Federal judge orders end to wiretap program

[Slim Pickens]

Federal judge orders end to wiretap program
Rules warrantless domestic surveillance program unconstitutional

Updated: 7 minutes ago

DETROIT - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government

[capt carnuba]

Very nice, however, will the rights hate of the aclu have them philibustering for expanded invasions of privacy.

[Dankdude]

I heard that the White House plans on going to a more conservitive court to try and get it overturned.

[Alaska]

Go Anna!

A

[Wavels]

This loopy decision will surely be overturned.



Much will be said about this opinion in the coming days. I

[Kurious]

Nice election year topic. I see it as a vote on impeachment proceedings. The culture of corruption is about to crumble. My .02$

Kurious

[OneLegUp]

This will be overturned...poste haste and has already been stayed.. by the 6th Circuit..

What gets me is all you who applaud this decision...have certainly done no research..

FDR
Truman
Johnson
Carter*
Clinton*

All the above availed themselves of warrantless wiretaps.. in peace time and in war...

In 1973 the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in US v. Brown..
"[B]ecause of the president's constitutional duty to act for the United States in the field of foreign relations, and his inherent power to protect national security in the context of foreign affairs, we reaffirm... that the president may constitutionally authorize warrantless wiretaps for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence,"

In 1980 the 4th Circuit Court of Appreals ruled in US v Truong:

"In the area of foreign intelligence, the government contended, the president may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs," the court explained.

"First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy," they said. "A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence initiatives, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations...

Now what's particularly interesting about Truong's case is it was PURELY Domestic, both ends of the conversations were held in the USA and involved US citizens.. whereas the Bush administratons use of the warrantless intercepts have at least one end of the conversation being foreign in nature.

Now further on Truong....In this case President Jimmy Carter* authorized " a true wiretap (physical bug) telephone interception which continued for 268 days, and every conversation of a US citizen, with possibly one exception, was monitored and virtually all were taped. The eavesdropping device was operative for approximately 255 days, and it ran continuously. No court authorization was ever sought or obtained for the installation and maintenance of the telephone tap or the bug.

Yet the court held the President had Constitutional Authority granted him by Article II of the Constitution..and it was a US Citizen, on US soil...

Now to show further hysteria on this issue.

Not long ago the Senate held hearings on this very issue.. In the Q & A period Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked about the Constitutionality of the warrantless taps... 5 FISA court judges concurred the President had the authority derived from Article II of the Constitution. One judge even stated that for the President to relinquish that right to a FISA court would be foolish...which is what Carter did when he signed into law the FISA courts..

Now remember one end of the communication must originate or end in a foreign country..as has been demonstrated the Bush administration has been adhereing to, with that in mind..

Every piece of mail, box, container, person, luggage etc etc when crossing an international border is subject to search WITHOUT a warrant... Look at the seed biz..mail was opened with no warrants and that took a physical act whereas an intercept grabs electrons out of the open air.. Now let's go further on this... How about coming back from a trip.. luggage.. how about your asshole, how about X-Rays of your stomach... ALL can be done without warrants..

My point here is the 4th Amendment as been held by all courts ISN'T applicable when leaving or entering or sending anything across international borders..remember..mail, bags, boxes, shipping conatiners..yer asshole

Thus to believe grabbing electrons from the air when it involves national security and a foreign destination or origin is in play, is unconstitutional.. is well foolish ..as this judge will be shown to be..

Now as to physical searches done without a warrant. In 1994 Bill Clinton* personally authorized the FBI to search a citizens home... the home was that of Aldrich Ames who had been passing secrets onto the Soviets... again no warrant was issued... and again a PHYSICAL search...

You know whats really odd... not once in any of the cases shown nor with any other President has the ACLU sought to deny them the warrantless tap or search, when dealing with national security...not once..as in ever... until now. Then again these are the same people who "claim" to protect our rights but have never defended a person's 2nd Amendment right to bear arms..

Lastly some of you have such blind hatred for the President you care less what he does... it must be bad... so bad wireless intercepts were used to help the UK with the recent airline bombing plans....but hey it's better and you feel better if the President get's, as you see it, a black eye..

Hopefully your hatred doesn't get me killed the next time I fly.

Then again you haters would blame the President for not doing enough if another attack happened..

[Kurious]

Hopefully your hatred doesn't get me killed the next time I fly.

OLU, I'd be more afraid of the plane coming apart in mid air. Could I ever tell stories. You may never get on another in your life. Laugh if you must but your life is the wager.

Kurious

[Dankdude]

You know other authoritarian regimes have use one time events as excuses to break the law both national and international law.
Hitler come to mind with the burning of the Reichstag.