August 17, 2006 9:44 AM PDT

Federal judge orders halt to NSA spy program

(continued from previous page)

Clients defended by ACLU in the suit praised the district court's decision, saying it would allow them to carry out their professional duties without fear of being spied upon.

"I'm extremely relieved to know that this court believes in the right of our clients, who are all people accused of crimes, to the confidentiality that has long believed to be essential to the criminal justice system," said Nancy Hollander, a New Mexico-based attorney who spoke on behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

New York University professor Barney Rubin, a plaintiff in the case who has authored several books on Afghanistan, said the ruling gave him "greater confidence" that he would be able to conduct interviews with subjects located in the nation considered a state sponsor of terror without worrying his conversations would be scooped up by the NSA.

It wasn't immediately clear what impact the ruling will have on a number of other cases challenging the legality of the NSA program. On July 20, a federal judge in San Francisco dismissed the government's assertion of the state secrets privilege and ruled that a case brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group, against AT&T could proceed--a move that the government readily appealed.

Five days later, however, a federal judge in Chicago granted the Justice Department's request to throw out another suit related to the NSA program brought by the ACLU.

A number of congressional proposals also seek to broaden wiretapping law, essentially making the existing NSA program legal. One controversial bill endorsed by the Bush administration proposes moving all cases disputing electronic surveillance programs to a secret court.

Congressional Democrats on Thursday generally applauded the decision, while Republicans decried it as a potential threat to the war on terror.

"If the courts of final review rule that these procedures don't work, we will find a way that does," U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Dennis Hastert said in a statement. "We hope that the Democrats will join us in an effort to make sure America continues these vital terrorist surveillance programs.

The Democratic co-chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said the judge's ruling reaffirmed his ongoing belief that the NSA program was illegal. "We can and should wiretap terrorists under the current FISA law," Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont said in a statement. "The problem has been the Bush-Cheney administration's insistence on doing it illegally, without checks and balances to prevent abusing the rights of Americans."

The ACLU said it was confident that the constitutional arguments raised by Taylor's opinion would prompt the politicians to rethink taking such steps. "Members of Congress have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution," said ACLU Legislative Director Caroline Fredrickson, "and they're going to have to take this decision very seriously."

Previous page
Page 1 | 2

See more CNET content tagged:
federal judge, Bush Administration, NSA, stay, government

351 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Good to see.
I really wish that this had come sooner. Now I would like the President to comply with the court order. I know some people think that the president should have this authority and they tend to be partisan Republicans or just really strong Bush supporters. What those types tend to forget, is that presidents and the party they represent change often, and are you comfortable with Al Gore or even worse Hillary Clinton having these powers?
Posted by echeola (12 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Another judge, another setback.
Has anyone been hurt by the NSA? No harm, no foul. Since many in Congress don't know the details of the "Warrantless surveillance program" I wonder how this judge wrote a 44-page opinion?

-JimP
Posted by jimpeabody (2 comments )
Link Flag
federal judge orders halt to NSA spy program
I am neither a "staunch" Republican or Purely Bush supporter. What I am is a supporter of National Defense.If we cannot secretively ferret out those that have mal-intent to our citizens or country's way of life, then it is time to remove those officials that do not comprehend the magnitude of the worldwide terorist threat we face...not just abroad but on our own turf as well. We have already had one major example of the effectiveness of our not being sufficiently vigilant. I, for one, do not want to see a future repeat due to the lack of information. If someone wants to monitor me for our country's protection, they have my full permission!
Posted by (7 comments )
Link Flag
Yes I am!
I have NO problem with Hillarious or Gore having these powers IF we are stupid enough to elect them!

This is a victory for terrorists and criminals, nothing more!
Posted by The Tominator (6 comments )
Link Flag
Re: Good to see
Actually, I'm not currently a Republican or Bush supporter. However, I don't have any problem with my calls being traced, recorded, whatever - simply because I don't break the law.

That's what I don't get - why do people get so freaked out about this if they're not breaking the law? Something I'd venture to say most people are NOT doing.

Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com
Posted by chuck_whealton (521 comments )
Link Flag
Terrorist Huggers On The March!
The judge is probably a left wingnut case, no doubt. When will these ridiculous terrorist hugging liberals quit with this nonsense? I'm sure their motto is "better red than dead" and will continue to join forces with the enemy among us and undermine President Bush's anti-terrorist initiatives. I can't wait until the next election cycle and these jokers are defeated once again.
Posted by WJeansonne (480 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Youre forgetting one thing...
times change. Do you really want Hillary have the legal authority to listen in on *your* phone calls?
You may think its all well and good to have Republicans listening in on treasonous Americans now, but what happens when a Democrat gets elected and decides that now *you* are the traitor whose every move and phone must be monitored?
Posted by Vurk (147 comments )
Link Flag
Bush hugs terrorists
Bush uses fear for control, and who better to spread the fear than terrorists! He supports them more than any liberal.
Posted by ddesy (4336 comments )
Link Flag
Bush & Cheney will call Judge Taylor anit-American
I would be willing to bet that within a day or two, the Bush and Cheney spin doctors will try to make Judge Taylor out to be an anti-American, left wing, pro terrorist judge.
Posted by Mister14 (3 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Well you said it!
In your attempt to be cute you actually told the truth about this judge....even a blind hog finds a acorn.
Posted by okienova (2 comments )
Link Flag
If the shoe fits. . .
I have no great love for George Bush, but if the Judge in question is
in fact left-wing, Anti-American, and pro-terrorist why not call her
that. Some people are you know.
Posted by sbwinn (216 comments )
Link Flag
A sign of our times
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/" target="_newWindow">http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/</a>
Posted by singram13 (1 comment )
Link Flag
Since when....
has a court order stopped the president from doing what he wanted... :/
Posted by umbrae (1073 comments )
Reply Link Flag
That's Separation of Powers for you.
Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who said, "The Court has ruled. Now let
the Court enforce."
Posted by sbwinn (216 comments )
Link Flag
There has to be a line drawn
I don't think there was any doubt that this was going to be judged unconsitutional. There has to be a line drawn somewhere to protect us all from overt government intrusion in our daily communication. While the fight against extremist fundamentalism is important these abuses of power have to remain in balance with our rights.

However, I also think that the with one party controlling both Congress and the presidency we're probably not going to see any real momentum in ending the NSA spy program.
Posted by slickmachines (18 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Where is the abuse?
Can you give me an example of this program being abused? At
what point does it violate anyone's Constitutional rights?

I would really like the government to spy on our enemies,
wouldn't you? It is kind of important to know when people are
trying to kill you, don't you think?

Can someone please give me an example of this program's
horrifying abuse of American citizens or do you not like it just
because it is there?
Posted by sbwinn (216 comments )
Link Flag
new way of doing things
This is very good news.
What confuses me is that normally when presidents ignore the constitution and rules we have set in place that govern us they get in trouble for these things.
I guess that maybe that's the "old way" of doing things. Now we break the laws and declare it legal, which it remains so until proven otherwise?
Posted by Fireweaver (105 comments )
Reply Link Flag
That is correct, Sir
Yup. Its the new "post 9-11" world. Anything is legal unless its the other guy doing it.
Posted by Vurk (147 comments )
Link Flag
Terrorist Huggers on the March!
I'm certain this was one of those liberal judges trying to re-write our laws, no doubt. What a lost cause if there ever was one. It's incredulous how the liberal terrorist huggers think they can win an election on the basis of enabling terrorism. What a joke. I can't wait until they are defeated once again in the next election cycle. It will be fun to watch!
Posted by WJeansonne (480 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Our Security among dangerous
In a post 9/11 World, with an ongoing war on terror, and when sleeper cells of terrorists walk amongst us, this is terrible news. This ruling will surely be changed. Our safety owes a tremendous debt to the NSA, among other American and Allied agencies protecting our security. Thanks London!

Is CNET reporting this for "Technology" Reasons?

