Politics > Politics-USA > WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL; FEDERAL JUDGE ***** SLAPS BU$H: "THERE ARE NO HEREDITARY KINGS..."
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"ChasNemo" |
| Date: |
17 Aug 2006 07:20:45 PM |
| Object: |
WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL; FEDERAL JUDGE ***** SLAPS BU$H: "THERE ARE NO HEREDITARY KINGS..." |
Yup. It's true. A federal judge ruled the rightard wiretapping
program unconstitutional and ***** slapped the PresiDunce: "There are
no hereditary kings...."
Of course, Bu$h is arrogant, stupid and sleazy enough to serve as a
king or corporate honcho, but the Constitution says different!
YEEEEHAWWWWWWWWWW, PRETEND COWBOY!
THANK GAWD FOR THE ACLU!!!!!!!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-17-judge-nsa_x.htm
Judge: NSA warrantless wiretapping unconstitutional
Updated 8/17/2006 12:11 PM ET
DETROIT (AP) - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's
warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an
immediate halt to it.
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge
to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says
violates the rights to free speech and privacy.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of
journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it
difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their
overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves
wiretapping conversations between people in the U.S. and people in
other countries.
The government argued that the program is well within the president's
authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.
The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the
Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information
about the program for Taylor to rule.
.
|
|
| User: "Jim E" |
|
| Title: Re: WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL; FEDERAL JUDGE ***** SLAPS BU$H: "THERE ARE NO HEREDITARY KINGS..." |
17 Aug 2006 10:08:47 PM |
|
|
"ChasNemo" <chasnemo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1155860445.103588.294730@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Yup. It's true. A federal judge ruled the rightard wiretapping
program unconstitutional and ***** slapped the PresiDunce: "There are
no hereditary kings...."
Of course, Bu$h is arrogant, stupid and sleazy enough to serve as a
king or corporate honcho, but the Constitution says different!
YEEEEHAWWWWWWWWWW, PRETEND COWBOY!
THANK GAWD FOR THE ACLU!!!!!!!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-17-judge-nsa_x.htm
Judge: NSA warrantless wiretapping unconstitutional
Updated 8/17/2006 12:11 PM ET
DETROIT (AP) - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's
warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an
immediate halt to it.
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge
to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says
violates the rights to free speech and privacy.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of
journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it
difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their
overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves
wiretapping conversations between people in the U.S. and people in
other countries.
The government argued that the program is well within the president's
authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.
The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the
Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information
about the program for Taylor to rule.
Another left over leftloon judge who will soon be overturned.
Jim E
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Ejercito" |
|
| Title: Re: WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL; FEDERAL JUDGE ***** SLAPS BU$H: "THERE ARE NO HEREDITARY KINGS..." |
18 Aug 2006 01:45:33 PM |
|
|
ChasNemo wrote:
Yup. It's true. A federal judge ruled the rightard wiretapping
program unconstitutional and ***** slapped the PresiDunce: "There are
no hereditary kings...."
Of course, that ruling stands in opposition to these earlier
rulings.
We...discern no constitutional prohibition against the fifth wiretap.
Section 605 of Title 47, U.S.C., is a general prohibition against
publication or use of communications obtained by wiretapping, but we do
not read the section as forbidding the President, or his
representative, from ordering wiretap surveillance to obtain foreign
intelligence in the national interest."
-- United States v. Clay 1970
"In sum, we hold that, in the circumstances of this case, prior
judicial authorization was not required since the district court found
that the surveillances of Ivanov were "conducted and maintained
solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence
information."
-- United States v. Butenko 1974
"Foreign security wiretaps are a recognized exception to the general
warrant requirement"
-- United States v. Buck 1977
"For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in
the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security,
that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v.
United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], "unduly
frustrate" the President in carrying out his foreign affairs
responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to
the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A
warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the
flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases
delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase
the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations."
-- United States v. Truong 1980
"The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the
issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct
warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was
incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of
that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for
granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that
is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional
power."
-- United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Fazemeier" |
|
| Title: Re: WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL; FEDERAL JUDGE ***** SLAPS BU$H: "THERE ARE NO HEREDITARY KINGS..." |
18 Aug 2006 09:49:17 PM |
|
|
"Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155926732.982249.227010@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
ChasNemo wrote:
Yup. It's true. A federal judge ruled the rightard wiretapping
program unconstitutional and ***** slapped the PresiDunce: "There are
no hereditary kings...."
Of course, that ruling stands in opposition to these earlier
rulings.
We...discern no constitutional prohibition against the fifth wiretap.
Section 605 of Title 47, U.S.C., is a general prohibition against
publication or use of communications obtained by wiretapping, but we do
not read the section as forbidding the President, or his
representative, from ordering wiretap surveillance to obtain foreign
intelligence in the national interest."
-- United States v. Clay 1970
"In sum, we hold that, in the circumstances of this case, prior
judicial authorization was not required since the district court found
that the surveillances of Ivanov were "conducted and maintained
solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence
information."
-- United States v. Butenko 1974
"Foreign security wiretaps are a recognized exception to the general
warrant requirement"
-- United States v. Buck 1977
"For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in
the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security,
that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v.
United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], "unduly
frustrate" the President in carrying out his foreign affairs
responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to
the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A
warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the
flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases
delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase
the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations."
-- United States v. Truong 1980
"The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the
issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct
warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was
incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of
that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for
granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that
is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional
power."
-- United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review 2002
keyword- "foreign"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Ejercito" |
|
| Title: Re: WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL; FEDERAL JUDGE ***** SLAPS BU$H: "THERE ARE NO HEREDITARY KINGS..." |
19 Aug 2006 11:19:12 AM |
|
|
Fred Fazemeier wrote:
"Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155926732.982249.227010@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
ChasNemo wrote:
Yup. It's true. A federal judge ruled the rightard wiretapping
program unconstitutional and ***** slapped the PresiDunce: "There are
no hereditary kings...."
