Why do federal judges hate America?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by dddooo, Aug 17, 2006.

  1. Federal judge rules warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional

    DETROIT– A federal judge ruled today 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 as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

    "Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

    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 secretly listening to conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.

  2. Arnie


    I actually think this is good. I would like this to go all the way to the Supreme Court so we get a definitive ruling.
  3. Ben Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    The problem isn't obtaining intelligence information, it's acting on it in a timely manner in an appropriate direction. All the necessary information to prevent 9/11 was known. Choices were made to ignore it. That's the real issue.
  4. "All the information to prevent 911 was known" where the hell did you get that. The real problem is people like you will buy into any conspiracy theory without critical analyses.
  5. Sam123

    Sam123 Guest

    How does the invasion of privacy violate our first amendment rights? If the government is monitoring our telephone calls, how does such monitoring violate our freedom of speech?

    Taylor interprets the perceived invasion of privacy as a way of hindering the freedom of speech. In other words, the Plaintiffs fear they are being monitored and therefore it “chills and impairs their constitutionally protected communications.”(pg. 2:9 of Memorandum). Reminds me of the “chill” we all got from decades of Political Correctness, forcing us to limit our liberties in speech as a means to save and advance our careers.

    The America haters obviously feel reluctant to voice their anti-America opinions to their friends overseas over the telephone. That’s why Islamofacism’s Ministry of Propaganda in America (CAIR) is suing. They know how law schools have stamped out too many liberal lawyers and judges for decades, making it easy for them to use our legal system against us.

    Hindering the Freedom of speech and invasion of privacy are two completely different things. But to a liberal, what’s the difference? Apples are oranges, too! Constitution has no privacy provision? Of course it does: just pervert the meanings of the 3-5th Amendments! If you don’t do it, just find a precedent from another liberal judge.
  6. Sam123

    Sam123 Guest

  7. It is worth reading the 4th amendment:

    "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.

    Any more questions why the judge ruled the way he did; another setback for dubya and his perversion of liberty.

  8. What I very simply don't understand is...

    If they aren't abusing peoples' constitutional rights, then why not just get a warrant.

    I don't see the admin's reasoning on this at all.

    Without 'checks and balances', absolute power is proven to be corrosive.
  9. Acting in a timely manner may be hindered by waiting for a warrant. I'm not taking either side making this point, I am just trying to look at possible reasons for the decision.
  10. Not according to current FISA laws. Immediate tapping is permissable, providing the application for that tap is provided to the court within 72 hours, or something like that.

    If the the current warrent constraints impedes an immediate threat then why didn't they approach Congress with this back when the patriot act was being devised?

    Why secretly exploit some possible loophole?

    Why are they avoiding warrents in all cases, not just the 'immediate' threats, as they claim (time) to be the impeding constraint?
    #10     Aug 17, 2006