NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional

Nephythys · 08-18-2006, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

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 · 08-18-2006, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nephythys

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 · 08-18-2006, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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.

Nephythys · 08-18-2006, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWBear

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 · 08-18-2006, 10:59 AM

This thread may be monitored for quality purposes.

JWBear · 08-18-2006, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nephythys

...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....

Alex · 08-18-2006, 10:46 AM

It isn't an issue of opinion but of fact. Read the dang opinion.

Quote:

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 · 08-18-2006, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

It isn't an issue of opinion but of fact. Read the dang opinion.

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 · 08-18-2006, 11:10 AM

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.

JWBear · 08-18-2006, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nephythys

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

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

08-18-2006, 10:59 AM	#5
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	This thread may be monitored for quality purposes.
	Submit to Quotes

08-18-2006, 11:10 AM	#9
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	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.
	Submit to Quotes