Another Concerned Citizen
Posted by sndoyle (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Why not change the constitution?
The court ruled the program unconstitutional --
which is really hard to argue against on the
terms that they framed the issue in.

However, if you feel that perhaps the
Constitution gets in the way of the security
(sic) of the USA, then campaign to change it. We
repealed the 18th Ammendment with the 21st, we
can certainly repeal the 4th Ammendment with a
28th. That would be the way to do it, change the
law rather than just decide to ignore it.

Bush's "there ought to be limits to freedom"
comment specifically referred to problems
he has with the 1st Ammendment -- that too could
be repealed. That would eliminate all the issues
he's had with the press, the nagging problems
with faith-based programs, etc. all at once and
let him get on to other things like fighting
terrorists. Maybe he could even get it together
and ferret out Al Qaeda.

If we repealed the 5th and 6th Ammendments, then
all these problems with "enemy combatants",
secret courts, and indefinite incarceration
without trial would go away too.

What I am saying is that the Constitution is
something that can be changed - talk to your
Congressman or Senator about it. Not that I'm
saying it's a good idea, of course. Doing so -
just like ignoring it whenever it's inconvenient
as we do now - is conceding defeat to the "death
to America" crowd. But, if you feel strongly
enough you ought to campaign for it.

I think that a lot of us were brought up to
associate that "g-ddamned piece of paper,"
particularly the Bill of Rights, with our
identity as a nation, right up there with the
Declaration of Independence. Changing it, just
as ignoring it, would be death to America - at
least as we know it.
Posted by Zymurgist (397 comments )
Link Flag
You forgot to say
"Heil Bush"
Posted by Macsaresafer (802 comments )
Link Flag
If this is the price of saftey
Then it it is too high. The Government is not above the law and certainly not above the Constitution. I would rather be less safe and more free.
Posted by PzkwVIb (462 comments )
Link Flag
Judge Taylor
If they miss a terrorist some place, lets hope
Judge Taylor is the receiptant,
Posted by gbohn (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
Unless any one has noticed we are at war.
This judge has just enhanced the capability of our enemies to communicate without being caught and has significantly jeopardized the safety of our country.

It would be poetic justice if the potential repercussions only fell on those who promote this naive, destructive idealogy.
Posted by stargazer55 (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
HERE HERE - the only problem is...
the pain will fall on all of us, including the ones who agree with POTUS and NSA, not just the whiners that are against it
Posted by DoughboyNJ (77 comments )
Link Flag
which war?
The only war we are at right now is the war in Iraq, where the US invaded.
Care to explain what this decision has to do with the war in Iraq?
The "war against terrorism" is a nice soundbite, but it is nothing more than that.
War has a very specific meaning, and there are very specific procedures to authorize. None of these things fit on the "war on terrorism".
Posted by JoeF2 (1306 comments )
Link Flag
not legally
The power to declare war belongs to Congress, not
the President.
Posted by Jackson Cracker (272 comments )
Link Flag
With Whom??
???
Posted by gestry (18 comments )
Link Flag
i hope to god this gets overturned.
This whole thing has to do with listening in to known terrorists outside the US, contacting or being contacted by people inside the United States.

don't get me wrong... i don't want them spying on calls inside the US going around inside the US without a warrant (which they are not doing), but this whole thing is about calls going outside the US to known terrorists. Our constitution does not apply to these people!

But then again, the political left will do better if America looses. It is so upsetting that according to them, everything bad in the world is America's fault.... and they call themselves patriots, yet when Bush or Chenny call the recient capture of terrorists in the UK a reminder of our enimy, the libs call it "offensive to use that event for political gain" These wiretaps are for the collection of intelligence, not the prosicution of americans. if anything here were braught to a court, it would be turned down. but it aids in the country's protection.
Posted by zeeboid (92 comments )
Reply Link Flag
BINGO
And I second the sickeningness (new word?) of how the left constantly spins the intent of almost all rational attempts at protecting our nation while at war!!! ABSOLUTELY UNFATHOMABLE...
Posted by cmrsage (15 comments )
Link Flag
hook, line, sinker
You have obviously bought into the administrations tactics of
demanding capitulation through fear.

