government filed motions May 26 saying that no court can consider the issues, because of a privilege against revealing state secrets, if doing so harms national security. Diggs Taylor said in her May 31 order that she would hear the government's state-secrets motions only after proceeding with a June 12 hearing on the plaintiffs' motion to summarily declare the spying illegal.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=16978

[CatholicEdHead]

3. I bet this eventually hits the Supreme Court

no matter what happens at the District level. Then Roberts and Alito will really show their true colors.

[unblock]

5. yup. and it will be very interesting what happens there.

the supremos occassionally do reign in the bfee because they sometimes do take a "wait, what if hillary gets this power" view. not that they're explicit about it. but they do have to structure their opinions very carefully (narrowly, usually) so that the extra powers they approve for the executive branche can be used only for evil.

[salin]

6. (narrowly, usually)... Sorta like stating in their ruling in Bush v Gore

that the ruling could NOT be used as a precedent in future cases/elections?

[unblock]

7. exactly. "this ruling void for democrats."

[acmejack]

4. I would say you're correct edhead

Even though one would think It would be obvious. Even to a fool such as myself!

[WhiteTara]

8. kick for justice

:kick:

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

9. K...

:kick:

[Demeter]

10. Can AnyoneFind Out Who Appointed Judge Diggs?

Was she a Carter pick, or a Reagan one? Google says 1979 appointment, but could have been left over from Carter.

[Rainscents]

11. It looks like Carter pick.

If she was put in 1979.

[Blaq Dem]

12. He's probably having his phone calls tapped

Just in case he doesn't rule in Bush's favor, all the details of this judge's freaky sex behavior will probably be revealed. Stay tuned.

[Supersedeas]

17. It is national security after all--justifies everything.

[corksean]

13. ACLU Tries to Stop Warrantless Wiretapping

DETROIT (AP) - Critics of the government's domestic surveillance program claim it violates the rights of free speech and privacy. The Bush administration says it is necessary and legal. Both sides were due in court Monday to argue the constitutionality of the program. The American Civil Liberties Union has asked for an immediate halt to the warrantless wiretapping program.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor was to hear the case brought by the ACLU against the National Security Agency. The Bush administration has asked Taylor to dismiss the lawsuit, saying the litigation would jeopardize state secrets.

But Taylor said she would first hear arguments on the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, despite the government's assertion that no court can consider the issues.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5880364,00.html

[ixion]

14. no court can consider the issues

ah, yes... stuff like this must be left for consideration only by Little Lord Pissypants. :grr:

[rock]

15. Somehow this doesn't sound like

checks and balances. You know, "We have checks and balances except where we don't (and we'll tell you where that is.)"

[kestrel91316]

16. If Judge Taylor rules against the gov't, guess what?

Bush will simply issue an executive order allowing him to spy anyway, or he will tell Judge Taylor to go pound sand and that he can do anything he wants because he's the president.