Of course, that ruling stands in opposition to these earlier
rulings.
We...discern no constitutional prohibition against the fifth wiretap.
Section 605 of Title 47, U.S.C., is a general prohibition against
publication or use of communications obtained by wiretapping, but we do
not read the section as forbidding the President, or his
representative, from ordering wiretap surveillance to obtain foreign
intelligence in the national interest."
-- United States v. Clay 1970
"In sum, we hold that, in the circumstances of this case, prior
judicial authorization was not required since the district court found
that the surveillances of Ivanov were "conducted and maintained
solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence
information."
-- United States v. Butenko 1974
"Foreign security wiretaps are a recognized exception to the general
warrant requirement"
-- United States v. Buck 1977
"For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in
the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security,
that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v.
United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], "unduly
frustrate" the President in carrying out his foreign affairs
responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to
the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A
warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the
flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases
delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase
the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations."
-- United States v. Truong 1980
"The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the
issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct
warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was
incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of
that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for
granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that
is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional
power."
-- United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review 2002
keyword- "foreign"
The ruling the judge made referred to these declarations by the
plaintiffs.
[I]n a Declaration, attorney Nancy Hollander stated that she frequently
engages in international communications with individuals who have
alleged connections with terrorist organizations. Attorney William Swor
also provided a similar declaration. Journalist Tara McKelvey declared
that she has international communications with sources who are
suspected of helping the insurgents in Iraq.
The plaintiffs admit to making INTERNATIONAL communications.
Anything ENTERING the United States, whether persons, goods, or
communications, CAN be searched.
Michael
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Helms" |
|
| Title: Re: WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL |
18 Aug 2006 04:39:48 PM |
|
|
Michael Ejercito wrote:
Moronic, fascist legal opinions snipped.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
--Fourth Amendment, United States Constitution. Note the absence of any
sort of a presidential "Escape Hatch." There are no stated or implied
exceptions for George Bush's convenience or his self serving claims
that he is doing some mysterious good in secret and we just have to
trust him. There's no "We're at war" sunset or eclipse provision in the
Fourth Amendment. Nothing in there says, suggests, implies or leaves
open the door for him to do it. The Fourth Amendment says he can't do
it. Period. That's the whole point of it. The whole point of the FISA
court system is to prevent him from doing it. FISA was created as a
remedy for the abuses that took place at the hands of fringe wacko
conservatives like J Edgar Hoover and it wasn't created so that dumb,
rich snotbags like Georgie W Bush could use "Battling Terrorists" as a
cover to simply cast aside over 30 years of FISA and initiate an
open-ended, free ranging domestic spying program targeting anybody he
doesn't happen to like. And everybody who doesn't get their news from
Fox or CNN knows that that is exactly what is happening. Even
Republicans know that this "anti-terror" program is much larger and
wider than is being admitted to by this ethically vapid administration.
This massive domestic spying program goes way, way beyond "Battling
Terrorism" and almost everybody knows it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Ejercito" |
|
| Title: Re: WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL |
19 Aug 2006 11:20:00 AM |
|
|
Christopher Helms wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
Moronic, fascist legal opinions snipped.
Those opinions ARE THE LAW.
We...discern no constitutional prohibition against the fifth wiretap.
Section 605 of Title 47, U.S.C., is a general prohibition against
publication or use of communications obtained by wiretapping, but we do
not read the section as forbidding the President, or his
representative, from ordering wiretap surveillance to obtain foreign
intelligence in the national interest."
-- United States v. Clay 1970
"In sum, we hold that, in the circumstances of this case, prior
judicial authorization was not required since the district court found
that the surveillances of Ivanov were "conducted and maintained
solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence
information."
-- United States v. Butenko 1974
"Foreign security wiretaps are a recognized exception to the general
warrant requirement"
-- United States v. Buck 1977
"For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in
the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security,
that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v.
United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], "unduly
frustrate" the President in carrying out his foreign affairs
responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to
the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A
warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the
flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases
delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase
the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations."
-- United States v. Truong 1980
"The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the
issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct
warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was
incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of
that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for
granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that
is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional
power."
-- United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review 2002
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "robw" |
|
| Title: Re: WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL; FEDERAL JUDGE ***** SLAPS BU$H: "THERE ARE NO HEREDITARY KINGS..." |
18 Aug 2006 10:44:35 PM |
|
|
Tell it to the judge.
"Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155926732.982249.227010@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
ChasNemo wrote:
Yup. It's true. A federal judge ruled the rightard wiretapping
program unconstitutional and ***** slapped the PresiDunce: "There are
no hereditary kings...."
Of course, that ruling stands in opposition to these earlier
rulings.
We...discern no constitutional prohibition against the fifth wiretap.
Section 605 of Title 47, U.S.C., is a general prohibition against
publication or use of communications obtained by wiretapping, but we do
not read the section as forbidding the President, or his
representative, from ordering wiretap surveillance to obtain foreign
intelligence in the national interest."
-- United States v. Clay 1970
"In sum, we hold that, in the circumstances of this case, prior
judicial authorization was not required since the district court found
that the surveillances of Ivanov were "conducted and maintained
solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence
information."
-- United States v. Butenko 1974
"Foreign security wiretaps are a recognized exception to the general
warrant requirement"
-- United States v. Buck 1977
"For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in
the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security,
that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v.
United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], "unduly
frustrate" the President in carrying out his foreign affairs
responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to
the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A
warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the
flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases
delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase
the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations."
-- United States v. Truong 1980
"The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the
issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct
warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was
incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of
that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for
granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that
is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional
power."
-- United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review 2002
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
