Judges Orders Warrentless Wiretapping Halted Immediately

Let's see how many death threats from right-wing bloggers this ruling generates. From the AP:
DETROIT (AP) - A federal judge ruled Thursday 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.
This is the only appropriate ruling to an obviously illegal program. Censuring Bush would have been more than appropriate. From the order and injunction (PDF):
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants, its agents, employees, representatives, and any other persons or entities in active concert or participation with Defendants, are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program (hereinafter “TSP”) in any way, including, but not limited to, conducting warrantless wiretaps of telephone and internet communications, in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (hereinafter “FISA”) and Title III;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DECLARED that the TSP violates the Separation of Powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III;

IT IS ALSO ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs’ data-mining claim and is DENIED regarding Plaintiffs’ remaining claims;

IT IS ALSO ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
A great ruling for defenders of liberty and privacy.



Display:


Re: Judges Orders Warrentless Wiretapping Halted (none / 0)

Well certainly no travel via small airplanes for this judge!  And let's hope she gets herself some beeg, hairy and scary bodyguards, pronto.


by smugbug on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 12:22:46 PM EST

Re: Judges Orders Warrentless Wiretapping Halted I (3.00 / 1)

kick. ass.

how sad is it that judges have to be concerned for their safety in this country for...you know...non-mob related stuff?


by Lucas O'Connor on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 12:24:01 PM EST

Re: Judges Orders Warrentless Wiretapping Halted (none / 0)

Here's hoping that can be changed, eh?  Beginning this coming November.

But yeah, this is kickass for our civil liberties.  Nothing like some great news to begin my morning.


by smugbug on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 12:38:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Judges Orders Warrentless Wiretapping Halted I (none / 0)

Non-mob related? We don't call it the "Bush Crime Family" for nothing.  


by xebecs on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 02:00:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Judges Orders Warrentless Wiretapping Halted (none / 0)

Sweet.  So it is, in fact, unconstitutional for the President to simply do whatever the hell he wants to do.  Who'd have thought that??


by RickD on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 01:07:25 PM EST

Summary Judgement (none / 0)

Its even sweeter because this decision is a summary judgement. It didn't even take a trial for the judge  to see the clear unconstitutionality of the governments actions. It was obvious even in the undisputed facts.


by PBCliberal on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 01:19:24 PM EST

Re: Summary Judgement (none / 0)

Well, yeah, kinda.  But appellate courts have to defer to trial court findings of fact, while findings of law are up for review de novo.  So that means that the whole discussion hinges on what's lawful, not what was done, which means that it is be entirely reviewable and reversable.

Not that I'd expect anything else -- the whole fight is about whether or not we live under rule of law, or by the whim of the president.


by jsw on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 02:22:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Judges Orders Warrentless Wiretapping Halted (none / 0)

Now how is the nice judge going to enforce her order?  This is the real conundrum here.  The judge can rule but all the enforcement agencies are part of the criminal conspiracy so how do you make them stop?


by Demo Dan in Dayton on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 01:31:19 PM EST

Re: Judges Orders Warrentless Wiretapping Halted (none / 0)

Ignoring the ruling is a worse crime than the wiretapping scandal itself.  

If the admin simply ignores the ruling, the only result is a constitutional crisis.  I would think that you'd have a noticable proportion of even the Republicans demanding impeachment at that point--Bush just doesn't have the political capital to get away with something like that the way that Andrew Jackson did.


"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams
by Valatan on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 12:31:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Judges Orders Warrentless Wiretapping Halted I (none / 0)

I do not think the President is immune from citations for contempt of court.

BC


by billcoop4 on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 01:33:49 PM EST

Re: Judges Orders Warrentless Wiretapping Halted I (none / 0)

who's going to deliver the arrest warrant?


by Lucas O'Connor on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 01:36:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Judges Orders Warrentless Wiretapping Halted I (none / 0)

Citizens arrest? ;)


Blogging politics and life in general at jimmy.bouma-holtrop.com
by forecaster15 on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 02:05:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Judges Orders Warrentless Wiretapping Halted I (none / 0)

would be interesting to see someone try to detain him.


by Lucas O'Connor on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 02:43:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The actual opinion... (none / 0)

is here - a 44 page PDF. (I've not read it yet!)

Has the NSA applied to the 6th Circuit for a stay yet, I wonder?


by skeptic06 on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 02:22:23 PM EST

Re: The actual opinion... (none / 0)

Apparently, the DOJ have made a motion to Taylor for a stay of the injunction; the motion will be heard on September 7, and the decision is temporarily stayed (?) until then.


by skeptic06 on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 06:53:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Right result, crappy opinion (none / 0)

Thus saith Jack Balkin, at least.

My suspicion is that that doesn't matter either way. Since the decision was on summary judgement, the court did not need to make any findings of fact. And, on points of law, the circuit court and (if it gets there) SCOTUS will make up their own minds.

(A trial judge can certainly screw up a case where findings of fact are crucial, and he completely gets hold of the wrong end of the stick.)


by skeptic06 on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 06:32:08 PM EST

Judges Orders Warrentless Wiretapping Halted (none / 0)

There are probably 20 Senate Dems and 50 House Mice (DLCers mostly) who are sweating ballots that this ruling will be used against them. And they'll probably abandon the Constitution (as usual) rather than defend it.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 08:33:36 PM EST

Read the Fourth Amendment people (1.00 / 1)

The Fourth Amendment states:
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.

The key word in the Fourth Amendment that you all seem to be missing is UNREASONABLE.  There is absolutely nothing unreasonable about wire taping posible terrorist phone conversations.  Open you eyes people.


by open eyes on Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 08:48:21 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.