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

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.

*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.

Yet, you are always so quick to defend him and his policies....

Thanks Nephy. That just warms the cockles of my heart.

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.

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.

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.

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

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


;)