Judge and Lefties Get it Right

From Aljazeera

A federal judge in Detroit has ordered the Bush administration to halt the National Security Agency’s programme of domestic eavesdropping, saying it violated the US constitution.

Thursday’s ruling was a setback for the Bush administration, which has defended the programme as an essential tool in its “war on terrorism“.

Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said the controversial practice of warrantless phone tapping, known as the Terrorist Surveillance Programme, violated free speech rights, protections against unreasonable searches and the constitutional check on the power of the presidency.

The programme has been widely criticised by civil rights activists and raised concern among politicians, including some in George Bush’s own Republican party, who say the president may have overstepped his powers by authorising it.

“Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our constitution,” Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the programme has made it difficult for them to do their jobs.

New Zeal It is great to see Judge Taylor invoke the US constitution against President Bush. While the lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (founded by the Communist Party USA and still dominated by the left), their cause was entirely just.

What use is opposing Islamofascism, when in so doing you turn your own country into a police state?

Share:

Author: Admin

Related Articles

15 thoughts on “Judge and Lefties Get it Right

  1. How anti-american of you Trevor! We all know that right-wing moonbats equate being against the Bush administration with being against the entire country.

  2. As a right wing moonbat myself, I am far more pro American than i am pro Bush.

    I think Bush has done a lot of damage to the traditional Republican Party, who at their best are pretty libertarian.

    Bush is no Ronnie Reagan.

  3. Can you please tell me what you mean by pro American? I find the concept of being for- or against- certain countries difficult to understand.

  4. I think you’re wrong on this. So was that liberal dropkick Judge ( A Jimmy Carter appointment). The west is at war with a bunch of anti freedom barbarians who want to kill us all. During World War Two there were many such restrictions on personal freedom, at a time when such freedoms were in general held in much greater regard. The war against terrorism is a different kind of war, with the enemy hiding amongst us, and with electronic surveillance and detection playing a much greater role in order to discover these scum. Don’t support any action that makes it easier for them to kill us or kill members of our armed forces. All that aside, your concern with the legalities of the situation is wrong too. Read about it on Power Line. ( http://www.powerlineblog.com/ “Where’s The Beef” and “Judge Ignores Precedent, Holds NSA Program “Unconstitutional””) Just the fact that leftists ( hypocritically posing as pro freedom ) are with you on this should be ample warning.

  5. I am pro the US constitution and original system of government.

    This has a created a great and prosperous nation and a benevolent and generous people, whom I generally like.

    People are people, however some have created political systems that bring out the best in people, some have systems that bring ot the worst-ie socialism, fascism.

    For instance I am pro Chinese but anti China, I am pro American, but disappointed in the anti freedom direction the US government is headed

  6. What use is opposing Islamofascism if a judge appointed by Jimmy Carter says you can’t have the tools to do so?

  7. The White House was unable to prove to the court that they weren’t violating the Constitution because doing so would violate national security. The left doesn’t care about what’s in the best interests of the US. Their loyalty is to their own power only. Even undermining national security to make Bush look bad is acceptable to these traitors.

    Actually what Bush is doing is no different than any other recent president. No prizes for guessing why the ACLU chose to bring the case against Bush.

    Well, wiretapping “Americans” known to be communicating to al Qaeda overseas is now illegal. Madness.

  8. Whoo hoo freedom to allow terrorists to operate without impediment.

    How useful. Not really seeing how it makes a country more likely to stay free though.

  9. Missing the point here guys.

    Bush’s “crime” has been, if I understand correctly “warrantless wiretapping” and trawling through random records in order to find something of interest.

    I would have no problem with warranted searches. I would not even have a problem if the warrants were broad enough to be used against anyone connected to radical mosques or certain countries or organisations.

    What I object to is randomly turning over all and sundry in the hope of finding a bad guy.

    Why don’t we authorise our police to search any car at any time. Imagine all the dope and stolen items they’d find. I’m sure they’d never abuse their powers.

    What’s the saying? “Those who will give up freedom for security deserve neither”.

  10. So you think that freedom in its completeness should be provided to those who would destroy freedom? Some long term plan for freedom that is.

  11. I don’t think you’ve actually read what I’ve written Red-Baiter.

    The US should be devolving intelligence capability back to local level, not centralising it.

    The US should be respecting there own Constitution, not trashing it.

    The US should be putting their resources into smashing Al Qaida and Bin Laden in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not chasing phantom WMDs in Iraq.

    US intelligence should be hammering Al Qaida sympathisers amongst the Muslim communities in the US, not invading the privacy of WASP, Japanese, Chinese and Afro Americans because they are too PC to target the real potential enemy.

    The porous Mexican border should be sealed and fenced off too stop land based infiltration.

    Bush and Co are taking the easy option. They are not facing up to real threats like Al Qaida and the Chavez/Castro axis, but are pissing US blood, money and prestige down the Iraqi crapper.

    1. Hi Trevor, and Merry Christmas to you and yours –

      I can’t help but feel somewhat amused at the argument from Anon and Redbaiter. How can they not get the point? While I’m sure they mean well, the bigger picture eludes them. Additionally, by defending everything “Bush,” them offer free fuel to the Left to continue to answer all debate items with, well Bush did so and so, etc.

      Let’s face the facts: While I’d much rather be dealing with Bush problems as opposed to Obama problems, Bush perpetrated a lot of problems, some of which open pathways for Obama’s tyranny. Your subject matter being one of them.

      Our fight is not personal, nor is it partisan for that matter. Our fight is Principle as in Constitutional Law.If we get that right, we don’t have Obama, Bush, or whomever else problems, do we?

      God Bless,
      Nick

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.