Friday, August 18, 2006

Activist Judge Outlaws Terror Surveillance Program

Reports AOL News:

Noting "there are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by  the Constitution," a federal judge ruled Thursday that President Bush had exceeded his authority when he allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant.

It's good to hear a nice unbiased judge isn't it? Could you since my sarcasm? "There are no hereditary kings in America?" Is it just me, or is that an obvious shot at the ever-mentioned "Bush Dynasty" that liberals are constantly opining about?

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit said the surveillance by the NSA violates the rights to free speech and privacy, as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

First of all, what right to privacy? Second, in what way does it violate the sacrosanct right to free speech? I wasn't aware the government listened to us and then ran into our houses and put tape over our mouths if we were about to say something they didn't like. In fact, I was under the impression that they only listened to you if you were talking to a known terrorist overseas, and then they blew up the terrorists or stopped any terror attacks you may be planning. Sound like common sense, not a violation of the first amendment.

Of course, the Bush administration plans on appealing the case:

The Bush administration said the program is a vital tool in the fight against terrorism and said it would seek a reversal by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.   

White House press secretary Tony Snow said the Bush administration "couldn't disagree more with this ruling." He said the program carefully targets communications of suspected terrorists and "has helped stop  terrorist attacks and saved American lives."  

Taylor ordered an immediate halt to the program, but the government said it would ask for a stay of that order pending appeal. The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the suit, said it would oppose a stay but agreed to delay enforcement of the injunction until Taylor hears arguments Sept. 7.

As usual, the ACLU is involved, and, as usual, they used plants for plaintiffs. You may wonder how one could find a plaintiff against a secret program. Well, listen to this crap:

The ACLU filed the lawsuit in January 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 monitors phone calls and e-mails between people in  the U.S. and people in other countries when a link to terrorism is suspected.

First of all, boo-who. If you're making regular calls to overseas terrorists, I really don't fell for you. Second, how would this program make it hard to do your job? The government is just listening for possible evidence of terror plots, in which case they would crack-down. Unless part of being a lawyer, journalist, and scholar means planning terrorist attacks (I wouldn't be surprised) then you have nothing to worry about.

Of course, the ACLU brings up the ever flawed and useless FISA court system:

The ACLU says the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which set up a secret court to grant warrants for such surveillance, gave the government enough tools to monitor suspected terrorists.

Here's the thing, the government may get a tip of a call that needs monitoring. They may not have time to get a warrant from FISA. But why do they need one? As far as I know, the program only listens for the purpose of thwarting terror attacks, not to gather evidence for a trial.

The Justice Department said the program "is lawful and protects civil liberties..."

It protects civil liberties partly in that it keeps you from being killed by terrorists. Dead people tend to not enjoy as many liberties as the living, especially dead liberals, who believe in no life-after-death.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra had a nice line:

"It is disappointing that a judge would take it upon herself to disarm America during a time of war," Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said in a statement.  

Once again, liberals are doing their best to disarm America and give the terrorists an advantage. Their tactics of scare-mongering and demagoguery are disgusting, and their preference to power over American security is disturbing. Let's hope that this gets passed to a reasonable judge, and that America isn't dealt another severe blow in the War on Terror.

No comments: