Judge finds warrantless wiretaps illegal

  1. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said the warrantless wiretapping under the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" violated free speech rights, protections against unreasonable searches and the constitutional check on the power of the presidency. - http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/new...archived=False


    US judge rules wiretaps illegal
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5260892.stm

    Judge finds warrantless wiretaps illegal
    http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...4616-8419r.htm

    Written a decade ago - Democracy Betrayed Means New Wiretapping Powers:
    http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-02-96.html
    •  
  2. 22 Comments

  3. by   pickledpepperRN
    Why NOT get a warrant? It can be done after the fact in secret.

    Judge orders stop to warrantless phone wiretapping

    http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/interna...=1155848911000

    http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGCLKKD2A4.DTL
  4. by   pickledpepperRN
  5. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from spacenurse
    U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said the warrantless wiretapping under the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" violated free speech rights, protections against unreasonable searches and the constitutional check on the power of the presidency. -
    Do you know who won the election for Pres. Bush in 2004? The Mass Supreme Court legislating from the bench to allow gay marriage. It caused the issue to be put on the ballot in Ohio and probably brought out enough more votes in Ohio, as a result, to swing the election.

    So, HOW do you 'get the base' out for Republicans in 2006? Answer: Get some liberal judge to endanger National Security.

    So, thank you Judge Taylor. You may have just saved the 2006 election for Republicans. . .

    I just hope not tooooo many Americans are needlessly killed as a result between now and when this wrongheaded political decision is fixed.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  6. by   pickledpepperRN
    Why not
    Get a warrant?
    Ask Congress for a new law?
    or obey the law?
    The President himself said you need a warrant.
  7. by   pickledpepperRN
    ``We can and should wiretap terrorists under the current FISA law,'' Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said after Taylor's ruling. ``The problem has been the Bush-Cheney administration's insistence on doing it illegally, without checks and balances to prevent abusing the rights of Americans.''
    http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...s/15303535.htm
  8. by   Roy Fokker
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    So, HOW do you 'get the base' out for Republicans in 2006? Answer: Get some liberal judge to endanger National Security.

    So, thank you Judge Taylor. You may have just saved the 2006 election for Republicans. . .

    I just hope not tooooo many Americans are needlessly killed as a result between now and when this wrongheaded political decision is fixed.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Besides the political rhetoric:

    How is getting a warrant "endangering national security" ?
    We pour billions into our intelligence services - are you saying they are so incompetent that they can't show probable cause for a judge to issue a warrant?

    We must violate the law to preserve it!
    Oh wait, what are we fighting to rpeserve anyway?

    Come on!
    Last edit by Roy Fokker on Aug 18, '06
  9. by   Roy Fokker
    moderator note:

    posts on the aclu now have their own thread : here

    thanks,
    roy
    allnurses.com moderator
  10. by   Logan
    get with it, america! due process is so over. just ask michael chertoff, forward-thinking chief of the department of homeland security. "it's not like the 20th century," he told abc news on sunday, "where you had time to get warrants."
    http://www.reason.com/links/links081706.shtml
  11. by   pickledpepperRN
    Quote from Roy Fokker
    Besides the political rhetoric:

    How is getting a warrant "endangering national security" ?
    We pour billions into our intelligence services - are you saying they are so incompetent that they can't show probable cause for a judge to issue a warrant?

    We must violate the law to preserve it!
    Oh wait, what are we fighting to rpeserve anyway?

    Come on!
    Sorry I let myself get distracted.
    The point is that this is not a dictatorship.
    The President needs to obey the law and respect the court.
  12. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from spacenurse
    Sorry I let myself get distracted.
    The point is that this is not a dictatorship.
    The President needs to obey the law and respect the court.
    It didn't help that I 'trolled' this thread w/ my earlier input. LOL. :trout: to myself.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Nov 17, '09
  13. by   indigo girl
    Reminds me of the George Clooney movie, "Good Night and Good Luck".
    Is it so different now? I think not. Make no mistake, our privacy is under attack, and not just in this country. There are so many ways to obtain information that look so innocent on the surface, so many worthless reassurances by companies that say, "we would never do that!"...

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...echnology/home
  14. by   sanctuary
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    But, until the Courts do rule conclusively, and in light of the fact that EVERY President since 1947 HAS conducted warrantless searches in the name of National Security, it goes too far to say that the President is 'breaking' the law or 'disrespecting' the Court. It is the COURT'S inherent obligation to properly exercise its power in restraining the Executive. This, to date, they have not done. And this ruling is no exception to that failure on the part of the Judicial.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    If the president did admit to warrantless wiretapping, and he did, he broke the law. The function of the court has nothing to do with his illegal behavior. The fact that all information gained in this way is useless in a court of law means it cannot be used except in some extra-legal, manner. That is disrespectful of the courts, and their function.
    Are we prepared to violate every item in the Bill of Rights in order to preserve democracy?? Just exactly does that work? -

close