Judge finds NSA program unconstitutional

[tsluver247]

Judge finds NSA program unconstitutional (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060818/ap_on_re_us/warrantless_surveillance)

[White_Male_Canada]

Let`s be clear,there is no "wiretapping" going on. This goes back to Clinton`s project Echelon and his clipperchip.

Now the decision. Have you read judge taylor`s decision? It`s less legal and much more a political screed.

This horribly written opinion will be overturned,gauranteed.

That said,she`s in a conflict of interest aka,in cahoots with the aclu:

For Immediate Release


U.S. District Judge Who Presided Over Government Wiretapping Case May Have Had Conflict of Interest


(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and judicial abuse, announced today that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who last week ruled the government’s warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional, serves as a Secretary and Trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case (ACLU et. al v. National Security Agency). Judicial Watch discovered the potential conflict of interest after reviewing Judge Diggs Taylor’s financial disclosure statements.



According to her 2003 and 2004 financial disclosure statements, Judge Diggs Taylor served as Secretary and Trustee for the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan (CFSEM). She was reelected to this position in June 2005. The official CFSEM website states that the foundation made a “recent grant” of $45,000 over two years to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan, a plaintiff in the wiretapping case. Judge Diggs Taylor sided with the ACLU of Michigan in her recent decision.



According to the CFSEM website, “The Foundation’s trustees make all funding decisions at meetings held on a quarterly basis.”



“This potential conflict of interest merits serious investigation,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “If Judge Diggs Taylor failed to disclose this link to a plaintiff in a case before her court, it would certainly call into question her judgment.”



(Judge Diggs Taylor is also the presiding judge in another case where she may have a conflict of interest. The Arab Community Center for Social and Economic Services (ACCESS) is a defendant in another case now before Judge Diggs Taylor’s court [Case No. 06-10968 (Mich. E.D.)]. In 2003, the CFSEM donated $180,000 to ACCESS.)



Click here to read Judge Diggs Taylor’s financial disclosure statements.

Click here to read the CFSEM’s list of recent grants. (See page 3.)


http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_5862.shtml

[Jamie Michelle]

Let`s be clear,there is no "wiretapping" going on. This goes back to Clinton`s project Echelon and his clipperchip.

Now the decision. Have you read judge taylor`s decision? It`s less legal and much more a political screed.

This horribly written opinion will be overturned,gauranteed.

That said,she`s in a conflict of interest aka,in cahoots with the aclu:


Here's an old bit of text which obviously means nothing to you, White_Male_Canada:

The Constitution of the United States of America:

Amendment IV (1791)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[White_Male_Canada]

Let`s be clear,there is no "wiretapping" going on. This goes back to Clinton`s project Echelon and his clipperchip.

Now the decision. Have you read judge taylor`s decision? It`s less legal and much more a political screed.

This horribly written opinion will be overturned,gauranteed.

That said,she`s in a conflict of interest aka,in cahoots with the aclu:


Here's an old bit of text which obviously means nothing to you, White_Male_Canada:

The Constitution of the United States of America:

Amendment IV (1791)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


The president has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to defend the United States. If he can bomb the nation's enemies overseas without a court's approval, he certainly can listen to their conversations.

The President has specific powers to prosecute war including Public Law 107-243:

“…The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary… to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations…”


The War Powers Act excludes another area of the law, USSID 18, communications which are known to be to or from U.S. persons can't be intentionally intercepted without: (a) the approval of the FISA court is obtained; OR (b) the approval of the Attorney General of the United States with respect to "communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside the United States...international communications" and other categories of communications including for the purpose of collecting "significant foreign intelligence information."

So,no warrants are required if the Attorney General gives the nod AND electronic transmissions that leave the borders of the USA require no warrant whatsoever.

We gaurantee this decision will be overturned. Bank on it.

[Jamie Michelle]

Let`s be clear,there is no "wiretapping" going on. This goes back to Clinton`s project Echelon and his clipperchip.

Now the decision. Have you read judge taylor`s decision? It`s less legal and much more a political screed.

This horribly written opinion will be overturned,gauranteed.

That said,she`s in a conflict of interest aka,in cahoots with the aclu:


Here's an old bit of text which obviously means nothing to you, White_Male_Canada:

The Constitution of the United States of America:

Amendment IV (1791)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


The president has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to defend the United States. If he can bomb the nation's enemies overseas without a court's approval, he certainly can listen to their conversations.

The President has specific powers to prosecute war including Public Law 107-243:

“…The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary… to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations…”


The War Powers Act excludes another area of the law, USSID 18, communications which are known to be to or from U.S. persons can't be intentionally intercepted without: (a) the approval of the FISA court is obtained; OR (b) the approval of the Attorney General of the United States with respect to "communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside the United States...international communications" and other categories of communications including for the purpose of collecting "significant foreign intelligence information."

So,no warrants are required if the Attorney General gives the nod AND electronic transmissions that leave the borders of the USA require no warrant whatsoever.

We gaurantee this decision will be overturned. Bank on it.

"We"? It sounds like you're claiming to be with the terrorists who hate our freedoms (i.e., those who control the U.S. government).

The NSA doesn't just listen to foreign communications, it listens to the communications of U.S. citizens in the U.S without warrants of "probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." That obviously violates Amendment IV of the U.S. Constitution.

But then, terrorist-supporters such as yourself are known for your criminality, dishonesty, brutality, and perversion:

Crushing Children's Testicles

John Choon Yoo ( http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/yooj/ , http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/facultyProfile.php?facID=235 ) is a professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall), one of the authors of the Patriot Act, and is one of the main White House legal advisers on the use of torture to President George Bush, Jr. Prof. John Yoo emigrated from South Korea with his parents when he was an infant, and is now married to Elsa Arnett, the daughter of reporter Peter Arnett.

Douglass Cassel ( http://www.nd.edu/~ndlaw/faculty/facultypages/cassel.html ) is the Lilly Endowment Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Civil and Human Rights at Notre Dame Law School.

The below excerpt is from a debate between Prof. John Yoo and Prof. Doug Cassel on December 1, 2005 in Chicago:

""
Prof. Doug Cassel: If the President deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?

Prof. John Yoo: No treaty.

Cassel: And also no law by Congress. That's what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
""

You can listen to the above exchange on the below audio clip:

http://rwor.org/downloads/file_info/download1.php?file=yoo_on_torture.mp3 (317,712 bytes)

The below audio clip is a longer recording which includes the above exchange:

http://rwor.org/audio/yoo%20excerpt.mp3

See also:

"John Yoo Argues Pres. George Bush Has Legal Power to Torture Children," Philip Watts, Revolution Newspaper (revcom.us):

http://rwor.org/johnyoo/index.html

##########

Since H.R. 3162, i.e., the "USA Patriot Act," was passed into law on October 26, 2001 without the Congress or Senate even being allowed to read it before voting on it, the police can now secretly search your house and take whatever they want from it without having to tell you about it until they issue you a warrant up to six months later (see SEC. 213). Also, the legal definition of "domestic terrorism" was changed to include any "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State" (see SEC. 802)--which could quite literally be jaywalking.

Indeed, smoking a joint could quite literally be domestic terrorism as defined under this law, since the U.S. government considers such drug use to be dangerous to human life, and since it is illegal after all. But such an act is supposed to only qualify if it "appear[s] to be intended to influence the policy of a Government by intimidation or coercion." So smoking a joint would only be an act of "domestic terrorism" if the U.S. Government thinks a person is doing it as a protest against their drug laws--the clause for "intimidation" already applies, otherwise the U.S. government would have no law against it.

And since P.L. 107-40 (September 18, 2001) was enacted and Bush, Jr. signed the November 13, 2001 Presidential Military Order, *habeas corpus* has been done away with as U.S. citizens can now be held indefinitely and in secret on the mere suspicion that they are in some way involved in "terrorism" (which can now be virtually anything--see the above redefined definition of "domestic terrorism") without even being charged; they can be tried by a secret military tribunal where they will not have the right to cross-examine their accusers; and they can be executed in secret. Indeed, U.S. citizens have already been held for years without any charges even having been filed against them (such as José Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi), and the U.S. government says that it can keep U.S. citizens that way indefinitely.

So it's not surprising to find that the U.S. government has been torturing innocent people, including U.S. citizens. This includes U.S. soldiers torturing people in U.S. custody to death.

