On 8-18-06 a Democrat-appointed judge in Detroit sided with the ACLU and ordered an immediate halt to the terrorist surveillance program. This decision is a reminder of what is at stake in 2006. Will we use every tool in our arsenal to respond to emerging threats, or embrace the Democrat-ACLU position that just made it harder for our intelligence agencies to detect terrorist plots inside the United States?




http://www.micourthistory.org/resources/women-and-law/taylor.php


http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pdf/aclunsa.pdf

http://www.gop.com

THE WIRETAP RULING

I really hate to disappoint my loyal listeners, but as of this time I'm really not ready to jump on U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor for her ruling yesterday [pdf] .. a ruling which says that Bush's wiretap program is unconstitutional. I want to read the full ruling first .. then I'll jump if a leap is warranted.

There is one thing that bothers me from the get-go, and that is what I feel to be Judge Taylor's animosity toward the president. There is some language in the excerpts of her ruling that I've already read that seem to be just a bit harsh. That remark that "there are no hereditary kings in America" would be an example.

Here's something I want you to think about though. Let's consider a scenario. U.S. Intelligence forces are eavesdropping on the cell phone conversations of an Islamic terrorist in Pakistan. It is starting to become clear that this Islamic terrorist is in the final steps of implementing a terror attack on a U.S. target ... let's say a large shopping mall. Our intelligence agents are on pins and needles because it looks like this man is preparing to call the Islamic goons who will carry out the attack and give them the go-ahead. As our intelligence people watch their monitors it suddenly becomes clear that the terrorist is making a phone call to the United States. This could be it! He may be calling his contact to discuss the final details and timing of the attack!

Under Judge Taylor's ruling will our intelligence folks have the authority to listen to the conversation, or will they have to hang up? If they can listen, fine. If they have to get a warrant a few days later from that super-secret court, fine. If they have to hang up .. not fine.

When this story first surfaced the media seemed to make a group decision to refer to the wiretapping as "domestic." It wasn't. As I understand the situation, only international calls were monitored, and then only international calls wherein the party outside of the U.S. was suspected of a connection to Islamic radicals.

Now .. as an aside ... there was one line that Judge Taylor used in her ruling that really intrigues me. She wrote that there are ".. no powers not created by the Constitution." Izzat so? Then pray tell, Judge Taylor, just how can our Imperial Federal Government seize 14% of my paycheck and slam it into an income-redistribution program that may or may not -- there is no guarantee -- pay me some of that money back when I retire?


By: Boortz

read the NY times as a bushevik:
http://rightwingnytimes.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

Well Gmisko, you are in luck. What the ruling says is that the intelligence officers must comply with FISA. That law says that they may listen to that call, but must get a warrant within 72 hours afterward. The standard for getting that warrant is that there is reason to believe that the call was a part of a legitimate investigation into a foreign threat or intelligence operation in the U.S. The warrant can be obtained even if the actual call has nothing to do with anything, as long as there was reason to believe it might be.
The problem is that the Bush Administration is arguing that they don't have to get a warrant at all. They are arguing that the requirement to get a warrant interferes with the President's authority as Commander in Chief. This authority, according to their arguments, is unlimited. The President, according to their theory of law, can do whatever he wants regardless of what laws Congress passes.

When has the Bush Admin said their authority is unlimited?

Anyway, we'll see if the ruling is up-held.

I'd be willing to bet that the wiretaping has saved our butts plenty of times.

It is probably part of what saved us a couple of weeks ago.


Well Gmisko, you are in luck. What the ruling says is that the intelligence officers must comply with FISA. That law says that they may listen to that call, but must get a warrant within 72 hours afterward. The standard for getting that warrant is that there is reason to believe that the call was a part of a legitimate investigation into a foreign threat or intelligence operation in the U.S. The warrant can be obtained even if the actual call has nothing to do with anything, as long as there was reason to believe it might be.
The problem is that the Bush Administration is arguing that they don't have to get a warrant at all. They are arguing that the requirement to get a warrant interferes with the President's authority as Commander in Chief. This authority, according to their arguments, is unlimited. The President, according to their theory of law, can do whatever he wants regardless of what laws Congress passes.

When has the Bush Admin said their authority is unlimited?The President’s authority to take military action—including the use of communications intelligence targeted at the enemy—does not come merely from his constitutional powers. It comes directly from Congress as well. Just a few days after the attacks of September 11th, Congress enacted a joint resolution to support and authorize the military response to the attacks on American soil. Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (Sept. 18, 2001) (“AUMF”). In the AUMF, Congress did two important things. First, it expressly recognized the President’s “authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.” Second, it supplemented that authority by authorizing the President to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks” in order to prevent further attacks on the United States.

Accordingly, the President’s authority to use military force against those terrorist groups is at its maximum because he is acting with the express authorization of Congress. Thus, under the three-part framework of Justice Jackson’s concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-38 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring), the President’s authority falls within Category I, and is at its highest. He is acting “pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress,” and the President’s authority “includes all that he possesses in his own right [under the Constitution] plus all that Congress can” confer on him.

Prepared Statement of Hon. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States
February 6, 2006

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2006/ag_speech_060206.html

WHEN HAS BUSH SAID HIS AUTHORITY IS UNLIMITED?

THE KEY WORD IS UNLIMITED.


