Why do federal judges hate America?

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

  1. maxpi


    It shows that the ACLU still has some judges to go to with their garbage. The supreme court is not likely to uphold this decision.

    What is unreasonable about wiretapping people associating with known terrorists? Police regularly watch drug dealing houses and keep track of everybody that comes and goes and then arrest the ones that are not supposed to associate with known criminals.
    #11     Aug 17, 2006
  2. But here's my problem max, who is to say it is a "known terrorist". There needs to be oversight. This program may be with all good intentions. But, it as a precedent could also pave the way for eventual abuse of the program in some future administration. There has to be some kind of protection for such possibilities.
    #12     Aug 17, 2006
  3. District Court Judge Taylor's ruling considers and disposes of every statutory and constitutional issue raised by the litigants. Thus the ruling is comprehensive, in that it doesn't leave out anything important that one side could claim later as an argument for why the judge operated in an activist manner.

    Characterizing the judge as an America "hater" is nothing more than a cowardly ad hominem, because it appeals to the public's emotional fears, rather than to any logical rationale.

    If you want to wreck the judge's argument, then explain why it's legally wrong -- don't just call it wrong, because it doesn't fit with your personal view of the way things ought to be.

    One poster above wants to know how the wiretapping infringes on 1st Amendment freedom of speech. Free speech includes both the right to speak, and the right to LISTEN. If government can coerce people to be silent or drown out/limit unwelcome commentary, this is the same as preventing the speech from being made.

    The President's wiretap program prevents journalists, scholars, et. al. from listening to the variety of speech available, without going through the effort to leave the physical confines of the nation and travel to where the speaker is located. This is a clear infringement on freedom of speech, thus the 1st Amendment is violated.

    The government does have a compelling interest in protecting the nation from al-Queda, which provides authority under which a constitutionally permissible wiretap may be made. But the government also has a duty to use the least restrictive means available in its surveillance so as to advance its compelling interests.

    At the moment, all available evidence points to the fact that the government is using voice recognition technology to find phone calls with information which might be useful in unearthing a-Queda operatives. However, absent some neutral decision maker (i.e., a judge) listening to a sample of these interceptions, no one has any idea whether the government's methodology is restrictive in scope, or broad and all encompassing.

    This is why there is a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- to provide a judge who will consider the rationale behind the government's information collection and ensure that it is in fact the least restrictive means available -- rather than merely take the government's word for the narrow scope of the investigative technique.

    Those of you who don't want any interference with the President, seem to me a bit like sheep waiting in line to be shorn. Maybe you enjoy putting your faith in a leader, because it makes things easier for you, as you can simply leave it to the "leader" to take care of you.

    But, that is EXACTLY what the German people did with Hitler prior to WWII. They just said, "Go ahead minen fuhrer, and do whatever you think is necessary to protect us."

    If that's the sort of result you seek for the USA, then don't require any judicial or legislative scrutiny over the President, and eventually, the model which was known as the Third Reich is exactly what you will get here in this nation.

    There is simply nothing wrong with balanced oversight of government action. If you think differently, you have only to look at history to find out why you are wrong.

    The enemy is clearly a determined foe. They are prepared to either convert us all to Islam or destroy us and themselves in the process. But, what of it? Suppose our surveillance is actually substantially degraded and the result is that a very bad terrorist act occurs in the USA?

    In that event, I think it's safe to say that everyone will be advised to turn their gaze away from the mideast, because in about 20 minutes, the mideast will look a lot like the surface of the sun.

    The enemy knows this. If it didn't, that terrorist event that we all fear would have almost certainly already occurred.
    #13     Aug 17, 2006
  4. Sam123

    Sam123 Guest

    It takes more than just reading the 4th Amendment. You have to interpret it as Judge, attorney, and legal scholar. But it seems obvious to the point of view of kook bloggers and journalists that Bush has crapped on the 4th Amendment.

    If we interpret a telephone conversation as “papers and effects,” how is the NSA violating the 4th Amendment since the program involves foreign surveillance, is limited to international calls, and can be perceived as a reasonable thing to do in a time of war? The 4th Amendment is dependent on the reasonableness of the act. Perhaps you might think it’s unreasonable for monitoring American citizens speaking with members of Hezbolla in a time of war.

    The issue regarding warrants upon probable cause depends on the interpretations of the balance of powers in government, and the jurisdiction of the NSA under the Executive Branch in a time of war, especially when it involves foreign surveillance.

    But too many knuckleheads out there believe Bush has as much power as Castro and that Islamofacists in Pakistan deserve U.S. Constitutional rights. The good news is that more of them are in Journalism than in Law. Having said that, there are enough liberal judges out there for CAIR and the ACLU to find and use.
    #14     Aug 17, 2006
  5. Excellent post John Dough. Thanks for that thoughtful post.
    #15     Aug 17, 2006
  6. The soon to be American epitaph:
    Well, we're all dead! But the good news is, we didn't violate the rights of those that killed us.
    #16     Aug 17, 2006
  7. Pabst


    The August 7th, Detroit Free Press: "Although Taylor is a liberal with Democratic roots and defended civil-rights workers in the South in the 1960s, people who know her say she will follow the law -- not her politics -- in deciding the case."

    I'm a major fan of liberty. But her ruling is nonsensical. And yes, this will go to the Supremes. (even though this ruling was in Motown, :) )

    #17     Aug 17, 2006
  8. Jimmy Carter appointee, nothing more needs to be said.

    #18     Aug 17, 2006
  9. Yes, of course. If you can't successfully attack the message, then the next best thing is to attack the messenger.
    #19     Aug 17, 2006
  10. Sam123

    Sam123 Guest

    The right to LISTEN is a liberal interpretation of the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment grants the right to speak and assemble. People have the right to speak. Having the right to be heard is something else. My right to hear you is even something else, just as the fear of privacy infringement effecting my CHOICE to speak.

    The individual still has the free will to speak his mind. The government is not blocking this free will. If we interpret the Law liberally, then yes, we can argue the fear of surveillance effects my decision on what I say and not say and that’s an infringement. But I still have the free will to say what I want. I choose not to speak, which is my right. I choose to speak. It’s also my right.

    But if we look at the law in a conservative way, one would ask how one’s cowardice to speech and assembly based on the coercion of culture should be an infringement on the 1st Amendment. The Founders always knew free speech requires courage and would be horrified by what PC has done to the American mind.

    By the way, all the PC policies that were stuffed into the hiring practices in both the private and public sectors can also be considered unconstitutional in the same manner, if we interpret infringement due to coercion leading to silence from cowardice. Hate crimes are also unconstitutional because they coerce people to be silent about their views on race and culture.
    Nobody is arguing against a balanced oversight. The problem is people mistakenly believe there is no balance, which is absurd. And as I said in another post, Bush doesn’t enjoy the powers of Castro. Hitler would never have a chance to get as far as he did in Germany if he had to go up against the balance of powers and the Constitution in the U.S. We have an excellent balance of power and we don’t need to turn into a fascist state in order to put our insidious Islamist minority out business.

    By the way, I’m sure we have an army of spies masquerading as “new Muslims” hanging out in America’s Mosques and prayer rooms by now, and they would provide far better intel than anything the NSA wiretaps could ever produce. But don’t you think what these human spies are doing is far worse? Let’s see if CAIR will sue the government on the suspicion that Muslim communities have government spies, which cause Muslims to squelch their hate-speeches out of cowardice!
    #20     Aug 17, 2006