This is terrible news for our national security. The NSA’s terrorist surveillance program was instrumental in stopping the British terrorists from blowing up airliners over the Atlantic Ocean.
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.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly taping conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.
The government argued that the program is well within the president’s authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.
The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule.
I’m assuming the government will appeal and that Attorney General Alberto Gonzoles will file an emergency motion to prevent it from being halted as it’s being appealed. Do any attorneys have any insight into this?
Update: Last week the RCP Blog linked to a profile of Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in the Detroit Free Press.
But there’s this toward the end of the article:
But even if Taylor harpoons the spying program, experts said, the decision likely would be overturned by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
“Given the composition of the 6th Circuit and its previous rulings in related areas, it seems more likely to favor national security over civil liberties if that issue is squarely presented,” said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia. “And that’s what this case is all about.”
Update II: From Reuters:
DETROIT (Reuters) – A federal judge in Detroit on Thursday ordered the Bush administration to halt the National Security Agency’s program of domestic eavesdropping, saying it violated the U.S. Constitution.
Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said the controversial practice of warrantless wiretapping known as the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” violated free speech rights, protections against unreasonable searches and the constitutional check on the power of the presidency.
The ruling marked a setback for the Bush administration, which had asked for the lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union to be thrown out, arguing that any court action on the case would jeopardize secrets in an ongoing war on terrorism.
Update III: Read the opinion here (pdf)
Update IV: Mary Katharine Ham at Michelle Malkin is also on top of this. Check out Ankle Biting Pundits, Jawa Report, Ace.
Update V: Rob at Say Anything reminds us that the plaintiffs didn’t even know that they were being listened to. They just thought they might have been listened to.
Update VI: John at Power Line also notes Judge Taylor’s past history of judge-shopping. She tried to stack the deck in the case about the U of M Law School’s affirmative action program in the liberals’ favor:
Chief Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the federal District Court in Detroit tried to take the suit against the law school away from Judge Bernard Freedman, who had been assigned it through a blind draw–and who was suspected of being skeptical about affirmative action–and consolidate it with a similar suit against the university’s undergraduate admissions practice, which Judge Patrick Duggan was hearing. The chief judge dropped that effort was dropped after the judge hearing the law school complaint went public with a blistering opinion objecting to what he termed “the highly irregular” effort of the chief judge. Judge Duggan ruled in favor of the undergraduate racial preferences, while Judge Freedman ruled against the law school preferences.
Update VII: Fox News says the Justice Department has appealed the ruling.
Update VIII: Macranger at Macsmind has a statement from the Dept. of Justice:
“The Terrorist Surveillance Program is a critical tool that ensures we have in place an early warning system to detect and prevent a terrorist attack. In the ongoing conflict with al-Qaeda and its allies, the President has the primary duty under the Constitution to protect the American people. The Constitution gives the President the full authority necessary to carry out that solemn duty, and we believe the program is lawful and protects civil liberties. Because the Terrorist Surveillance Program is an essential tool for the intelligence community in the War on Terror, the Department of Justice has appealed the District Court’s order. The parties have also agreed to a stay of the injunction until the District Court can hear the Department’s motion for a stay pending appeal.”
Update IX: Debbie Schlussel has more on Judge Taylor’s misconduct in the U of M affirmative action case.
FISA is a tool designed for police agencies, to say it is adequate presupposes that terrorism is a law-enforcement ‘problem’.
Intelligence agencies, anyway.
Anyone so ignorant of the structural foundations of Islamic terrorism as to suggest such is either ignorant or more likely, promoting an ‘agenda’.
So terrorism should only be fought militarily? Ok, I guess we can tell the FBI, CIA, IRS, and various other agencies to get off the case.
When the ‘law’ is used to reduce national security it is being misused.
You misunderstand rule of law, apparently. I like how you put ‘law’ in quotes, as if it is a term in question.
The question is will you like Sharia law? Your rhetoric is increasing that possibility.
Oooh, scary. Those Muslim armies are just poised to invade, aren’t they? Let me ask you this, how come even though Hezbollah has not managed to take over the government if Lebanon, even though Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan have secular governments, and even though no sane person believes that terrorists will somehow manage to take over the government of any country other than post-Soviet Afghanistan, you somehow believe that the institution of Sharia law in the United States is in the realm of possiblity? Oh, wait, it will happen because I say we should live by rule of law. Good argument.