"Pakistan: U.S. Citizens Tortured, Held Illegally--FBI Participated in Interrogations Despite Apparent Knowledge of Torture, Abduction," Human Rights Watch, May 24, 2005:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/05/24/pakist11005.htm

"Exclusive: Secret Memo--Send to Be Tortured," Michael Isikoff, Newsweek, August 8, 2005 issue:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8769416/site/newsweek/

"Outsourcing Torture: The secret history of America's 'extraordinary rendition' program," Jane Mayer, The New Yorker, Issue of February 14, 2005, posted February 7, 2005:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6

"CIA kidnapped terror suspects in the EU: lawmaker," Reuters, April 26, 2006:

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:awFkYdKtEeAJ:go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml%3Ftype%3DtopNews%26storyID%3D119 68389

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=11968389

Khalid El-Masri, an innocent German citizen, was abducted from Macedonia and held by the U.S. military without charges from January 23 to May 28, 2004, during which time he was sodomized and tortured by the U.S. military. He was taken by the U.S. military to Baghdad, Iraq and then to the "Salt Pit" clandestine CIA torture center located north of Kabul in Afghanistan.

"Khalid El-Masri," Wikipedia, June 25, 2006:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khalid_El-Masri&oldid=60497313

"Lawsuit Against CIA Is Dismissed: Mistaken Identity Led to Detention," Jerry Markon, Washington Post, May 19, 2006; Page A13:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/18/AR2006051802107.html

An innocent Algerian man, Laid Saidi, was held without charges in one of the same clandestine CIA torture centers in Afghanistan that Khalid El-Masri was held, from May 2003 to August 2004, wherein the two saw each other. Mr. Saidi was abducted from Tanzania and held by the U.S. military, during which time he was sodomized and tortured by the U.S. military.

"Algerian Tells of Dark Term in U.S. Hands," Craig S. Smith and Souad Mekhennet, New York Times, July 7, 2006:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/07/world/africa/07algeria.html

"CIA sent me to be tortured in Afghan prison, says Algerian," Jerome Taylor, Independent (U.K.), July 8, 2006:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article1166575.ece

In the Bagram, Afghanistan U.S. military base, U.S. government officials publicly admit that they're murdering Afghan inmates there by torturing them to death:

"Afghan prisoners beaten to death at US military interrogation base: 'Blunt force injuries' cited in murder ruling," Duncan Campbell, The Guardian (U.K.), March 7, 2003:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,909164,00.html

"Prisoners 'killed' at US base," BBC News, March 6, 2003:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2825575.stm

"Army Details Scale of Abuse of Prisoners in an Afghan Jail," Douglas Jehl, New York Times, March 12, 2005:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/12/politics/12detain.html

Included in the U.S. government's use of torture against innocent people is the rape of women and male children:

"US military confirms existence of horrific pictures and video," Andrew Buncombe, Independent (U.K.), May 9, 2004:

http://www.rense.com/general52/erh.htm

Among other tortures, U.S. Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba's report details homosexual anal rape committed by U.S. soldiers. Also detailed in U.S. Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba's report and by other U.S. military sources, Military Intelligence and the CIA ordered the torture at the Abu Ghaib prison.

"U.S. Army report on Iraqi prisoner abuse: Executive summary of Article 15-6 investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba," NBC News, May 4, 2004:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4894001/

"Article 15-6 Investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade," Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/taguba.pdf

"Green light for Iraqi prison abuse came right from the top: Classified documents show the former US military chief in Iraq personally sanctioned measures banned by the Geneva Conventions," Andrew Buncombe, Independent (U.K.), April 3, 2005:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0403-03.htm

"Pentagon Report Set Framework For Use of Torture: Security or Legal Factors Could Trump Restrictions, Memo to Rumsfeld Argued," Jess Bravin, Wall Street Journal, June 7, 2004:

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

As Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said to reporters on May 7, 2004 concerning the pictures and videos of U.S. military torture of Iraqis that the U.S. government still refuses to release: "The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience. We're talking about rape and murder and some very serious charges." See:

"Rumsfeld: Worst Still To Come--Pentagon Boss Apologizes To Iraqis; Says More Videos, Photos Exist," CBS News and Associated Press (AP), May 7, 2004:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/08/iraq/main616338.shtml

"Rueful Rumsfeld: 'Cruel' truth hurts: Rape and murder feared in Iraq abuse," Noelle Straub, Boston Herald, May 8, 2004:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/msg/53904eefc5efc3fa

And as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on May 7, 2004 before Congress concerning the pictures and videos of U.S. military torture of Iraqis that the U.S. government still refuses to release: "Beyond abuse of prisoners, there are other photos that depict incidents of physical violence towards prisoners, acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman ... There are a lot more photographs and videos that exist ... If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse. That's just a fact. I mean, I looked at them last night and they're hard to believe." See:

"In quotes: Rumsfeld faces Congress," BBC News, May 7, 2004:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3694995.stm

----------

The U.S. government has been training its troops and foreign NATO and U.N. military for a long time (i.e., well before the U.S. government-staged 9/11 attacks) in putting U.S. citizens in concentration camps and for total gun confiscation.

Watch Alex Jones's first two Police State video documentaries (both published well before the U.S. government-staged 9/11 attacks) where you can see U.S. troops training with U.N. troops in disarming American citizens and putting them into concentration camps, and anouncing over their loudspeakers: "Be calm, there is food, there is water in the camp ... violation of camp rules will not be tolerated ..."

They had American role-players screaming back at the U.S. and foreign U.N. troops, "I'm an American! I'm an American! You can't do this to me! I have rights!"

On Alex Jones's first two Police State video documentaries you can see many more of these training exercizes conducted in other cities and towns. Below you can watch Alex Jones's first two Police State videos in full and for free:

Police State 2000 (published 1999):

http://www.archive.org/details/PS2000

Police State II: The Takeover (published 2000):

http://www.archive.org/details/PoliceStateII

There have literally been hundreds of these type of training exercizes going on in the U.S. since the early 1990s. For example, see:

Operation Urban Warrior, Oakland, California 1999:

http://www.infowars.com/ouwmar9901.html

---
http://www.infowars.com/Images/newouw/foreign_troops.jpg
Australian, British and other foreign troops training with U.S. troops for total gun confiscation of U.S. citizens and in rounding up U.S. citizens into concentration camps at Operation Urban Warrior, Oakland, California 1999
---

For more on this subject, see below:

"U.S. Can Confine Citizens Without Charges, Court Rules," Jerry Markon, Washington Post, September 10, 2005; Page A01:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090900772.html

"Reagan Aides and the 'Secret' Government," Alfonso Chardy, Miami Herald, July 5, 1987:

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/secret_white_house_plans.htm

"Martial Law Concerns," Congressman Jim McDermott, House of Representatives, March 11, 2003:

http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/sp030311.shtml

Below are some archives for mainstream major media news articles dealing with these gulag matters:

Primary Prison Planet Mainstream-Media News Archive on FEMA Concentration Camps:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives_concentration_camps.html

FEMA Camps/Martial Law Archive:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives_fema.html

Habeas Corpus Archive:

The below archived news articles deal with how the U.S. government can indefinitely hold U.S. citizens who have not been charged with any crime (as the U.S. government has already been doing), and how U.S. citizens in general can be tried by a secret military tribunal where they will not have the right to cross-examine their accusers, and they can be executed in secret:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives_habeas.html

Model States Emergency Health Powers Act (which has been passed on the Federal level) Archive:

The below news articles talk about how the U.S. government can quarantine whole cities and round U.S. citizens up to be put in concentration camps in the event of, e.g., a bio-weapons release:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives_modelstates.html

Below are some additional documentation resources to learn more about the FEMA concentration/extermination camps in the U.S.:

http://infowars.com/goodphotos.html

"Concentration Camps in Okanagon County?," Associated Press (via KXLY News), February 25, 2003:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030408233829/http://www.kxly.com/common/getStory.asp?id=26857

http://www.prisonplanet.com/news_alert_022703_camps.html

Interview of Okanogan County Commissioner Dave Schulz:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/schultz_02_27_03.mp3

And see also:

"Foundations are in place for martial law in the US," Ritt Goldstein, Sydney Morning Herald, July 27, 2002:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/27/1027497418339.html

"Secret FEMA Plan To Use Pastors as Pacifiers in Preparation For Martial Law: Nationwide initiative trains volunteers to teach congregations to 'obey the government' during seizure of guns, property, forced inoculations and forced relocation," Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet.com, May 24, 2006:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/240506femaplan.htm

"Paramilitary Secret Police Kidnap, Detain, Torture Bilderberg Investigators: Interrogators threatened to 'cut off arms' during 6 hour marathon of hell," Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet.com, June 29, 2006:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/060706manraided.htm

"Terror Canadian Style," Joe Burd, TruthMovement.CA, [accessed June 28, 2006]:

http://www.fathers.ca/anyone_can_be_called_an_insurgent.htm

http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/terror_canadian_style.htm

"Man Raided By FBI, ATF, Canadian Law Enforcement After Handing Out 'Subversive' Alex Jones Material: Gun seller questioned on militia, ownership of George Washington speeches," Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones, Prison Planet.com, July 6, 2006:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/060706manraided.htm

[White_Male_Canada]

[quote=White_Male_Canada]Let`s be clear,there is no "wiretapping" going on. This goes back to Clinton`s project Echelon and his clipperchip.

Now the decision. Have you read judge taylor`s decision? It`s less legal and much more a political screed.

This horribly written opinion will be overturned,gauranteed.

That said,she`s in a conflict of interest aka,in cahoots with the aclu:


Here's an old bit of text which obviously means nothing to you, White_Male_Canada:

The Constitution of the United States of America:

Amendment IV (1791)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


The president has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to defend the United States. If he can bomb the nation's enemies overseas without a court's approval, he certainly can listen to their conversations.

The President has specific powers to prosecute war including Public Law 107-243:

“…The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary… to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations…”


The War Powers Act excludes another area of the law, USSID 18, communications which are known to be to or from U.S. persons can't be intentionally intercepted without: (a) the approval of the FISA court is obtained; OR (b) the approval of the Attorney General of the United States with respect to "communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside the United States...international communications" and other categories of communications including for the purpose of collecting "significant foreign intelligence information."

So,no warrants are required if the Attorney General gives the nod AND electronic transmissions that leave the borders of the USA require no warrant whatsoever.

We gaurantee this decision will be overturned. Bank on it.


"We"? It sounds like you're claiming to be with the terrorists who hate our freedoms (i.e., those who control the U.S. government).

The NSA doesn't just listen to foreign communications, it listens to the communications of U.S. citizens in the U.S without warrants of "probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." That obviously violates Amendment IV of the U.S. Constitution.

But then, terrorist-supporters such as yourself are known for your criminality, dishonesty, brutality, and perversion:


Prisonplanet ? You jest.

Be concise,please. No one, and I mean no one, is going to read that screed.

1/3 of the USA lives in an alternate reality. Or have a 9/10 mentality,which obviously includes yourself. This mentality can best be described as those who think fascist islam is merely a law enforcement issue. Wait for terrorists to launch their weapons,kill thousands then issue arrest warrants,give foreigners full Constitutional rights and try them in a court of law.

The rest of us realize what fascist islam is,where it began and what the koran says. We prefer to hunt them down and kill them first.

And I gaurantee the decision will be reversed. It is that bad and that poorly writtten. You`ll rue the day when it is and I come back to qoute you,then tease you 8)

[thombergeron]

The NSA's Clinton-era Echelon program was conducted under the auspices of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The NSA under the Bush administration is intercepting electronic communications without a warrant, arguing that the executive is not bound by FISA.

Judge Taylor has ruled that the executive is bound by FISA. Can you say specifically what you feel is poorly written about the decision?

[Jamie Michelle]

[quote=White_Male_Canada]Let`s be clear,there is no "wiretapping" going on. This goes back to Clinton`s project Echelon and his clipperchip.

Now the decision. Have you read judge taylor`s decision? It`s less legal and much more a political screed.

This horribly written opinion will be overturned,gauranteed.

That said,she`s in a conflict of interest aka,in cahoots with the aclu:


Here's an old bit of text which obviously means nothing to you, White_Male_Canada:

The Constitution of the United States of America:

Amendment IV (1791)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


The president has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to defend the United States. If he can bomb the nation's enemies overseas without a court's approval, he certainly can listen to their conversations.

The President has specific powers to prosecute war including Public Law 107-243:

“…The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary… to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations…”


The War Powers Act excludes another area of the law, USSID 18, communications which are known to be to or from U.S. persons can't be intentionally intercepted without: (a) the approval of the FISA court is obtained; OR (b) the approval of the Attorney General of the United States with respect to "communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside the United States...international communications" and other categories of communications including for the purpose of collecting "significant foreign intelligence information."

So,no warrants are required if the Attorney General gives the nod AND electronic transmissions that leave the borders of the USA require no warrant whatsoever.

We gaurantee this decision will be overturned. Bank on it.


"We"? It sounds like you're claiming to be with the terrorists who hate our freedoms (i.e., those who control the U.S. government).

The NSA doesn't just listen to foreign communications, it listens to the communications of U.S. citizens in the U.S without warrants of "probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." That obviously violates Amendment IV of the U.S. Constitution.

But then, terrorist-supporters such as yourself are known for your criminality, dishonesty, brutality, and perversion:


Prisonplanet ? You jest.

Be concise,please. No one, and I mean no one, is going to read that screed.

1/3 of the USA lives in an alternate reality. Or have a 9/10 mentality,which obviously includes yourself. This mentality can best be described as those who think fascist islam is merely a law enforcement issue. Wait for terrorists to launch their weapons,kill thousands then issue arrest warrants,give foreigners full Constitutional rights and try them in a court of law.

The rest of us realize what fascist islam is,where it began and what the koran says. We prefer to hunt them down and kill them first.

And I gaurantee the decision will be reversed. It is that bad and that poorly writtten. You`ll rue the day when it is and I come back to qoute you,then tease you 8)

There were only a relative few links to PrisonPlanet.com, and the value of most of those said links are that they give mainstream media documentation. Most of the links were to news articles by such news agencies as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, Newsweek, NBC, CBS, BBC, etc.

And yes, you have made quite clear that you are with the terrorists who hate our freedoms. You have strongly come to the support of the terrorists who committed the 9/11 attacks. You have herein supported said terrorists' literal torture, rape and murder of innocent people (including children), and have gone along with the terrorists' justifications for torturing innocent little children, even if it means by crushing children's testicles. You have announced yourself to the world as being a brutal and warped pervert who supports the sexual and physical torture of innocent little children. That you proudly stand with the terrorists is not in doubt, as you have made your support for the terrorists quite clear.

[tsluver247]

Let`s be clear,there is no "wiretapping" going on. This goes back to Clinton`s project Echelon and his clipperchip.

Now the decision. Have you read judge taylor`s decision? It`s less legal and much more a political screed.

This horribly written opinion will be overturned,gauranteed.

That said,she`s in a conflict of interest aka,in cahoots with the aclu:


Here's an old bit of text which obviously means nothing to you, White_Male_Canada:

The Constitution of the United States of America:

Amendment IV (1791)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


The president has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to defend the United States. If he can bomb the nation's enemies overseas without a court's approval, he certainly can listen to their conversations.

The President has specific powers to prosecute war including Public Law 107-243:

“…The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary… to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations…”


The War Powers Act excludes another area of the law, USSID 18, communications which are known to be to or from U.S. persons can't be intentionally intercepted without: (a) the approval of the FISA court is obtained; OR (b) the approval of the Attorney General of the United States with respect to "communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside the United States...international communications" and other categories of communications including for the purpose of collecting "significant foreign intelligence information."

So,no warrants are required if the Attorney General gives the nod AND electronic transmissions that leave the borders of the USA require no warrant whatsoever.

We gaurantee this decision will be overturned. Bank on it.

Too bad you can not bank on the the President and the rubber-stamp Republican controlled congress to do their duty and protect the Constitution. This is an obvious violation of the Constitution. Read the liberterian Cato Institute Site: Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush (http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&method=cats&scid=15&pid=1441309). George Bush has abuse his executive authority.

[tsluver247]

Let`s be clear,there is no "wiretapping" going on. This goes back to Clinton`s project Echelon and his clipperchip.

Now the decision. Have you read judge taylor`s decision? It`s less legal and much more a political screed.

This horribly written opinion will be overturned,gauranteed.

That said,she`s in a conflict of interest aka,in cahoots with the aclu:

For Immediate Release


U.S. District Judge Who Presided Over Government Wiretapping Case May Have Had Conflict of Interest


(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and judicial abuse, announced today that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who last week ruled the government’s warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional, serves as a Secretary and Trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case (ACLU et. al v. National Security Agency). Judicial Watch discovered the potential conflict of interest after reviewing Judge Diggs Taylor’s financial disclosure statements.



According to her 2003 and 2004 financial disclosure statements, Judge Diggs Taylor served as Secretary and Trustee for the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan (CFSEM). She was reelected to this position in June 2005. The official CFSEM website states that the foundation made a “recent grant” of $45,000 over two years to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan, a plaintiff in the wiretapping case. Judge Diggs Taylor sided with the ACLU of Michigan in her recent decision.



According to the CFSEM website, “The Foundation’s trustees make all funding decisions at meetings held on a quarterly basis.”



“This potential conflict of interest merits serious investigation,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “If Judge Diggs Taylor failed to disclose this link to a plaintiff in a case before her court, it would certainly call into question her judgment.”



