Wiretapping program ruled unconstitutional

[DemPower]

A U.S. federal judge has ruled that the National Security Agency's program to wiretap the international communications of some Americans without a court warrant violated the Constitution, and has ordered it shut down....

Taylor ruled that the program violated both the Fourth Amendment and a 1978 law that requires warrants from a secret court for intelligence wiretaps involving people in the United States.

The Fourth Amendment protects Americans against "unreasonable searches and seizures."

Taylor rejected the administration's repeated assertions that a 2001 congressional authorization and the president's constitutional authority allowed the program. "The public interest is clear in this matter," she wrote. "It is the upholding of our Constitution."

In bypassing court warrants, the judge said, the government has sought the unilateral power to decide when surveillance is required.

"It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly when his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights," she wrote.

"The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/18/news/wiretap.php

[Mythsaje]

1. Thank you, Judge!

That's what we've been saying all along.

[dennisnyc]

2. Is this old or new?

The link goes to an August '06 ruling.

Wiretapping program ruled unconstitutional
By Adam Liptak and Eric Lichtblau The New York Times
Published: August 18, 2006

[Chimichurri]

3. All this good news. Am I dreaming?

:woohoo: :patriot:

[myrna minx]

4. Woot. Take that Chimperor! n/t

[emulatorloo]

5. kick and nom n/t

[Avalux]

6. This is several months old - happened in August.

No more news since.

[Nictuku]

9. Actually

I heard that the Judges injunction against the program was overuled by a higher court.

[Avalux]

10. thanks - I hadn't heard that.

:hi:

[rodeodance]

16. no, but what happened it that WH is allowed to continue during the

appeal.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

26. really, where did you hear that? if you want people to trust you give sources...

and create a reasonable journal and profile. Also your link is a bit outdated and in a sense promotes some very bad propaganda that was an abject failure. Now far be it from me to call ANYONE a troll but your image could certainly use a bit of touching up.

[jsamuel]

7. from August 18th

[grizmaster]

8. old article, currently still on appeal

[yellowdogmi]

11. I believe this is old. and has been either

overturned upon appeal to the appellate court in Cincinnati or is up for review there.

[Tarheel_Dem]

Thanks for posting....but,

isn't this old news? Don't you remember she was villified by the right as being one of those nasty "activist" judges?

[Jeffersons Ghost]

27. I'D CALL THIS CURRENT NEWS, UNTIL THE APPEAL ACTUALLY TAKES PLACE...

If ANY judge is stupid enough to commit political suicide by over-turning a ruling so closely supported by the most basic precepts of Constitutional law, I'd say it will remain "current" as it moves into ever-higher courts.

[Stand and Fight]

12. OLD -- AUGUST 18, 2006 n/t

[rodeodance]

13. this is the Detroit judge (a few months old)---The case in now in the 6th

district courst (Fed)

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Brazenly Liberal]

22. An easy mistake to make!

Welcome to DU!

[Kolesar]

15. welcome to our forum!

:hi:

[EVDebs]

17. BOTH the AUMFs need to be re-examined.

Both the Sept 2001 ('War on Terror AUMF) and Oct 2002 (Iraq War AUMF) need to be re-examined to delete the "...as he (Bush) determines..." language.

Sen Warner has said the Oct 2002 AUMF may need to be revisited...and now the 9-11 Commission report's errors and omissions require a new investigation.

[Tiggeroshii]

18. hmm.

[ixion]

19. damn right it's unconstitutional

as most of the legislation put forth by BushCo. :grr:

[ClintonTyree]

20. Now, will they actually follow the order, though?

The NSA is listening to and reading everything we say and write anyway. A Judge can tell them, no, but the NSA doesn't operate under anyone's rules. Who oversees the NSA? No one. Oh, I'm sure there's some sham Congressional oversight committee in place, but does anyone REALLY oversee the NSA? They're the NSA and invasion of privacy means absolutely nothing to them. I mean, it's great that the Judge reached this decision and all, but does anyone seriously think the NSA is going to change in any significant way because of it? :shrug;

[troubleinwinter]

21. Again, you are posting OLD articles.

[in_cog_ni_to]

23. YAY! Now, off to the SCOTUS in an appeal, right?

We know how they ruled on Hamdan. I wonder which way they will go on this one?

[Jeffersons Ghost]

24. K&R! ALL RIGHT! here's a picture for the moment...

[Viva_La_Revolution]

25. kickin for view-ability

:kick:

[Jeffersons Ghost]

28. hey dempower welcome to DU...

have you been around long enough to learn to watch your Private Messages. It's called "INBOX" and you will see the yellow envelope icon ten positions to the right, by the big words at the top, saying, DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND.