US judge rules wiretaps illegal

[domino]

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.

Source: BBC News

 

I hope this ruling puts leverage on other lawsuits concerning the Administration's abuse on telecommunication.

[OryHara]

I came in here to post this. Thank God. Its about time someone slammed them for being what they are. Illegal.

[domino]

You know, i'm all for wire-tapping. The only thing wrong with this is that they thought they could get away with anything as long as he is the President, and would be doing it so long as no one knows about it. I hope the EFF does win that AT&T case, now that this has turned out the way it did.

[gwprod12]

secret warrants generated by a secret court go against everything this country stands for. But the administration couldnt even go through that process.

[killbot1000]

All I have to say is GREAT!

[A Nonny Moose]

I came in here to post this. Thank God. Its about time someone slammed them for being what they are. Illegal.

 

Yup, it was illegal from the get go. I just wonder how much time it would have taken to go through this via legal means (meaning, getting the warrant and doing the wiretap).

[kseelbo]

I for one, am very happy that the ACLU was able to shop around and find a like minded socialist that they knew would rule in their favor no matter what the evidence or argument. This "ruling" will not last past the appellate court, much less the Supreme Court. (The ACLU doesn't even have standing in this case-they were never monitored!) This is just one more example of an out of control activist judiciary usurping the executive branch's power. For those of you out there that are happily asleep at the wheel, we are at war. Our enemies will gladly kill you, me, and our children no matter how much you try to appease them. The "illegal" wiretaps were not even directed at average joe American citizens, they were only the monitoring of known terrorists making and recieving calls to the US. Last time I checked, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were to apply to US Citizens, not our enemies. Now you can all sleep better knowing that the friendly wahabbist muslim gentleman next door can plot your death in peace. Funny how none of you lost any sleep over Klinton's echelon and carnivore programs that really did monitor ALL American's private communications. All US presidents have monitored enemy communications since the Civil War (that damn Republican Lincoln started all of this@!), but you all so blindly hate Bush that you would prefer our enemies have safe haven. I am certain that all of you that are so happy with this ruling will be pointing the finger at W when the next 9/11 hits screaming "Why didn't he protect us?" Time to unplug and discover a little thing called REALITY. In this thing called reality, bad people exist that don't give a {censored} about whether you live or not and are working every day to relieve you of that problem. Yes, what a great ruling handed down.

[gwprod12]

"The 'illegal' wiretaps werent directed at average joe americans..."

 

For that, we have only the word of an administration that doesnt know what trustworthy or truth means. Since there wasnt any oversight and only the administration has records of who was being monitored.

[kseelbo]

Wrong, there was and is oversight. The leaders of Congress are briefed on this program and all other "secret" programs regularly. Numerous Congressional leaders (both D and R) knew about this program from its inception and were briefed on it regularly. How do you think they kept getting leaked? They only denounce it once it becomes public.

[gwprod12]

You're confused. The program requires a warrant from the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Act) court which is where the "oversight" is.

 

Wiretaps require a warrant to be legal. Hence, the use of the FISA court (which is secret, and issue ridden, but technically legal).

 

However, the bush administration tapped numerous phone calls without warrants from the FISA court. The FISA court is a rubber-stamp court that gives the administration whatever it wants (for the most part). But the administration couldnt even do that in numerous circumstances.

 

THAT is why they're "illegal" wiretaps.

 

Though, strictly speaking, the legality is still to be determined, since the wiretaps were conducted under executive authority instead of court authority (where wiretap and other search warrants are traditionally created).

 

EDIT: When you say that the courts are usurping the authority of the executive branch, what you should really be saying is that the executive branch usurped the traditional role of the courts, and one court has attempted to take it back.

[domino]

For those of you out there that are happily asleep at the wheel, we are at war.

And what year of your life do you think the United States, in fact any other country was not at war? Fundamentalist extremist existed even before James Town was created. 9/11 could have happened in the 70's or 20yrs from now. Taking away freedom will not change anything other than depriving you of your liberties.

 

The "illegal" wiretaps were not even directed at average joe American citizens

i guess millions of US citizens local and abroad aren't average Joes and Janes.

 

All US presidents have monitored enemy communications since the Civil War (that damn Republican Lincoln started all of this@!), but you all so blindly hate Bush that you would prefer our enemies have safe haven.

Your GW is the only President that embarrasses Americans all over the world. I wouldn't be surprised that you wouldn't even care what America's own allies think about your Administration. You can blame the Middle East's deap hatred towards Americans on GW and his lap dog Blair.

 

Time to unplug and discover a little thing called REALITY.

I guess your "REALITY" will be when you have to ask permission to drive your car after midnight, ask the Government's permission to rent a Ryder truck, and ask permission to go deep sea fishing. Keep living your reality pal.

[A Nonny Moose]

Just because we are at war doesn't mean we aren't a civilized nation of laws. If we don't follow the law, then we're no better than the thugs we're trying to fight here.

[OryHara]

I for one, am very happy that the ACLU was able to shop around and find a like minded socialist that they knew would rule in their favor no matter what the evidence or argument. This "ruling" will not last past the appellate court, much less the Supreme Court. (The ACLU doesn't even have standing in this case-they were never monitored!) This is just one more example of an out of control activist judiciary usurping the executive branch's power.

I see you favor dictatorship.

 

For those of you out there that are happily asleep at the wheel, we are at war.

YOU are at war. Not me.

 

Our enemies will gladly kill you, me, and our children no matter how much you try to appease them. The "illegal" wiretaps were not even directed at average joe American citizens, they were only the monitoring of known terrorists making and recieving calls to the US.

I hate to tell you but if you favor the current dictatorship... YOU ARE my enemy. Because the current regime that you support is FULL of terrorists. This being one of their terrorist acts to demolish our freedom... Just as the 9/11 bombers, and those behind it stated... You just don't want to look truth in the face.

 

 

Last time I checked, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were to apply to US Citizens, not our enemies.

Exactly why I don't want my conversations tapped.

 

Now you can all sleep better knowing that the friendly wahabbist muslim gentleman next door can plot your death in peace. Funny how none of you lost any sleep over Klinton's echelon and carnivore programs that really did monitor ALL American's private communications.

Carnivore was ruled unconstitutional by a US circuit judge as well, and the FBI's funding was cut because of it. They got what they deserved.

 

All US presidents have monitored enemy communications since the Civil War (that damn Republican Lincoln started all of this@!), but you all so blindly hate Bush that you would prefer our enemies have safe haven. I am certain that all of you that are so happy with this ruling will be pointing the finger at W when the next 9/11 hits screaming "Why didn't he protect us?"

I protect myself. When China invades the US, or some other country, steps foot on my land, they will get the barrel end of my 270 in their @ss. The US would not be here if it wasn't for citizens picking up their guns and defending the land we took from the native Americans. (sorry guys). But hey, there wasn't anywhere else to go really. We wanted to be away from the very thing that is driving this country today. Dictatorship, and false freedom.

 

Time to unplug and discover a little thing called REALITY. In this thing called reality, bad people exist that don't give a {censored} about whether you live or not and are working every day to relieve you of that problem. Yes, what a great ruling handed down.

Reality is what you make it. Their reality may not be yours.

[SenVa]

Now you can all sleep better knowing that the friendly wahabbist muslim gentleman next door can plot your death in peace.

 

Wow.... um so muslims are the only terriorist... right?

 

The "illegal" wiretaps were not even directed at average joe American citizens, they were only the monitoring of known terrorists making and recieving calls to the US. Last time I checked, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were to apply to US Citizens, not our enemies.

 

How do you know who the wiretaps were directed too? Who does?

So, I guess that no terrorists are American citizens either?

can anyone say McVeigh?

 

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

 

Does this change the minds of those who want wiretaps for alittle "illegal" safety?

 

(I have allways wanted to make a post were I only posted questions. I have now completed my goal.)

[joneSi]

Your GW is the only President that embarrasses Americans all over the world. I wouldn't be surprised that you wouldn't even care what America's own allies think about your Administration. You can blame the Middle East's deap hatred towards Americans on GW and his lap dog Blair.

 

Clinton = embarrassment. Period. Not to mention 'illegal'. I know if I committed perjury, I'd be prosecuted. But I digress.

 

So, lets all take a little history lesson from WWII. Anybody remember a little character called Neville Chamberlain? Ok, he was famous for coming back after meeting with Hitler and had said (and I quote) "My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time."

 

Yeah, I mean, to make Europe happy (and his allies), he got a piece of paper signed that basically said that Hitler wasn't coming after them. That seemed to work for a nice short period of time. Sometimes you have to do what is right rather than what is popular with the rest of the world. Churchill had that one spot on. At a period of time that the popular opinion was to ignore what was happening. That would have ended nicely...

 

This decision will never hold...great showing for what happens if you 'venue shop'. She's not an activist judge or anything

 

joneSi

[SenVa]

Um... No one ever hated bush for going after terrorists. Once he started talking about going after Iraq he support began to drop. He claimed they had WMDs... He said there was proof, but he never shared it with us. To this day I have yet to see any proof that Iraq ever had a WMD.

 

Bush tryed to make links with terrorism... but the fact is most terrorist orginations like Al'qada dislike Iraq aswell they are more well liked then us... but disliked no the less.

 

If the Bush admin. stay focused and went after terrorist and not nations that were not involved I believe he would have much more support on his war on terror.

 

 

Ending this on a happy note "When Clinton lied nobody died."... ok I guess not so happy...

[joneSi]

Ok, another history lesson. 1998, Lewinsky is in full swing, and Clinton had the same intelligence the Bush admin had and launched a couple of cruise missles. So then he lied about that too? And people died (by the same logic). Something that is often convienently left out of reports about the situation there is the political atmosphere started by Democrats (and backed by Republicans) with the likes of John Kerry talking about how dangerous Iraq was with serin gas etc.

 

I would say that Clinton had a good start, but needed to finish the job. It makes me wonder about -why- it was needed to go there then, but not now...Sadaam decided to be a good guy and get rid of all that power? Hmmm...makes me wonder, if there have been little WMD found (which they have been) where did they go?

 

Also, to say that there weren't any terrorists in Iraq before this all started is absurd. There were terrorists in South Florida, but none in Iraq? I find that hard to believe and I think that many others do as well. Iraq wasn't the peace-loving sweetheart of a country that it was made out to be by the US media, and maybe others, IDK...I read only one paper from outside the US. To think that Sadaam had nothing in common with terrorists is a good way of ignoring that they have common goals (to the US end of eachs goals anyway).

 

I also understand that there are other terrorists in the world besides Islamic terrorsists, but the fact is that there is a much greater number of them than any other in one group. I mean, Spain has ETA (Basque separatists) but they make up a small number of people compared to the groups in the world that are of Islamic terrorists. From Chechnya to the Phillippines and Indonesia this is a much bigger deal than the groups McVeigh was running around with. Its also much more of a problem right now.

 

Either way, its a tough situation that we have to face. The decision was made...to second guess yourself after making the decision could be a monumental disaster. To go down that road is impossible.

 

I appreciate the tone of this discussion and would say that there is generally a good group of debaters here. I suppose we can agree to diagree.

 

joneSi

[domino]

Wow jonesi. It amazes me how much you know about history yet can not learn from it. What good is it now to blame on the past leader of all the wrong they have done. Does it change our future? Can the past leaders make executive decisions today? The answer is no. The only person who decides what direction America, in fact most of the world, is the current Administration and current world leaders.

 

The fact the Bush sat there and tolerated a lop sided invasion (Israel & Palestine) already sends out the message to the entire world that America is no longer a mediator in international conflicts. The fact that America, including NATO? oops I mean UN turned the right cheek for nearly a month is something that we all must live with until we die. Our children and grand grandchilderen must fix the problems what we could not.

 

This Administration tried to literally shoot something with a double barreled shotgun in hope they could "get lucky". I would have personally used a thirty aught six to do the damage. Going after Bin Laden should have been the first and foremost task. Then you gain support from your constituents and Allies to be able to conduct the next operation. It doesn't take a person with a college degree to figure that out. No one is arguing that there aren't terrorist in Iraq. It would be like arguing that the Colombian mob doesn't distribute cocaine in America and throughout the world to poison our children.

 

Just because a terrorist cell have as few as 10 member doesn't mean it is small and insignificant. Those small cells have contact with other cells to form a a larger cell. They also get funding from larger organizations. So there is no point in rating terrorist organizations. Claiming that one group is a "much bigger deal" than the next is a state of mind. Nothing like what McVeigh"s group has ever happened in Southeast Asia. Not even close to it.

 

Either way, its a tough situation that we have to face. The decision was made...to second guess yourself after making the decision could be a monumental disaster. To go down that road is impossible.

How many other misconceived decisions have to be made until someone that actually makes a difference changes the momentum in a positive direction? It's obviously not this Administration. All it managed to do is instill anger and fear. Instead of going through the process of diplomatic dialog, they wanted to play Cowboys and Indians. One thing's for sure, It's going to be tough for the next Administration, whatever side of the fence they sit on.