(Judge Diggs Taylor is also the presiding judge in another case where she may have a conflict of interest. The Arab Community Center for Social and Economic Services (ACCESS) is a defendant in another case now before Judge Diggs Taylor’s court [Case No. 06-10968 (Mich. E.D.)]. In 2003, the CFSEM donated $180,000 to ACCESS.)



Click here to read Judge Diggs Taylor’s financial disclosure statements.

Click here to read the CFSEM’s list of recent grants. (See page 3.)


http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_5862.shtml

It is funny how you mention the conflict of interest. It did not stop Supreme Justice Alito during the Vanguard case. When Alito was question on the issue by Feingold, he replied "Well, under the Code of Judicial Conduct, I don’t believe that I am required to recuse myself in Vanguard cases. And I would strictly comply with the ethical obligations that apply to a Supreme Court justice." I guess it depends what side you are on to form your argument.

[guyone]

It's actually pretty simple. The Forth Amendment clearly states 'unreasonable'. In a time of war this action is very reasonable. A higher court which actually spends more time on Earth will smell the LSD emanating from the decision and reverse it.

This is America where 'progressive' Judges can contribute to the destruction of the country. It's their right.

[chefmike]

It's actually pretty simple. The Forth Amendment clearly states 'unreasonable'. In a time of war this action is very reasonable. A higher court which actually spends more time on Earth will smell the LSD emanating from the decision and reverse it.

This is America where 'progressive' Judges can contribute to the destruction of the country. It's their right.


In a time of war?

Would this be the civil war that shrubya and his neocon masters have spawned in Iraq?

Or the war on civil rights that was spawned by the so-called patriot act?

[thombergeron]

It's actually pretty simple. The Forth Amendment clearly states 'unreasonable'. In a time of war this action is very reasonable. A higher court which actually spends more time on Earth will smell the LSD emanating from the decision and reverse it.

This is America where 'progressive' Judges can contribute to the destruction of the country. It's their right.

A couple of problems with this:

By statute, the United States is not currently at war. We can rattle sabers and foam at the mouth all we want, but in the U.S., war is a matter of law.

And even so, there is no precedent for allowing warrantless searches during a time of war. The entire body of established Fourth Amendment case law defines searches conducted wihtout the consent of a judge or magistrate as per se "unreasonable."

Congress enacted FISA to address the conflict between the requirements of the Fourth Amendment and exigencies of national security. But the NSA's "secret program" ignored FISA. That's why it's illegal.

You're right. It is pretty simple. Just not the way you think.

[tsluver247]

It's actually pretty simple. The Forth Amendment clearly states 'unreasonable'. In a time of war this action is very reasonable. A higher court which actually spends more time on Earth will smell the LSD emanating from the decision and reverse it.

This is America where 'progressive' Judges can contribute to the destruction of the country. It's their right.

What happened to the Mission Accomplish in 2003? Did Bush lied to the American people again? Did Dick Cheney lie to the American people when he said that the insurgency is in its last throes? Bush talked about a long war and has pushed around his executive power.

Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush (http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&method=cats&scid=15&pid=1441309)

Treachery revealed!!!

Listen to this idiots language on the ruling,

Anthony Romero called Taylor's opinion "another nail in the coffin in the Bush administration's legal strategy in the war on terror."

A "Nail in the coffin" on the legal strategy on the war on terror?

Are these people Americans or ideologists? The constitution is not a static instrument. It seems that in matters of national security, faced with a kind of war our founding fathers never dreamed of, article 2 TRUMPS issues of privacy.

Thank god the ACLU had no influence during WW2, otherwise you'd all be sucking dick in german.

[tsluver247]

Treachery revealed!!!

Listen to this idiots language on the ruling,

Anthony Romero called Taylor's opinion "another nail in the coffin in the Bush administration's legal strategy in the war on terror."

A "Nail in the coffin" on the legal strategy on the war on terror?

Are these people Americans or ideologists? The constitution is not a static instrument. It seems that in matters of national security, faced with a kind of war our founding fathers never dreamed of, article 2 TRUMPS issues of privacy.

Thank god the ACLU had no influence during WW2, otherwise you'd all be sucking dick in german.

Not according to American Bar Association (http://www.abanet.org/op/greco/memos/commonwealthclub06072006.pdf)

Driveby innuendo again!

You don't dare put any substance behind your random, shallow posts because if you did you know you're empty postulations would be handily dismantled.