Judge declares warrantless surveillance unconstitutional
By Sean Aqui | Related entries in Breaking News, Law, The War On TerrorismJudge Anna Diggs Taylor’s ruling was in response to an ACLU lawsuit.
She said the taps violate free speech and privacy rights. I’m not so sure about the free speech argument. The privacy argument is stronger, though a lot of people argue that the idea of a right to privacy is a myth.
In any case, this bumps the pressure on the government up several notches. I presume the government will appeal the decision, which could lead to a Supreme Court ruling depending on what the appeals court does.
The Detroit Free Press has a bio of the judge.
This entry was posted on Thursday, August 17th, 2006 and is filed under Breaking News, Law, The War On Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/eGov/taylorpdf/06%2010204.pdf
Here the pdf of the actual order/memorandum. I haven’t read it yet.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Please check out the Last paragraph/quote of the opinion. A beautiful bit of dynamo-jurisprudence. Oh hell, here it is:
Justin Warren wrote in U.S. v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967): “Implicit in the term ‘national defense’ is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this Nation apart…It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of…those liberties…which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile.”
While the quote is nifty (and I mean really nifty - shout it from the roof tops), the facts of the case are at the outer-edge of applicablity. Robel was dealing with a self-confessed commie bastard working at a shipyard in violation of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Let’s just hope this is the opening salvo in the eventual (and well-warranted) impeachment of Bush & Cheney.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Yes, impeach Bush on only the vaguest of evidence and the weakest of legal arguments. This is as ridiculous as trying to interpret the constitution with “international law” in consideration. Free Speech? Sorry, noone cut your wire, you were still free to engage in terrorist conspiracy. And privacy? Sorry, not even Ruth Gator Ginsburg could interpret the right to privacy to protect you from commiting crimes, just like you can’t beat your children in your own home and claim “privacy”.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Brian in MA - you ole’ bastard - who let you out of the dog house? Did the Big Indian finally throw the sink out the window?
August 17th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
This is interesting because the ruling was this violated not only FISA, but the constitution. This means congress cannot change the law in any way to make the program legal. I’m no lawyer, but I wonder, does this mean parts of FISA itself are unconstitutional?
August 17th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
Five previous courts, including the uber-liberal 9th circuit, have already ruled that there is a legitimate national security exception to the 4th amendment.
So after shopping this dog around to every judge in the country, the ACLU finally got on the scoreboard: Feds 5, ACLU 1.
See you at the Supreme Court, boys and girls.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
Oh yes, anything can be argued in the interest of NATIONAL SECURITY. I can make the arguement that it’s necessary to trample your rights and have shadowy government agents rape you and and your children in your home if its in the interest of NATIONAL SECURITY, because after all, NATIONAL SECURITY is what matters here, and ANYTHING can be excused in the name of NATIONAL SECURITY, which makes the president COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF-OF-SECURITY, since anything can be excused in the name of SECURITY, even if laws must be broken to keep security!!
Then again, it’s true that no one has argued the right of the government to do this before. Except, somehow, the Bush Administration even managed to screw up THAT by not going through the proper channels (ie the courts), and decided now was the time to declare that Bush was Il Principe in the spirit of Machivelli. Instead they got to fight a worthless, and ultimately pointless, war with the courts (who were pissed for being left out) along with the ACLU and the liberal fringe. Who’s the genius now?
Look, I don’t really MIND Bush and the republican agenda…if only they didn’t SUCK at it, stories like this wouldn’t make the airwaves. The majority of what Bush has done is no different from most modern presidents…except he manages to bungle even the smallest things. But that’s what you get when you have the political skills of a rock.
August 17th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
Save your breath. The John Birch Society made that “argument” years ago.
In 1994 the Clinton administration argued that the president has “inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes”, in the words of AG deputy Jamie Gorelick. (Did you notice? Didn’t think so.) That’s way more leeway than I would ever give them, yet I doubt that any Clintonites broke into your house and raped you.
The Clinton administration went way beyond “foreign intelligence purposes”, ordering warrantless drug sweeps of schools and public housing in Chicago. Again, that’s way the hell over any line I would draw.
Clinton pushed and signed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which required a multi-billion dollar makeover of the telecommunications industry to make phones lines more accessible to wire taps. I wouldn’t have gone for that, either.
Again, did all your civil liberties disappear while Clinton was running amok? Did you even notice?
August 17th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
I’m perplexed by the “civil liberties” that people feel are worth protecting. The NSA issue seems miniscule compared to other intrusions of privacy that are accepted as the norm. For example, I drove a truck across country filled with all my worldly possessions and I was required to stop and let some state employee search it in order to cross state lines. There was no warrant and no probable cause. The need to protect a state against the invasion of the fruit fly trumps my right to privacy but the desire to prevent mass murder does not?
August 17th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
Clinton caught a *lot* of flak from progressives for that crap, Glen. I know: I was one of them.
There were no such things as blogs at the time, though. (Salon’s TableTalk came closest, and even that didn’t really get going until the impeachment imbroglio.) People had to express their anger in LTE or in calls to their Congresscritters.
August 17th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
Bernie - Did the state troopers follow you afterwards? Did they mount a camera in your vehicle to keep an eye on you for an indefinite amount of time? Did they camp outside your house and search anyone who came near you? Did they do any or all of these things without telling you?
August 17th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
Hey Glen, take it easy on the John Birch Society…I keep a copy of the Blue Blook under my pillow at night. Helps me sleep.
August 18th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
The right to privacy is an extremely dangerous myth, because people (at least Americans, anyways) often understand the term “right” to mean an “inalienable right” or a “natural right”. Privacy is a privilege which should be granted to citizens whenever possible, but it is certainly not a right which should be guaranteed across the board, because privacy can be firmly at odds with many other rights, some of which truely are inalienable.