‘Readings’ by such as Chomsky, perhaps?
Chomsky is a fool.
There have been far worse suspensions of ‘laws’ in the past. Lincoln did more than suspend Habeas Corpus. He jailed over 13,000 protestors, pacifists and appeasers. Many actual governmental officials. The country survived quite nicely…
My point exactly. I’m not claiming that we wouldn’t survive as a nation if the NSA wiretaps civilians without warrants, I just think we should learn from our past mistakes, including those of Lincoln and Roosevelt, who are not saints by the way.
Yes it is, since the President has an arguably valid claim that his programs are legal, it is the other side who is attempting to claim powers not constitutionally mandated.
The other side being the District Court of Eastern Michigan? That’s called separation of powers, friend. Anyway, what powers is the “other side” claiming, exactly?
Unwarranted personal attacks are always a sign of intellectual bankruptcy.
It’s not an unwarranted personal attack. From your words it’s clear you think the President should not be bound by laws created by another branch of government.
That is either a foolish, ignorant assertion or purposely disingenuous. Churchill and Rooseveldt’s leadership, an assertive military and a supportive public won the war.
Oh, so by “no committee ever won a war” you meant through the committee members taking up arms and fighting it themselves, with no military? Ok, granted, no committee ever won a war.
The Hungarian Jews of the 30’s refused to acknowledge the threat from the Nazi’s as well. They regreted that, briefly.
And the armies of Germany and Italy are comparable to terrorists how, exactly?
History is repleat with fools such as you. Every generation presents a crop of such, yours is simply the latest.
Unwarranted personal attacks blah blah blah whatever you said.
getting a warrant for this type of thing is impossible, repeat impossible. They do not know what they are looking for, so they scan all calls through a grid to look for repeating words and to make a connection, like “Brooklyn Bridge”(which this saved from being blown up), after it being repeated over and over they went and got a Warrant to intercept the domestic calls and track down the terrorist about to blow it up. The first part of this is impossible to get a warrant for, “please give me a warrant for possibly every international call, I will not be actually listening just screening for keywords”…”What words”, “Well I don’t know, it depends but I can’t say defenitely”……impossible.
It’s humorous to once again see all the strict constructionalists suddenly talk about all of the presidential powers “inherent in the Constitution”.
Hey “praying” mantis yor post are getting longer and loooonger and looonnnggger and ——-.
Michell,
That would be the Presidential Daily Brief of August 6, 2001.
This is the same PDB Condi lied about to the 911 Commission by saying it was vague. She said that while the PDB of 8/6/2001 was still classified.
It’s since been de-classified and is a stark reminder about how this Admin will lie to ANYONE who wants to hold them accountable.
What else you got?
About time the government started working. Bush said things would be easier if he was the dictator. It got too close to that. But the Judiciary and the Legislative both need to impeach nearly all of his administration.
Robert:
That document contained no specific threat against any building(s), only a possible threat of hijacking airliners and flying them into buildings. Are the words “World Trade Center” , “Sears Tower” or “TransAmerica Building” in there? No. In fact, this is a specific as it gets:
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
So even IF the government decided to protect those “federal buildings” somehow (you try and figure out how), they still would’ve been guarding the wrong targets!
Condi didn’t lie, she was telling the truth; the memo was vague in its threats.
For God’s sake, quit losing sleep over this f***ing memo and get over it already.
Robbie doesn’t know anything about the multiple potential threats out there and what the gov’t does about them. And no, there were no specific or actionable threats, so what is your point exactly? Bush should have shut down the airline industry?
No one, not even lil Rob, forecast box cutters as means to hijak airliners. Security was looking for bombs and traditional weapons.
This is the reason we can’t just target weapons; there will always be a new, sick iteration of means to terrorize. We have to target those persons most likely to carry out terror. This is why El Al has not been hit with terror in decades.
Rob, Mantis, Lee just don’t get it, and the poor bastards probably never will.
Peter F.,
True enough.
It also didn’t say 2 planes would crash into the World trade center towers. The first at 8:45 AM on September 11th, 2001 into floors 90-93 of the south Tower, etc.
you’re right. May as well ignore it and go on vacation.
