YOU WIN SOME, YOU LOSE SOME…YOU DIE SOME
This is a HUGE SURPRISE! The already shaky underpinnings of the Bush dictatorship received a crippling blow that may help collapse the entire, rotten edifice:
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 as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.
“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 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 listening to conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.
(Bias? What media Bias? “…[S]ecretly listening to conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries” conjures up the men in the black van hunched over their magic decoder machine listening in while Auntie Midge talks to her sister in Budapest. If the judge based her decision on what was known about the program, this description of it is so far off from the truth of the matter as to not even be in the same galaxy.)
I can barely type this through my tears of joy. Lambchop and all the civil libertarian absolutists who have battled to save the soul of America lo these many years by trying to make the world safe for journalists, academics, lawyers, and their terrorist contacts overseas are to receive all the plaudits of a grateful nation.
Do you think a parade for these heroes is enough? Perhaps a laurel wreath of triumph and gratitude to be placed upon their fetid brow? How about (eliminationist rhetoric warning) a rope around their necks?
After all, what do you think the penalty was during World War II if a journalist, or scholar, or lawyer was found to be in contact with a member of the Nazi party in Germany? I can guarantee that the FBI took a very dim view of such contacts. I guess they figured if you couldn’t do your job unless you were talking to the enemy, that kinda made you, ya know, like, the enemy too.
But then, World War II was a real war, not this trumped up, ginned up political sideshow hatched by Evil Karl and Shrub in order to make their buddies in the military industrial complex rich and instill terror in the hearts of Americans so that they would vote for Republicans rather than Democrats in elections. This, after all, is no fair at all. Since Democrats could give a sh*t about national security, elections should avoid this issue at all costs. Better to have elections hinge on Democratic issues of taxing the rich (anyone who makes over $25,000 a year), enslaving the poor, handcuffing businesses, and playing pattycakes with the thugs in Hamas, Hizbullah, and any other dirty necked galoot (especially that radioactive elf in Tehran) who can prove that Shrub is at fault for all the troubles in the world.
There was one bright spot in the judge’s ruling. That other top secret program that liberals say was an impeachable offense and was proof of the President’s march to dictatorship that uses data mining techniques to develop information on terrorist networks was declared “constitutional” after all.
Maybe we could get that gizmo they used in Men in Black and flash the entire world, replacing the memory of people having information on that program with a recipe for my Aunt Donna’s corned beef and cabbage.
Oh, that’s right. No such gizmo exists. I guess we’ll just have to ask for an apology from the press and a great big “never mind” for revealing it in the first place. I await the day that happens with as much anticipation as I await the day that Ned Lamont takes his rightful seat on one of the most influential bodies in the world - the Connecticut Port-o-Potty Authority.
And no, we’re not going to ask liberals to apologize. After all, they were looking out for all of our interests. Even the interests of the terrorists who, after all, are almost human too. Better that 100,000 Americans die than one terrorist suspect in this country have a conversation monitored with his Aunt Beddie Boo in Damascus. (I sympathize. I had an Aunt Beddie Boo in Damascus m’self once).
Leave it to Goldstein to crystallize thinking and reveal the truth of the matter:
Even still, it’s amazing that we’ve reached the nuance point where only by revealing secrets can we show the the secrets in question should not be revealed, lest they damage programs meant to protect us from attacks, which only work while details of how they work remain secret.
Perhaps we can just tie stones to the NSA program, put it in a lake, and see if it floats. If it does, it is clearly unconstitutional and should be hanged. If it drowns from the weight of its own revealed legality, everyone will know for certain that it wasn’t, in fact, unconstitutional. Which, helluva lot of good that does us, sure.
But it’s the thought that counts.
And what I’m thinking at this moment (Warning: more eliminationist rhetoric) about the civil liberties absolutists who revealed both these programs would get me 20 years to life in the real world.
[...] UPDATE II: Looks like I was a little late: AJ Strata has more on the ruling. Also: Wizbang; Michelle Malkin. Rick Moran - tell it son! [...]
Pingback by Macsmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense » Blog Archive » Judge orders halt to NSA program - Look for an overturn on appeal — 8/17/2006 @ 2:11 pm
My stomach turned when the news came through on the tv tube about the ruling this morning. Appeals are underway and the government has asked for a stay in the ruling while under appeal.
So much for the horror of data mining. Nice try by the haters, though.
Great post.
Comment by Karen — 8/17/2006 @ 2:13 pm
And, in the future, we will hear much of another wonderful phrase reminding us of the medieval nature of our libertarian protectors:
“Bring Our Your Dead!”
But we will be so free (Hallelujah, Praise de Lord) of intruding government while we dig ourselves out of another 9/11.
Comment by SShiell — 8/17/2006 @ 3:41 pm
Judge nixes warrantless surveillance
A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government’s warrantless wiretapping program is unconstituti
Trackback by Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator — 8/17/2006 @ 3:51 pm
[...] Rightwing Nuthouse [...]
Pingback by Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Carter Lackey Overturns Program That Protects This Country — 8/17/2006 @ 5:13 pm
Let me make it easy for you:
America has a set of rules called the Constitution. There is also a set of Amendments to this document.
To follow these rules:
Wire tapping terrorists with a warrent good
Wiretapping terrorists without a warrent bad
Or you could just ignore the Constitution if you are an enemy of America or a rotten coward. Your choice.
tthti
Comment by tthti — 8/17/2006 @ 5:25 pm
I’m going to demand the airline security screeners produce a warrant next time they try to search me.
After all, if it’s “unreasonable” to listen in on phone conversations without a warrant when one end of the conversation is terrorist-connected, then surely in is unreasonable to search me, who just wants to make it back to the east coast to visit my family.