The NSA spy program circumvents our Constitution and has
absolutely no oversight (the President doesn't count). It removes
a key check in the checks and balances of our government. Add
to that the ability to declare anyone a combatant and deny them
their Constitutional rights and you have more than just potential
for abuse.

We are a nation of laws and despite what you and Mr. Bush may
believe, the PRESIDENT and HIS ADMINISTRATION are subject to
those laws. Truthfully, he makes Nixon look like a piker.

I'm more frightened that none of this bothers you at all.

You blame this on the political left. The reality is that our leaders
have gone so far to the extreme right that even Reagan
conservatives are now considered part of the left. So you are
correct, but only because you have lumped 80% of the country
into the "political left".

The reality is that as long as we are free, we can never be 100%
safe. There is always the potential for one person to inflict
massive pain. If we are willing to give up our rights indefinitely
for a never-ending war, we have already lost.

As it is, anyone that stands to oppose this administration's
actions has been declared in collusion with the enemy, a
terrorist sympathizer or unpatriotic. Again, that not only doesn't
bother you. You are actually joining in on the name calling.
Posted by m.meister (278 comments )
Link Flag
Actually, inside US
International calls didn't require the warrant
to eavesdrop, only domestic-domestic calls
required FISA warrants. This decision effects
that program, not the other one.

Incidentally, our Constitution doesn't apply
outside the US, but it does apply to those in it
(even if there's one party in the US, and the
other outside). It doesn't matter so much,
though, since that part of the eavesdropping
happens outside our jurisdiction so it'd be
legal.

I'm not sure what "libs" are, but I think that
Cheney's news conference (a first for his office
to instigate one) was obviously for political
gain. He outed and prematurely terminated an
investigation that had been ongoing for a year,
they raised the threat level and imposed new
security restrictions though the threat was
extant for months and the precise nature of it
known (why not when the threat was understood
rather than after the suspects apprehended), and
he specifically made references to elections and
political allies (including an endorsement and a
admonition on how people should vote). Whether
or not it was reactive or proactive can be
debated, but as to whether or not it was
politicized cannot.
Posted by Zymurgist (397 comments )
Link Flag
i hope to god you learn how to spell
i read this comment and was NOT surprised when coming across
numerous spelling errors. look for it. you'll see in the "right" there
are a great many illiterates. amazing, really.

oh, and this all contains the earmarks of fascism. keep your head in
the sand and wait until it's too late. the left will truly be the only
ones "left".
Posted by cwclifford (53 comments )
Link Flag
All they need to do is get the warrants
The law allows them 72 hours after the fact! Just do the paperwork! That's all they have to do to be in compliance. The FISA court always goes along. This is just a matter of due process and judicial oversight. Separation of powers. Checks and balances. These things have worked well to preserve our liberty for more than 200 years. Throwing that away should require more than just the President and Veep saying "because I said so". A lot more. And that is all the court is saying here: get the warrants.

Obey the law. Preserve essential liberty while STILL fighting the terrorists. And if you can't do both at the same time, then step aside and make room for someone who can!
Posted by rhsatrhs (14 comments )
Link Flag
One Positive Step
Many more needed to completely undo the facist Rove/Bush/Cheney rapes of the Constitution.

If anyone is stupid enough to think this rejection of NSA tactics encourages terrorism, keep in mind that Great Britain busted the terrorist ring last week WITHOUT such illegal wiretaps. They did it BY THE BOOK.
Posted by jgr777 (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Pretty strong words...
... coming from someone who knows no more than any of the rest of us exatly how the Britians got their information. We all only "know" what were told. And agree with that or not, it might actually be good for us in some situations...

Rape? Wow...

Some believe everything they're told by the side/group/politicalparty they are already aligned with, while others believe that our current leaders, "legitimate" or not, are doing the best they can to keep all of us safe.

That! is what being on the same team (America) is all about... regardless of whether "my" party is currently in the pilot seat.
Posted by cmrsage (15 comments )
Link Flag
Here Here! This is not the same country ...
.. that I chose to defend via service in the Marine Corps. It is a vastly less free place. Way too many laws regulating personal life and freedom.