Condi was asked if there was anything specific about the threat in the PDB. The questioners knew what it said. She was asked if it mentioned anyone in particular or what kind of threat it was.
She said it was a vague, historical threat and didn’t mention anything specific.
It did: UBL and his quest to hijack planes and use them as weapons.
Since it didn’t say what the flight numbers were and made no reference to the manifest of the flights, the warning was vague, I suppose.
I apologize for trying to hold anyone in the administration accountable for anything.
We all know where the responsibility lies: Clinton’s penis.
We have to target those persons most likely to carry out terror. This is why El Al has not been hit with terror in decades.
Rob, Mantis, Lee just don’t get it, and the poor bastards probably never will.
I said exactly the same thing last week when the liquid plot was reported on. Nice try though.
So you are ok with profiling, but don’t think the President has the power to do warrantless wiretaps of international terror suspects.
That’s just not coherent. Again, your powers of reasoning are just not up to the task.
So you are ok with profiling, but don’t think the President has the power to do warrantless wiretaps of international terror suspects.
That’s just not coherent. Again, your powers of reasoning are just not up to the task.
Wow you’re dumb. The funny thing is you pretend you’re a lawyer. Warrantless wiretaps are unconstitutional, and unnecessary. Profiling is not. Coherent enough for you?
I’d also like to note that you reveal quite a bit about your intellect with that comment. Apparently you believe that if one approves of one security procedure, one must approve of any and all possible procedures in order to be “coherent”. Very simplistic and, frankly, idiotic thinking. I guess since I think we should be profiling in airport security screening I should also approve of shooting Muslims in the street. Gotta be coherent, right?
Heres the bottom line. All this was brought about by the NYT leaking the program,regardless of what the courts think or don’t think the president has got to prosecute both the editors and the leakers wheather they want to or not.We the people expect, no make that demand, nothing less.He’s the leader of all the people not just those who think they should decide what is defence and what isn’t of this country.
Wrong again, Mantis the Nitwit.
You don’t have a clue. There are numerous exceptions to the warrant requirement, you little shit.
The point, which your flea-sized brain missed, is that you find no Constitutional right of the President to prosecute a war against international terror with wiretaps, but you find it Constitutional to profile members of ethnic groups.
You’re too dim to figure out the problem with that view, and how illogical it is.
Telling bald-face lies, like “foriegn nationals have no rights” , and “In the ongoing conflict with al-Qaeda and its allies, the President has the primary duty under the Constitution to protect the American people. The Constitution gives the President the full authority necessary to carry out that solemn duty, and we believe the program is lawful and protects civil liberties.” does not help your cause – it either hurts your side’s credibility, or shows what dumbsh*ts fill its ranks. [The President’s primary duty under the Constitution is to PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION (DAMMIT!).]
You don’t have a clue. There are numerous exceptions to the warrant requirement, you little shit.
I realize that. The NSA warrantless wiretapping of US citizens isn’t one of them. Btw stop with all the names, you’re hurting my feelings!
The point, which your flea-sized brain missed, is that you find no Constitutional right of the President to prosecute a war against international terror with wiretaps
No constitutional right, no. I do find that the President has such powers against foreign powers and even US citizens, if he gets warrants. It’s not hard to understand, just read FISA. And please point to somewhere where calling another country has been accepted as an exigent circumstance, if that is in fact what you are arguing (it’s hard to tell since you don’t know how to argue).
but you find it Constitutional to profile members of ethnic groups.
I never said members of ethnic groups. I agree with you that we should be profiling, as you said, those persons most likely to carry out terror. This is more complicated than just ethnicity. Plus keep in mind I’m only talking about airport screening and who gets singled out for more rigorous screening.
Since you have yet to point out how holding these two views is illogical or inconsistent in any legal or constitutional way, I can only assume it is because you believe, as I noted above, that approving of one method means you must approve of all methods.
While I don’t particularly agree with mantis’s arguments, they are coherent and do not deserve the ad hominem attacks seen above. Kudos to those who have kept their comments collegial and logical. And silence to those who haven’t.
This is truly an interesting forum. I enjoy the legal and legally educated minds here that present good points from both sides of this ruling.
