What do you think about the judgment against Bush's wiretapping program that was handed down?

Question

The BBC reported that "A secret wiretapping scheme brought in as part of the Bush administration's war on terror is unconstitutional and must stop, a federal judge has ruled.

The programme, approved by President Bush in 2001, allows for the monitoring of millions of US citizens' phone calls abroad without the need for a warrant.

Civil liberties campaigners brought the case against the programme, which was uncovered by the US media.

The White House says the scheme is legal and is seeking an appeal.

In her 43-page ruling on the case, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit said that the surveillance programme violated protections on free speech and privacy."

What do you think about this decision? The federal government is planning to appeal, do you think it will hold up in appellate court?

The whole article is at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5260892.stm in case you want to read the whole thing before answering.

Answer 1

I'm glad the court finally put a stop to what was obviously illegal activity. It's black letter law for anyone who bothered to read the statutes.

Read 50 U.S.C. §1801 et al. Warrantless wiretapping is illegal if anyone US citizen or resident alien is a party to the conversation. Read 18 U.S.C. § 2511: Compliance with FISA "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance... may be conducted".

And the court ruling has absolutely no effect on national security. None. Everything that was done illegally could be been done under the existing laws. It just would have required a bit more paperwork.

Bush wasn't forced to choose between security and procedure. Read the laws. He just didn't want to be bothered with them.

{EDIT} To all those people who keep asserting that Clinton was doing the same thing... first, cite your sources. Bald assertions like that with no references are meaningless.

Second, what does it matter. Just because one person breaks the law doesn't mean everyone else should start ignoring the laws.

Answer 2

The government has every right to listen, IF, and a big IF, they follow the law and leave our Constitutional rights alone. I am glad the Judge ruled against the methods the Administration has been using to violate our Rights and to impose power over good sense. Bush has no right to 'scarifice' our rights! Those of us who value our Constitution will not aid and abet him out the climate of fear his Administrations tactics have tried to instill in the American public.

"The President's claim of executive authority to ignore the Fourth Amendment and violate federal laws in the name of protecting national security has no apparent limits. Under the Bush administration's argument, federal law enforcement could seemingly go into anyone's home, at any time, without a warrant by claiming that it might better catch terrorists. There is simply no obvious stopping point, and that's what makes the president's claim of broad executive power so alarming. Nor is there any reason to believe that warrantless wiretapping is needed to protect national security. The administration could have gone to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which approves more than 99 percent of all government requests for warrants. Under the procedures of that court, it even could have gotten the warrant after the surveillance had been done."

Answer 3

I think that we are not as safe as we were with the end to the government's phone monitoring.

I think that the media has deliberately misreported this phone monitoring as “wire tapping”. It is far more sophisticated. It is more of a raw data collecting.

As I understand it, the programs monitor the phone numbers of call that originate outside the US, in places like Pakistan. If these calls are made to numbers in the US, the program will “tag” it. The program will than follow the pattern of phone numbers that this “tagged phone” make. If these pattern of phone numbers start to look suspicious, the government will go to a judge for a warrant. The judge will decide on the warrant. It is only then, that the government will “wire tape” the phone number.

Face it, these terrorist are very sophisticated. Without tools such as than, they will get through to kill more Americans.

I believe that this case will go all the way to the Supreme Court, where it will be overturned.

Answer 4

The right-wing idiots are moaning that this is "a sad day for the protection of American citizens." They couldn't be further from the truth. The fact is, if the NSA thinks they have a bead on a terrorist, they can began an IMMEDIATE wiretap. They then have to go to the courts to show that they were justified to begin the tap, and are justified to continue the wiretap.

Viola! The American people are fully protected, and the NSA can wiretap the bad guys.

The problem is, Bush says he shouldn't have to go to the courts...There is no legal or, for that matter, logical, basis for his claim. The problem is, the Bush team has a penchant for replacing facts with total BS. Remember how they "knew" Saddam was building biological weapons in the back of semi-trucks? They know if their "evidence" were ever exposed to actual scrutiny, they would be laughed out of court 9 times out of 10. And since this administration hates being told they are wrong, they decided to just ignore the law.

Answer 5

Most likely the full district court will find that the people who filed the complaint don't have standing.

And if it actually has to appeal it will be found to be legal.
The judge that ruled on this is known for her liberal bias and her attempts to take over cases that were not hers in the past.

First of course the people who even leaked this program to the newspaper should go to jail. And the news paper should be held for disclosing classified governemnt informaton also.

And of course what is being done is that suspected terrorists are being listed to, or at least they were before they were told what we are doing.

Answer 6

It's about time a judge found it unconstitutional. I'm not a big fan of the ACLU by any means BTW.

It's a violation of our Fourth Amendment rights. Wiretapping will not protect us from terrorists. I wish people would STOP falling for the scaremongering!

A true patriot loves his country and WATCHES his government!

Answer 7

President Clinton used this program for years in the same exact way and for the same purpose. The actually title of the program is "Terrorist Survelliance Program"

Look at the history of this judge. During the University of Michigan affirmative action case. A judge that was blindly assigned to it, he was next available on the docket, this loony liberal judge SUSPECTED he was against it. So she tried to TAKE the case away from him. She must of thought if he's biased, he better be biased my way.

Also you must ask why would the ACLU bring a case against the federal government in Michigan? Especially this district? The liberal leaning judge is why.

I think the ruling is a victory for the terrorists. The judge basically said if they want to plan and plot another 9-11 by talking on the phone that is their right.

We are taking many steps backwards in the WORLD's war on terrorism.

coragryph
link below about Clinton and his involment in the NSA program. I'll add more.

Answer 8

It will get thrown out. Have you looked at the judge? A Pres. Carter appointee and a known liberal. The 9th Circuit in CA gets overturned all the time, but does it make all their rulings legitimate?

This is another example of politics played through the courts. I am sick of liberals playing politics in this country. If we are not willing to stand up to this, we all deserve to die. This country is full of garbage that does not respect our freedom nor willing to defend it.

The same program that Pres. Bush uses, has been used by every President.

Answer 9

I think that it will hinder the US in catching terrorists. After the UK terror plot that was busted last week (with the help of Bush's program) it just floors me that these so called Judges would put a stop to this. They'll realize when we're attacked again that the decision made today was the wrong one.

Answer 10

I think it will hold up in appellate court. If the government decides that wiretapping is essential to thwart an attack, I don't see why they can't just get a warrant and do it legally, especially considering that a court was set up expressly for that purpose. So yes, I'm happy about the decision.