While I have been a conservative and republican for many years, maybe not so in the future.

Judge Taylor has crafted "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" here. Now for some other judge, maybe a Regan appointee, to make the data-mining illegal as well?

As Justice 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.
Posted by Too Old For IT (351 comments )
Link Flag
by the book...?
using "peeking" laws permitted in UK but unconstitutional here

ok, lets amend the constitution, would that make you happy?

let's hear your solution to this growing murderous religion?
Posted by DoughboyNJ (77 comments )
Link Flag
EXTREMELY well stated, Thank you!
;)
Posted by btljooz (401 comments )
Link Flag
They did it BY THE BOOK?
Really?
M.I. 5 or 6 went to the U.S. FISA Court and obtained warrents
before doing any monitoring of any of the 20+ (emphesis on the
"+") suspects they were monitoring because they were following
U.S. laws "BY THE BOOK"?
Do you have any clue as to what "monitoring" laws apply in
England and how they would stand up in any U.S. court?
Do you think maybe if the exact same laws were applied in the
U.S. you might not be screaming even louder because they did it
"BY THE BOOK" (their book) when they busted the terrorist ring
last week?
Posted by K.P.C. (227 comments )
Link Flag
Freedom from what?
Everyone of us has the total freedom to express every opinion, and don't have to fear to be wiretapped, if has nothing to hide.
Every single one that is complaining because it's being listened, it's because he's telling something isn't worth saying, too wrong to be acceptable, or too stupid to be useful.
Posted by ├čodincus (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
if you have nothing to hide..
This tiresome argument continues.

If you have nothing to hide, why not let us go through your
belongings in your car, in your house, on your computer. Surely
you have nothing to hide, so you won't mind the body cavity
search?

What, you feel violated? How could that be? You have nothing to
hide, right?

This argument is used to justify abuse of power. The
Constitution doesn't apply only if you have something to hide. It
applies in all cases to keep the abuse of power to a minimum. It
then adds checks and balances between the government to
further minimize. In six short years, we've seen this setup torn
down with more fear mongering.

If you have nothing to hide, you should be fine with giving up
your dignity, your privacy, your freedom. After all, it is for your
protection. Sure, you're violated -- but don't you feel safe now.
Posted by m.meister (278 comments )
Link Flag
Powerless Americans
What gives? We empeached Clinton, but he stayed full term. "Who cares about rules?", from a Judge, when the constitution is disregarded so often?!?

The problem is simple. It takes too long to make change happen through our current political BS and no action system. As a president you have to cut through the crap and make things as best you can with what you've got.

Electronic voting booths that can't count or have accountability. Democracy is taking a turn for the circus! Can we be serious when we blame other countries for not wanting to become like us and accept Wal-mart mentality and misconducts?

We are having a law/electronic/patent/social melt down and everyone is pointing at everyone else while no one has accountability for their actions.

What a slippery slop we all must conform and live with. Good luck and God Bless Everyone - Everywhere!

Best regards,

Mac
Posted by Blazer2008 (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
RE: anyone notice we are at war.
this is the first spout of ignorance.

in times of war or not the freedoms of Americans should never be removed.

I guess you want internment camps for all muslims but this time run by Japan american citizens?
It will not work. Cry of terror is always what is being used to kill freedoms.
Posted by inachu (963 comments )
Reply Link Flag
but you forget
our constitution does not apply to forigners. no one here (but you) said anything about internmetn camps, just that our intelligence needs to do its work. and nothing the ACLU has to say will help protect the United States
Posted by zeeboid (92 comments )
Link Flag
Good thing the brits didn't have this back in 1776
Because if they could listen in on all the meetings of the revolutionists, none of you would be here today.