I read the Judge’s ruling and I agree that the first 3/4 made a tremendous amount of sense although the final ruling did fall on the side of liberalism. And if people need reminding of what liberalism means, here is the link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberalism
This may give certain people a wake-up call as to what it means to hate America.
We seem to have identified the bigger problems, older methods may very well be obsolete and need of reviewing and reworking but having one branch of the government conduct this type of program without oversight truly is unconstitutional. If Clinton had instituted this type of program in the name of national security, most of the morons ranting like they even understand this ruling would be screaming for his head on a platter. Barring all the anti-liberal thumb-sucking childishness aside, there is a desperate need to bring this matter to a greater debate and resolve it. On the one hand, we need our nation to be secure and safe within the powers of our government. On the other hand, we as Americans need oversight to make sure this program is not abused and is being run effectively and within the confines of the law. I would hate to see terrorists get caught and then set free because of poor oversight or unconstitutional practices. When it comes to national security, I’d believe that we all as Americans would want to make sure that all the T’s were crossed and the I’s were dotted.
Maybe some people need to be reminded of the Constitution and what it stands for and what it means to our freedom and democracy to have three seperate and equal branches of government. Here is a great link to start: http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst.html
Perhaps certain people need to be reminded of how important it is to maintain these checks and balances. Here is a great link to start: http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html The Republican Contract With America is a great reminder of how important it is to maintain the checks and balances especially with the Executive branch of the government. The Fiscal Responsibility Act always is great for a good laugh.
Question: What limitations, if any, do you recognize on the power of the executive branch? How would you feel about a Democratic president having these powers?
Unfortunately, mantis’ arguments range far from the law, and when confronted with the actual precedents in this area, which I have provided above, he continues to change the subject. There is some intellectual dishonesty or laziness here.
Mr. Mantis has made ad hominem attacks. The difference is that he doesn’t back it up with fact. Typical lib. approach–change the subject and discuss generalities.
It would be inchoherent, would it not, for the 4th Amendment proscription against “unreasonable searches and seizures” to prohibit the President from fully prosecuting the war with the power to intercept enemy communications without warrant, but allow government security officials to search a person based on race, ethnicity, religion or whatever factors which would likely assist in preventing a terrorist attack? You don’t see the irony and conflict here?
Wow.
The Washington Post’s take on the judgment rendered yesterday–not a serious discussion of the legal issues–
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081701540.html
How does getting warrants to wiretap alleged terrorists harm the War on Terror?
Robert:
We all know where the responsibility lies: Clinton’s penis
More accurately, Clinton’s inability or lack of fortitude to deal with OBL when he had him “in the sights” (remember the old Predator drone after the African embassy bombings?) WHILE he was having his penis played with!
Second, get reacquainted with the words “specific” and “vague” because apparently you don’t know the difference between the two. Your clever little quips about the WTC and the times of the atttack do zip, zero, nada to prove your empty-headed point.
Robert, since when do we obligate our intelligence agencies to get warrants when they’re collecting information in other countries? Are we going to require them to get warrants for satellite reconnaissance also? Are we going to require a warrant everytime a Navy ELINT plane goes collecting signal intelligence?
In fact, two FISA courts have discussed in passing the fact that there is no dispute, until our Jimmy Carter Judge’s decision, that there can be warrantless taps/searches in this arena.
Read some law and get back to us, Rob.
Oooh, scary. Those Muslim armies are just poised to invade, aren’t they? Let me ask you this, how come even though Hezbollah has not managed to take over the government if Lebanon, even though Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan have secular governments, and even though no sane person believes that terrorists will somehow manage to take over the government of any country other than post-Soviet Afghanistan, you somehow believe that the institution of Sharia law in the United States is in the realm of possiblity?
I can see mantis in 1925 Germany.
“Dude, those Nazis can’t do anything. Look, their main speaker is IN JAIL. We got NOTHING to worry about. No sir.”
My point exactly. I’m not claiming that we wouldn’t survive as a nation if the NSA wiretaps civilians without warrants, I just think we should learn from our past mistakes, including those of Lincoln and Roosevelt, who are not saints by the way.
The courts ruled their actions legal.
That whole stare decisis thing, which you on the left obsess over so, is going to be a problem.
It’s not an unwarranted personal attack. From your words it’s clear you think the President should not be bound by laws created by another branch of government.
