- Related Stories
-
Feds appeal loss in NSA wiretap case
July 31, 2006 -
AT&T leaks sensitive info in NSA suit
May 26, 2006 -
FAQ: NSA's data mining explained
May 12, 2006 -
AT&T sued over NSA spy program
January 31, 2006
The landmark decision makes U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's once-secret program. The American Civil Liberties Union had filed suit against the government, claiming the program "ran roughshod" over the constitutional rights of millions of Americans and ran afoul of federal wiretapping law.
In a sweeping victory for the ACLU and its clients, which included organizations representing criminal defense lawyers, journalists, Islamic-Americans and academics, Taylor appeared to knock down several major legal arguments that the Bush administration has used to defend the program since it was revealed by The New York Times last December.
"Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," the judge wrote in her 43-page opinion (click here for PDF).
The decision immediately drew an appeal from the U.S. Department of Justice, which argued in a statement that "the Terrorist Surveillance Program is an essential tool for the intelligence community in the War on Terror." The Bush administration also requested that the judge's opinion be put on hold until the appeals process is complete. The government appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Meanwhile, the parties agreed to a temporary stay of the opinion, which allows the surveillance program to continue operating, until a Sept. 7 hearing to address the government's request for a lengthier stay.
The terrorist surveillance program, Taylor ruled, violates the First Amendment's right to freedom of expression and the Fourth Amendment right to privacy--that is, freedom from unreasonable searches. It also ignores requirements of a 1978 electronic wiretapping law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and represents an overstepping of presidential powers, she wrote.
"There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution," the judge wrote, dismissing the Bush administration's argument that the warrantless program falls within the president's inherent wartime powers as commander in chief.
The judge, who was appointed by President Carter in 1979, also dismissed the government's request that the suit be thrown out because of the "state secrets privilege," which permits the government to suppress a lawsuit that might lead to the disclosure of military secrets.
Taylor did, however, reject a piece of the ACLU's lawsuit that related to alleged data mining of communications records, saying that litigation of that claim would violate the state secrets privilege.
"We are enormously gratified with the court's historic ruling today," ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said in a conference call with reporters. "At its core, today's ruling addresses the abuse of presidential power and reaffirms a system of checks and balances that's necessary in our democracy."
The Justice Department disputed the judge's conclusions, referring again to the program as a "critical tool" for detecting and preventing terrorist attacks. "The president has the primary duty under the Constitution to protect the American people," the department said in a statement. "The Constitution gives the president the full authority necessary to carry out that solemn duty, and we believe the program is lawful and protects civil liberties."
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow also blasted Taylor's decision, saying in a statement that the Bush Administration "couldn't disagree more" with the ruling. He pointed to revelations just last week of a terrorist plot to blow up transatlantic airliners, which netted at least 24 arrests overseas.
"United States intelligence officials have confirmed that the program has helped stop terrorist attacks and saved American lives," Snow said. "The program is carefully administered, and only targets international phone calls coming into or out of the United States where one of the parties on the call is a suspected Al Qaeda or affiliated terrorist."
See more CNET content tagged:
federal judge, Bush Administration, NSA, stay, government
-JimP
This is a victory for terrorists and criminals, nothing more!
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
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?
in fact left-wing, Anti-American, and pro-terrorist why not call her
that. Some people are you know.
the Court enforce."
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.
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?
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?
Is CNET reporting this for "Technology" Reasons?
Another Concerned Citizen
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.
Judge Taylor is the receiptant,
It would be poetic justice if the potential repercussions only fell on those who promote this naive, destructive idealogy.
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".
the President.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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!
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.
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.
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.
ok, lets amend the constitution, would that make you happy?
let's hear your solution to this growing murderous religion?
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
[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...
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
- Good Decision
- by mustafa-alsayed August 17, 2006 11:29 AM PDT
- Thanks be to Allah and his prophet Mohammed (Peace Be Upon Him), that this judge has the wisdom to rule on what is right.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- So are you for real?
- by sbwinn August 17, 2006 12:07 PM PDT
- I think not. You sound a little bogus to me.
- Like this View reply
Processing -
- So are you for real?
- by sbwinn August 17, 2006 12:07 PM PDT
- I think not. You sound a little bogus to me.
- Like this
-
- It's Funny
- by Tomcat Adam August 17, 2006 3:34 PM PDT
- '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.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (352 Comments)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.
Again, I'm not trying to generalize here. Just making an observation.