I have nothing to hide, but that doesn't give the government the right to assume I am committing some wrong and force me to prove I'm innoncent. That's not the way freedom works people. And for all you "I have nothing to hide" goobs, protesting a government that is tyrannical is the truest form of patriotism. Just ask the colonists.
Posted by SteveDave2 (34 comments )
Reply Link Flag
YOU ALL FORGET - this does not apply to US Citizens
this warrentless spy program is to moniter calls comming from or going to known terrorists outside the US. NOT us citizens. they still have/do get warrants for that.
Posted by zeeboid (92 comments )
Link Flag
Interesting Point, But...
"Because if they could listen in on all the meetings of the revolutionists, none of you would be here today."
[Oh, we KNOW this, as a fact?!?]

...tyrannical...?
[http://Appears that the left has done a good job of getting some people overly riled up by constantly driving home the fear motivated talking points...|http://Appears that the left has done a good job of getting some people overly riled up by constantly driving home the fear motivated talking points...]

Just an observation, but I think it's safe to say that we live in a slightly different world than the Colonists did...
Posted by cmrsage (15 comments )
Link Flag
Does not make US less secure or help terorrists..
This is not about preventing wiretapping of people in
communication with known terrorist. It is preventing about
wiretapping *without a warrant*

If a suspect is suspected to be contact with a known terrorist, they
will always obtain such warrant easily.
Posted by ulric2 (65 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Thanks for clarifying the argument
So many people are hysterical about this topic. I'm glad to see you
have framed the discussion correctly.

I happen to think that Constitutional protections (Article 4 in this
case) apply to citizens not foreign individuals. If the interstate
commerce clause can be construed to apply to everything from
abortion rights to the Internet, then surely international
communication falls within the purview of foreign affairs.
Posted by sbwinn (216 comments )
Link Flag
Which Brings Up the Point ....
Yes they can still wiretap U.S.-to-overseas terrorists communications by obtaining a warrant, something many of the posters (and the Bush admnistration) ignore.

But, that brings up the most obvious question: Why didn't they just do that in the first place? Answer: Because the Bush administration knows that the FISA court would not approve the vacuum cleaner wiretapping of ALL international communications, whether there was a terrorist connection or not, on the promise that non-terrorist comm's would be discarded.

Tom Ridge (Conservative, Republican, first Advisor to the Office of Homeland Security) was on Hardball the other night. He made an interesting comment: It scares him when he hears people say that they're willing to let the government tap them (and everyone else because of their position) because "I'm not doing anything wrong." It scares me, too.

mark d.
CMSgt, USAF, Retired
Posted by markdoiron (1138 comments )
Link Flag
WRONG WRONG WRONG
&lt;&lt;If a suspect is suspected to be contact with a known terrorist, they will always obtain such warrant easily.&gt;&gt;

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

Are you even following this story????

FISA REFUSED evidence from the NSA and said that the information they provided could NOT be used to grand a warrant. Try to keep up.
Posted by David Arbogast (1709 comments )
Link Flag
Ben Franklin
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

This is the spirit that we Americans have lost. Most of us no nothing of the fight to gain the freedoms we enjoy and take for granted. The we allow a president to just take those freedoms away under the guise of saftey.

Those who are willing to give up any amount of freedom deserves none at all.
Posted by System Tyrant (1453 comments )
Reply Link Flag
That's the trouble with government
The more government you have the less freedom there is. The
funny thing about that Ben Franklin quote is that most people
who throw it around are very selective about the "lost freedoms"
they apply it to.

I, for instance, take exception to the government forcibly taking
money that I have earned and spending it on services for illegal
aliens. They have taken away my freedom to dispose of what is
mine as I see fit.

But something tells me you don't mind that particular
infringement on freedom at all.

As for the subject at hand -- wiretapping. What freedom have
you lost exactly? Can you not make overseas calls? Are you
being incarcerated for dissent? Can't you still do what you like
when you like? Perhaps you are worried that the government
might be collecting information on what you are doing? Then
you must be livid about that Social Security number they
imposed on us, with the promise that it would not become an
identification number.
Posted by sbwinn (216 comments )
Link Flag
Except the military
All though a judge must uphold our constitution. For the purpose of bringing a US Citizen to trial, all information obtained without a warrant is not admisible in court. The Military, Secret Service, and the CIA would be excempt from this requirement since there purpose would not be to bring charges against any citizen. That would be like asking a judge to stop a war or a court martial where they have no jurisdiction.
Posted by Stivirino (3 comments )
Reply Link Flag
It still violates the 4th Amendment
whether it is brought to court or not. Read the 4th Amendment.
Posted by PzkwVIb (462 comments )
Link Flag
Good Decision
Thanks be to Allah and his prophet Mohammed (Peace Be Upon Him), that this judge has the wisdom to rule on what is right.

