NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

If this has already been addressed, I apologize.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/17/domesticspying.lawsuit/index.html

[Betty]

'bout time.

[Nephythys]

doen't mean anything- it'll get pushed up and we will see what SCOTUS does. Somehow I think (and hope) they will have more respect for the FISA court than this judge did.

[Alex]

This judge has complete respect for the FISA court since the ruling says that Bush has to use it.

[Nephythys]

This judge has complete respect for the FISA court since the ruling says that Bush has to use it.


Meh, I disagree- no surprise there. We'll see what happens.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Meh, I disagree- no surprise there. We'll see what happens.
Care to elaborate? The NSA program completely circumvents FISA. This ruling mandates that any such wire tapping would have to be cleared by FISA (either prior to action, or retroactively. I think FISA rules give something like 3 days). So how does the ruling disrespect FISA?

[JWBear]

Care to elaborate? The NSA program completely circumvents FISA. This ruling mandates that any such wire tapping would have to be cleared by FISA (either prior to action, or retroactively. I think FISA rules give something like 3 days). So how does the ruling disrespect FISA?
You forget...

Everything Bush does is wonderful, and necessary to preserve freedom and democracy (oops! I mean republicanism… America is not a democracy).

Anyone who doesn’t wholeheartedly support all of Bush’s actions 100% is a whacko, terrorist loving, liberal.

[Alex]

It isn't an issue of opinion but of fact. Read the dang opinion (http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/08/17/nsa.lawsuit.pdf).

The irreparable injury conversely sustained by Defendent [the United States government] under this injunction may be rectified by compliance with our Constitution and/or statutory law as amended, if necessary.

Bolding mine.

The statutory law with which the judge finds the government out of compliance is FISA (see page 28, 31 of the PDF). The finding is that the government has intentionally tried to circumvent FISA. That if anybody isn't showing respect for FISA it is the president of the United States.

[Nephythys]

You forget...

Everything Bush does is wonderful, and necessary to preserve freedom and democracy (oops! I mean republicanism… America is not a democracy).

Anyone who doesn’t wholeheartedly support all of Bush’s actions 100% is a whacko, terrorist loving, liberal.


If you say so- I sure did not.

People often make this stupid mistake of thinking that people just ADORE Bush and that's what the issue is- I do not adore him, he has let me down often- and Bush is not the point.

So- I don't know into whose mouth you are shoving those words, but it sure as hell is not mine!

[Gemini Cricket]

This thread may be monitored for quality purposes.

[Nephythys]

It isn't an issue of opinion but of fact. Read the dang opinion (http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/08/17/nsa.lawsuit.pdf).



Bolding mine.

The statutory law with which the judge finds the government out of compliance is FISA (see page 28, 31 of the PDF). The finding is that the government has intentionally tried to circumvent FISA. That if anybody isn't showing respect for FISA it is the president of the United States.


I clearly misread something on another site- gonna look at it more before commenting again on it.

Though I still stand by denial of the stuff posted by JWBear- thanks

[Alex]

However, in criticism of the court's opinion I find the First Amendment finding to be spurious. Essentially it says that the wiretapping is a violation of the First Amendment since it has a cooling effect on the willingness of other people to communicate with the plaintiffs.

However, this is true of all wiretaps, whether legal or not. So, if the wiretapping were otherwise ruled legal I don't see how the judge could hold up the First Amendment issue as grounds for injunction. Therefore it seems to me that inclusion of this section is just distracting fluff without any real weight.

I do find the 4th Amendment ruling (that FISA created very specific exceptions to otherwise standard 4th Amendment law and the program under question violates even those looser requirements) very compelling however.

[Nephythys]

*finding link*

apparantly some analysts think this will be overturned as the people bringing the case may not have had standing to bring the case at all. Meaning they could not show that they had been harmed, or would be harmed in the future by the program.

[JWBear]

...People often make this stupid mistake of thinking that people just ADORE Bush and that's what the issue is- I do not adore him, he has let me down often- and Bush is not the point...
Yet, you are always so quick to defend him and his policies....

[JWBear]

...Though I still stand by denial of the stuff posted by JWBear- thanks
Thanks Nephy. That just warms the cockles of my heart.

[Alex]

*finding link*

apparantly some analysts think this will be overturned as the people bringing the case may not have had standing to bring the case at all. Meaning they could not show that they had been harmed, or would be harmed in the future by the program.
The standings issue is certainly a grounds on which the ruling might be overturned and has nothing to do with the legality or constitutionality of the program itself.

However, since the government refuses to identify who has been the target of wiretapping it would be ironic that the government could make what would otherwise be considered unconstitutional de facto legal by making sure it is impossible to establish standing. (Well, in rereading the standing section of the decision I see that the judge made exactly the same point.)

I suspect the government will find it hard to win cases when their defense is "we can't make a defense because it would require sharing secrets."

The opinion does address the issue. To read the judge's take on the standing issue it is pages 15-24 of the PDF I linked above.

[innerSpaceman]

Mark September 7 on your calendars. That's the date of the hearing to decide whether the judge will stay her injunction on the NSA program. If she denies a stay ... the government will be put in the position of either stopping the program or directly defying a federal judge's specific order.

Doesn't matter then if they appeal to their hand-picked Supreme Court: until heard by the Surpremes, the law of the land will be NO NSA WARRENTLESS WIRETAPPING. I'm very curious to see if the Bush Administration will go outlaw that blatently.

[wendybeth]

They've thumbed their noses at nearly every criticism and complaint thus far, and I see no reason to expect them not to do the same in this instance. Of course, it is getting close to election time and certain cons are busily positioning themselves for whatever direction they think the electorate winds will blow, so who knows? It will be interesting to see if George does go against any court ruling- how many of his apologists will defend that? Of course, there will probably be a terrorist threat about that time, so everyone will just be relieved that George cares enough for our welfare to circumvent and defy the law of the land.

[katiesue]

I read the thread title and thought, when did NA get an evesdropproping program and how did scaeagles find out about it?

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Zip it, katiesue. You've said quite enough.


;)

[Nephythys]

The NSA program has been ruled legal, much less constitutional, in 5 of the 11 federal courts. the ACLU went judge shopping, and brought it before this particular judge because she has a history of handing down rulings based on her personal political beliefs, instead of the law. this ruling will be reversed the second it hits a sane court. did you know that even the 9th circuit ruled in favor of the administration on the NSA program?

[Scrooge McSam]

The NSA program has been ruled legal, much less constitutional, in 5 of the 11 federal courts.

Which 5?

[Motorboat Cruiser]

The NSA program has been ruled legal, much less constitutional, in 5 of the 11 federal courts.

Even domestically?

Every federal appellate court to rule on the question in other cases has affirmed the President’s authority to conduct signals intelligence programs, but only in regard to foreign and not domestic communications. On the other hand, FISA explicitly covers "electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence information" performed within the United States, and there is no court decision supporting the theory that the President's constitutional authority allows him to override statutory law. This was emphasized by fourteen constitutional law scholars, including the dean of Yale Law School and the former deans of Stanford Law School and the University of Chicago Law School