 

PS, Bill screwed a girl, Bush screwed the entire nation.

[kday]

I always try to keep my points short, simple, logical, and meanigful. I don't understand people that make their posts so long when things are so simple. So, let me just say this:

 

Nobody died when Clinton lied.

Can the same thing be said for Bush? I don't think so.

 

Do I think it was right for Clinton to lie? Of course not. Can I forgive him? Yes.... though I am not sure if his wife should have.

 

Also, I am not a Democrat, nor Republican. I don't really like Bush or Clinton. However, I do think that Clinton was smart and a MUCH better president.

 

nuff said.

[SenVa]

@joneSi

Saddam never had WMDs... He only had missles that ranged 400miles which were being destroyed (safely) when bush invaded.

 

I never ment that there was no terrorist in Iraq... I ment that going after Iraq as a nation wouldn't help us stop terrorism. Going after the taliban helped... they supported terrorism. While Iraq didn't help or harm alqada. Sorry for me being unclear.

 

 

Thirdly, About that 1998 Sudan Missle Mistake... I have yet to find a website where it said anyone died... All I found was it was shot at night so there wouldn't be people inside of it... joneSi, If you could kindly give a source or something on it that would be vary useful.

[joneSi]

Clinton LIED also under OATH...even if it was about sex, its still called perjury. Also, then he said that Iraq had WMD's period. So did John Kerry and a host of other democrats. He then launched missles. And people lied. Just because it sounds cute to say that 'Bush Lied People Died' doesn't make it true. How 'bout Clinton lied a lot. Once or twice about sex. Once people died...but then everybody forgot.

 

Here is one source...

http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/dec1998/iraq-d19.shtml (for a liberal viewpoint)

 

and another...

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchro...conversino.html for a more conservative slant (look at #40 for what the red cross said the number was in Baghdad)

 

and another...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox (see box on right side, 600-2000 dead total)...wikipedia.

 

Nuff said...OK.

 

I'm not faulting Clinton for doing what he did at the time, btw. But shouldn't he also be called a liar for using the same intelligence?

 

How is it that there was weapons with chemical warheads found -but decidedly not reported on- except that there was some things found that may have been 'depleated' so thus no threat (although still considered deadly). I mean, old chemical weapons in a third world country with a crazy man at the helm is totally safe.

 

As far as sticking out the decision, it is a road that we MUST go down now. We could leave and let them all kill each other in civil war. Then, even though many on this forum seem to support that, it would quickly become Bush's fault. Which I suppose is what the left really wants. More things they can try to pin on him. Sigh...some things never change...

 

I think that to say that you think Clinton was smart is to imply that Bush is not. I might add that this is where (most) Democrats have missed the difference between being smart and being sophisticated. John Kerry couldn't believe he was losing (and I quote again) to this "Fu ing Idiot". I think Clinton thought he could pull a fast one over on the American People and he generally did. You may disagree, but that is how he came off to a portion of us people out here in various places. Smart he is. Sophisticated, he ain't Frankly I don't care what the world thinks of him, there are a lot of worse guys out there in the world that nobody says anything about...

 

@joneSi

Saddam never had WMDs... He only had missles that ranged 400miles which were being destroyed (safely) when bush invaded.

 

Says who? Sadaam?? So we are going to trust Sadaam Hussein over US intelliegence reporting that said he was still in control of WMDs at that time. You can do what you want, but even I believed Clinton on this. Sadaam is better without any weapons, but how can we know that if we won't trust intelliegence, or choose when we will trust intelligence? He was given chance after chance with (apparently non-binding) UN resolutions and everybody wanted to look the other way after he broke end of almost every deal. At what point do you draw the line? At what point would he think we were serious? He refused to comply knowing what the consequences would be...its just that he thought the consequences would be the same as all other resolutions that he broke...nothing, its really as simple as that.

 

joneSi

[domino]

hmm, it would make a great discussion if someone started another thread about Dems vs. Reps. vs. Other. Too much white noise on this thread and i'd like to read about what you think about the rulling, not who rules who. Oppions count more on this thread because if we tried hard enough, we can get most of the fact about people in power.

 

thanks

[joneSi]

 

My bad. Either way, Dems vs GOP is a bad idea for a thread imo, it brings out the worst from both parties/people. Not the people here, but others....There are plenty of political boards on which to comment anyway...

 

I guess I'm done commenting here anyway. I've spoken mine here.

 

joneSi