Her understanding is truly heartening, and fills me with hope.

We will make sure that she will be one of the last to meet Allah.
Posted by mustafa-alsayed (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
So are you for real?
I think not. You sound a little bogus to me.
Posted by sbwinn (216 comments )
Link Flag
So are you for real?
I think not. You sound a little bogus to me.
Posted by sbwinn (216 comments )
Link Flag
It's Funny
'Cus Allah is the same god as that of Christianity, just in a more openly hateful context. Really, your words could easily be one of a Christians true thought.

Again, I'm not trying to generalize here. Just making an observation.
Posted by Tomcat Adam (272 comments )
Link Flag
maybe a hollow victory? who will enforce?
don't the attorney general and NSA report into the executive branch?
Posted by DoughboyNJ (77 comments )
Reply Link Flag
A win for al Qaeda!
I'm sure this will embolden the al Qaeda types.

Activist judges appointed by democrats!


[http://Rove prepares the talking points...|http://Rove prepares the talking points...]

The response from the administration is always one of these:

a. It's no big deal -- minimize it despite the obvious
b. Repackage it -- explain that it was anticipated and will let us
move forward with the legal process
c. Shoot the messenger
d. Change the subject
Posted by mgreere (332 comments )
Reply Link Flag
and e. ...
e. Simplify and distort it -- straw man -- and ridicule it
Posted by mgreere (332 comments )
Link Flag
strawman
eom
Posted by JoeF2 (1306 comments )
Link Flag
keep it straight
al Qaeda would LOVE to see this program shut down.

al Qaeda would LOVE to see us out of Iraq.

al Qaeda would LOVE to see overseas prisons shut down.

al Qaeda LOVES it when America is divided.

And obviously enough... al Qaeda would be FAR HAPPIER with the Democratic agenda than with the Republican agenda.
Posted by David Arbogast (1709 comments )
Link Flag
Long live liberty,
Finally a woman braver then all men and smarter then the king's men.

We are at War? No, We are at a pretend war and the main target is us, americans, and not the pahntoms so called terrorsists.

George Bush &#38; Company are creating an endless war so they have an endless reign with endless dictatorship.

Long live liberty, Down with terroisim and dectatorship and long live Judge Taylor for hert bravery.

P.S. Al those paranoids who believe in the War on Terrorism should seek help. Pills do wonders to releive you from Bad News George lies.
Posted by manaboulsi (37 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Scary!
Pretty scary if you and others who think like that actually believe what you're saying there.

Lotta hate and misinterpretation seething out of the pores of that message...
Posted by cmrsage (15 comments )
Link Flag
Do you honestly believe?
Do you honestly believe that Bush will not step down in 2008? Who
is the crazy paranoid again? Go take some more of those pills you
seem to think so much of.
Posted by sbwinn (216 comments )
Link Flag
I just love how the Bush fanboys are squealing
All they can do is bringing out the old, tired strawmen and non-sequiturs...
I suggest thinking by yourself...
Posted by JoeF2 (1306 comments )
Reply Link Flag
"I suggest thinking by yourself..."
They don't know how. It's all that brainwashing :|
Posted by btljooz (401 comments )
Link Flag
left - right..... in - out
how about up - up - up

congradulations Judge Taylor... that must of been a tough call.. I am sure there was much to consider before taking a stand... I am thankful we have people like you defending the rights that we have grown upon.. and putting up with the public who dont understand.. its a major sacrifice and I really appreciate it... I know everyone does.. even the ones who are manipulated....

thank you
Posted by freqmd5 (19 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.