If the President says “I’ll disband Congress”, would you expect Congress to go along with it?
Just because branch feels they can take powers away from another does not necessarily make it so.
And the armies of Germany and Italy are comparable to terrorists how, exactly?
Well, they are clearly stronger than Germany’s was up until about 1937.
That would be the Presidential Daily Brief of August 6, 2001.
This is the same PDB Condi lied about to the 911 Commission by saying it was vague. She said that while the PDB of 8/6/2001 was still classified.
It’s since been de-classified and is a stark reminder about how this Admin will lie to ANYONE who wants to hold them accountable.
Several years old intel with no info as to:
1) date
2) location
…is more than mildly useless.
Of course, you also want to strip the President’s ability to get the info needed…so at least your consistent.
Condi was asked if there was anything specific about the threat in the PDB. The questioners knew what it said. She was asked if it mentioned anyone in particular or what kind of threat it was.
She said it was a vague, historical threat and didn’t mention anything specific.
It did: UBL and his quest to hijack planes and use them as weapons
Which is specific in WHAT way exactly?
When was he going to do it?
Where?
See, THAT is called a “specific”.
Since it didn’t say what the flight numbers were and made no reference to the manifest of the flights, the warning was vague, I suppose.
OK, you’re given the info on 8/6/01.
Tell me what you do to prevent 9/11. Please. Specific plans of action.
Question: What limitations, if any, do you recognize on the power of the executive branch? How would you feel about a Democratic president having these powers?
Democrats HAVE. Clinton did it.
-=Mike
Hehe, ok.
I can see mantis in 1925 Germany.
“Dude, those Nazis can’t do anything. Look, their main speaker is IN JAIL. We got NOTHING to worry about. No sir.”
Seriously? You actually believe that the terrorists that may be in this country are the equivalent of the Nazi Party of Germany 1925? Who are they? Who is their leader? Can I visit their political offices? What positions in government have they been running for? Wow, it’s almost as if their attempts to institute Sharia law here are, well, nonexistent. Scary. Let me know when you find some, and I’ll oppose them.
The courts ruled their actions legal.
That whole stare decisis thing, which you on the left obsess over so, is going to be a problem.
Not really. We’ve made plenty of mistakes that were declared legal at the time, only to be reversed by the courts later, such as those I cited. Not familiar with Ex parte Milligan? Coram nobis? Guess not.
We’ve made plenty of mistakes that were declared legal at the time, only to be reversed by the courts later, such as those I cited. Not familiar with Ex parte Milligan? Coram nobis? Guess not.
I’m familiar with Ex parte Milligan and it had nothing to with a law, idiot. He was an actor on Empty Nest.
You may not want to believe it but these terrorists are just as dangerous as the Nazi’s and if my President needs to tap my phone for security purposes, I’m going to believe it’s for a good reason. I live close to the army base in my state and what I’m afraid of is they’ll attack there first. If you’re not afraid of these things, you’re just stupid.
We’re at WAR! They are coming after US! Is there something YOU don’t understand?
What specifically would I do if I read the PDB of 8/6/01?
Easy.
Go on vacation.
Let 3000 Americans die.
Run for re-election and say that I (unlike my Democratic counterpart) am the only one you can trust to protect Americans.
Get 51% of the vote.
Push the new Bankruptcy Law written by the Financial Services industry. (Tough crap you poor suckers with healthcare problems!!)
Fall asleep at the wheel when Katrina hit and prove exactly how little protection I can offer US citizens.
Refrain from having any accountability whatsoever.
Now, do I have your vote?
No, beacuse you’re a smart ass Demcorat who STILL has no answers and NO solutions, only trite comments and juevenile quips about you wouldn’t have done instead of what you would have done.
Weenie.
Personally, I’d rather vote for my boyfriend as president – and he’s got some talents I can assure you – than another lame democrat.
Oh, look, somebody thinks they’re funny by using MY name and saying I’M gay! What a laugh riot! Must’ve plucked that one right out of the High School Comedy text book!
“You know how I know you’re gay…you listen to Coldplay.”
Fuckwit.
Not really. We’ve made plenty of mistakes that were declared legal at the time, only to be reversed by the courts later, such as those I cited. Not familiar with Ex parte Milligan? Coram nobis? Guess not.