Comment by Jeff G — 8/17/2006 @ 5:53 pm
No, the enemy and the rotten cowards are those who hate this president so much that they would do anything, including ignoring national security, for some bizarre thrill of disrupting any agenda of this administration.
You and others like you have put millions at risk because of this idiotic vendetta. Hopefully actions like this ruling will motivate those voters who can make a difference in Nov. to defeat those like yourself who have little or no disregard for the safety of their fellow Americans.
Comment by GW — 8/17/2006 @ 7:25 pm
I think we all know that if the government has reason to believe we’re talking on the phone to terrorists, they can indeed listen in for a period of time whilst they get their warrant. No request for such a warrant has ever been turned down, to my knowledge. We all want the terrorists to be under surveillance (and to be apprehended and imprisoned). There was and is no need to break the law to listen in on such conversations. Bush broke the law in a manner that further cements the sweeping powers of the executive branch over which he and puppet master Cheney salivate. And you want to give him a free pass. Clinton “breaks the law” by lying about a blow job, an event in his personal life that harms no one and in no way threatens our Constitution, and the right insists on impeachment. Go figure.
Comment by richard — 8/17/2006 @ 9:18 pm
GW, you have to document how circumventing the established legal procedures put anyone’s life in danger.
“No, the enemy and the rotten cowards are those who hate this president so much that they would do anything, including ignoring national security, for some bizarre thrill of disrupting any agenda of this administration.”
Luckily, no one on the right ever tried to disrupt the Clinton administration just for the bizarre thrill of it all.
I really think you are off. George Will, John Derbyshire, Mort Zuckerman and a host of conservative bloggers and pundits have spoken out against Bush’s power grabs. This is not Bush dementia syndrome, it’s called the American way of life, where our government is accountable to its citizens, and where it adheres to the Constitution we all love so much.
Comment by richard — 8/17/2006 @ 9:22 pm
Judge Rules NSA Wiretapping Of Enemies In “the War On Terror of this administration” Unconstitutional
Not being a lawyer myself, I figured fisking Judge Anna Diggs Taylor’s opinion while pretending to know legalese might be a waste of your time. Luckily, there are plenty of smart legal minds in blogosphere that have already weighed-in and…
Trackback by The Political Pit Bull — 8/17/2006 @ 11:38 pm
After all, if it’s “unreasonable†to listen in on phone conversations without a warrant when one end of the conversation is terrorist-connected, then surely in is unreasonable to search me, who just wants to make it back to the east coast to visit my family.
Problem is, kids, FISA, which is virtually never turned down, and which warrants can be gotten AFTER the actual search/eavesdrop, etc., demand a paper trail. And a secret one at that.
Absent a paper trail, we have exactly no idea whether the Gov’t is telling the truth about whom they are eavesdropping on. And the English arrest, which is starting to look like that crucial arrest in Miami a while back is seriousness, was all handled with, you know, warrants. Almost as if they had a constitution.
Comment by SteveAudio — 8/18/2006 @ 1:47 am
ACLU vs NSA Leftist Judge Rules Unconstitutional
I am way too angry to post on this story even when it broke yesterday, this is being appealed and anyone with a half brain would agree that this is a vital tool in tracking terrorists. A MUST, please put more ears on the phones A.S.A.P. I agree w ……
Trackback by Assorted Babble by Suzie — 8/18/2006 @ 2:24 am
Toghe rosse a Detroit
Se non vi fidate troppo di come stanno raccontando in Italia la sentenza di un giudice federale di Detroit, che ha dichiarato incostituzionale il “Terrorist Surveillance Program” voluto dall’amministrazione Bush dopo l’11 settembre, vi consiglio di…
Trackback by The Right Nation — 8/18/2006 @ 6:45 am
Yesterday’s ruling on the NSA’s warrantless wiretaps
By now you’ve all already heard the story about United States District Court (Detroit) Judge Anna Diggs Taylor’s ruling on the NSA’s warrantless wiretaps program, where suspicious calls originating in the US but going out overseas are…
Trackback by Sister Toldjah — 8/18/2006 @ 9:18 am
Yesterday’s ruling on the NSA’s warrantless wiretaps
By now you’ve all already heard the story about United States District Court (Detroit) Judge Anna Diggs Taylor’s ruling on the NSA’s warrantless wiretaps program, where suspicious calls originating in the US but going out overseas are…
Trackback by Sister Toldjah — 8/18/2006 @ 9:18 am
Richard- Please take the link that The Political Pit Bull gives you above and educate yourself on why this judge and others like her are wrong and are playing out a dangerous political agenda. Who cares if Clinton was mistreated. Your hate is very blinding.
http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2006/08/warlaw_the_nsa.php
Comment by GW — 8/18/2006 @ 11:33 am
I’m going to demand the airline security screeners produce a warrant next time they try to search me.
After all, if it’s “unreasonable†to listen in on phone conversations without a warrant when one end of the conversation is terrorist-connected, then surely in is unreasonable to search me, who just wants to make it back to the east coast to visit my family.
I think you meant this sarcastically but actually you are right on the money. There is no reason for you to be searched before going on a plane. Maybe if the people on the planes during the 9/11 tragedy had been armed with civil liberties and a few weapons, they might still be alive. Unfortunately only the terrorists had box cutters and that hideously small weapon put them in control.
Let the criminals run where they may, preferrably right into granny with her sawed-off shotgun under her shawl on the porch
Comment by Debs — 8/18/2006 @ 1:54 pm
Richard-
If Clinton had been doing his job instead of getting one, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in now. To think that the government need to get a warrant to gather foreign intell indicates that you’re thinking more about blow jobs than you are protecting your fellow citizens. Go figure.
Comment by trentk269 — 8/18/2006 @ 7:24 pm