The President’s authority to take military action—including the use of communications intelligence targeted at the enemy—does not come merely from his constitutional powers. It comes directly from Congress as well. Just a few days after the attacks of September 11th, Congress enacted a joint resolution to support and authorize the military response to the attacks on American soil. Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (Sept. 18, 2001) (“AUMF”). In the AUMF, Congress did two important things. First, it expressly recognized the President’s “authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.” Second, it supplemented that authority by authorizing the President to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks” in order to prevent further attacks on the United States.

Accordingly, the President’s authority to use military force against those terrorist groups is at its maximum because he is acting with the express authorization of Congress. Thus, under the three-part framework of Justice Jackson’s concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-38 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring), the President’s authority falls within Category I, and is at its highest. He is acting “pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress,” and the President’s authority “includes all that he possesses in his own right [under the Constitution] plus all that Congress can” confer on him.

Prepared Statement of Hon. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States
February 6, 2006

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2006/ag_speech_060206.html

If Bush gets a warrant in compliance with the FISA courts, he can wiretap all he wants -- what's the problem?

giving up freedom for security, you usually get neither. and i'll say it again, with history, this IS the case.

WHEN HAS BUSH SAID HIS AUTHORITY IS UNLIMITED?

THE KEY WORD IS UNLIMITED.

It's not about what he says, it's about what he does.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0607-01.htm

WHEN HAS BUSH SAID HIS AUTHORITY IS UNLIMITED?

THE KEY WORD IS UNLIMITED.It's not surprising you fail to understand what the Attorney General is saying here. His argument is that when Congress authorized the use of military force on 18 September 2001 they gave the President a carte blanche (literally, a 'blank check') to do whatever he feels is necessary to combat terrorism. Carte blanche and whatever he feels is necessary are synonymous (that is, means the same as) UNLIMITED.

It's not surprising you fail to understand what the Attorney General is saying here. His argument is that when Congress authorized the use of military force on 18 September 2001 they gave the President a carte blanche (literally, a 'blank check') to do whatever he feels is necessary to combat terrorism. Carte blanche and whatever he feels is necessary are synonymous (that is, means the same as) UNLIMITED.

Just out of curiosity ... what bill or act was passed by congress on 18 Sept 2001 that authorized Bush to go to war?

Just out of curiosity ... what bill or act was passed by congress on 18 Sept 2001 that authorized Bush to go to war?The AUMF of 2001 was for terrorists and Afghanistan. In October of 2002 Congress passed a second AUMF for the war in Iraq. They are much more convenient than those pesky Declarations we used to have.

The President’s authority to take military action—including the use of communications intelligence targeted at the enemy—does not come merely from his constitutional powers. It comes directly from Congress as well. Just a few days after the attacks of September 11th, Congress enacted a joint resolution to support and authorize the military response to the attacks on American soil. Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (Sept. 18, 2001) (“AUMF”). In the AUMF, Congress did two important things. First, it expressly recognized the President’s “authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.” Second, it supplemented that authority by authorizing the President to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks” in order to prevent further attacks on the United States.

Accordingly, the President’s authority to use military force against those terrorist groups is at its maximum because he is acting with the express authorization of Congress. Thus, under the three-part framework of Justice Jackson’s concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-38 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring), the President’s authority falls within Category I, and is at its highest. He is acting “pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress,” and the President’s authority “includes all that he possesses in his own right [under the Constitution] plus all that Congress can” confer on him.

Prepared Statement of Hon. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States
February 6, 2006

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2006/ag_speech_060206.htmlWhat a terrible argument. I'll be quite surprised if it ever flies.

The AUMF of 2001 was for terrorists and Afghanistan. In October of 2002 Congress passed a second AUMF for the war in Iraq. They are much more convenient than those pesky Declarations we used to have.

The AUMF of 18 Sept 2001 was only applicable to countries that were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. It was not an blank check.

The AUMF (as you call it) on 11 Oct 2002 was an IWR (Iraq War Resolution) that allowed Bush, at his discretion, to use the U.S. Military to invade Iraq. Again, it was specific in nature and had many prerequsite conditions, some of which were resolved and some that were not. This also was not a blank check.

And nowhere in either authorization does it state Bush has the power to wiretap american citizens without warrants from the FISA court and in direct violation of the Constitution, congressional oversight and judicial review.

The bottom line is congress is the only party that can authorize war and it's related responsibilities (wiretaps etc) and it hasn't done such since 1941. PERIOD.

The AUMF of 18 Sept 2001 was only applicable to countries that were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. It was not an blank check.Of course it isn't a blank check but Gonzales says otherwise. I doubt that even he believes it is, but he's forced to make this desperate argument in order to defend the actions of his boss.

Of course it isn't a blank check but Gonzales says otherwise. I doubt that even he believes it is, but he's forced to make this desperate argument in order to defend the actions of his boss.

Point taken and I agree ... but Gonzo shouldn't be allowed to make that argument. He should be required to know and understand the U.S. constitution to hold his job. Apparently he doesn't.

He should be openly scawffed at for even entertaining the position that he or Bush can simply rewrite the constitution on a whim.

since america's start it has been unconstitutional. anyone agreeing with those actions that make it so should have been hung.
america being unconstitutional is how indians get cheated, lied to, stole from, and gathered up on reservations in the past.

it is how you use an excuse" they were animals" in order to excuse it , or a black person is not human to put him in chains.

or send japanese people off to internment camps during WW2.

or use racial profiling to "fight" terrorism.

soon you won't be able to say what you mean without going to jail either. oops, i think some already have.

all racial, cultural, and paranoid excuses.