Seeing as how the judge has LITERALLY no actual basis for her decision, you seem to be hoping against hope that the courts are in the mood to invent law.
As a heads up mantis — if you’re really as much in favor of checks and balances as you claim, you’d be livid that the courts — which have, Constitutionally, NO power in regards to execution of a war — are interfering at all.
If you cared about law, you’d be livid that a court would rule for a defendant who cannot actually state that anything is being done to him at all. Breathless newspaper headlines, shockingly enough, ain’t the same thing as honest evidence.
And, mods, seriously — what is up with the impostors? Kinda lame.
Easy.
Go on vacation.
Let 3000 Americans die.
Run for re-election and say that I (unlike my Democratic counterpart) am the only one you can trust to protect Americans.
Get 51% of the vote.
Push the new Bankruptcy Law written by the Financial Services industry. (Tough crap you poor suckers with healthcare problems!!)
Fall asleep at the wheel when Katrina hit and prove exactly how little protection I can offer US citizens.
Refrain from having any accountability whatsoever.
Now, do I have your vote?
Ahh, so you’d bitch about problems you invent in your heads?
Nah, I tend to vote for sane people.
BTW, nice of you to whine that Bush said his policies would make people safer and NOT whine that Dems are saying the same thing against him. I guess it’s only valid if you’re in the minority, eh?
But, hey, at least you admitted he actually won. I wish the rest of your brethren would do the same.
-=Mike
Someone was impersonating people in one of Lorie’s threads. Same person?
Not that being gay is so terrible, but why is it presumably people on the “gay-friendly” left who think it matters?
Anywho… just wanted to say I disagree with you Mantis. Profiling is unconstitutional. Well, not really, not the way it would be done because you’re right about there being other factors than race… but do you think that will matter? Do you really think that if Bush started/starts officially profiling that it will matter that there are all sorts of factors other than race that are part of the profile? It will *appear* to be racial profiling and he’ll get absolutely clobbered by the usual suspects and likely sued by the ACLU. Maybe they’ll even get a ruling in their favor.
That’s what gets me most about this wiretapping thing. It had oversight. Congress knew about it. It wasn’t until it was revealed to the public that the constitutionality became an issue at all, and boy did it ever. Because the words “warrentless wiretapping” is a little bit like “racial profiling.” Everyone KNOWS it’s wrong. They don’t have to get to the details or various conflicting legal opinions, all they need are those words.
I don’t believe that *anyone* is listening to random conversations… it’s just not practical. The same with the financial stuff. Keywords or data, entirely impersonal, looking for patterns. I don’t think this violates privacy. A pattern means they know where to look and can get a warrant.
I just don’t know how it’s possible that telemarketers can purchase phone listings or any amount of data about me and you can be collected and sorted and it’s all okay but if the NSA does it to look for terrorists it’s suddenly not okay.
I realize there are reasons, and darned good ones, to separate foreign spying from domestic spying and totally agree that domestic spying needs far harsher rules but separating all those agencies is part of what got us into the situation that we’re in. Can one agency who legally collected information pass it to some other agency that would require a warrant before they were even allowed to look? It defies common sense.
It defies common sense not to profile terror suspects and it defies common sense to hang up on a phone call because the person you’re wiretapping called a US phone. It also makes no sense at all to make people walk through the emergency warrant paperwork every time it was a wrong number.
I also think it’s terribly funny that a leak that was supposedly no big deal because everyone *knew* we were spying on terrorists has now been claimed to have harmed people in their professions because people used to be willing to correspond or talk with them but now they are not. It’s not particuarly relevant, just serendipity… or something.
Its truly a pathetic display to resort to juvenile gay pranks when losing a debate. How desperate.
Somebody asked if a Democrat did it would I accept it. The answer is NO! That was the basis behind the Republican Contract with America. Democrats controlled the three branches of government and checks and balances promised by the Constitution of the United States of America were not present. It was an abuse of power and I can only assume that most individuals here agreed with it when the Democrats did it but it’s completely forgiveable for Republicans to abuse the power in the same manner and..I mean AND breach the Contract with America. If the program is legal, than send it through the legal channels then. It really is that simple. What was said…”If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about then!”