The NSA's terrorist surveillance program was instrumental in stopping the British terrorists from blowing up airliners over the Atlantic Ocean.

You are so full of shit, Kim. The eavesdropping instrumental in stopping that plot was acquired by getting warrants from the FISA court:

In the days before the alleged airliner bombing plot was exposed, more than 200 FBI agents followed up leads inside the United States looking for potential connections to British and Pakistani suspects. The investigation was so large, officials said, that it brought a significant surge in warrants for searches and surveillance from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret panel that oversees most clandestine surveillance.

One official estimated that scores of secret U.S. warrants were dedicated solely to the London plot. The government usually averages a few dozen a week for all counterintelligence investigations, according to federal statistics.

The purpose of the recent warrants included monitoring telephone calls that some of the London suspects made to the United States, two sources said.

No matter how many times you lie about it, the objection has always been eavesdropping without court oversight, not eavesdropping entirely. The London plot was foiled by doing it legally, and no one objects to wiretapping with warrants. I for one have had enough of your bullshit.

call me a dhimmi-conspiracy theorist (or just a flat-out asshole); but, something about a ruling like this coming from Detroit (home to the largest muslim popultion in America) by a liberal Democrat (who campaigned for Carter, no less) who has a history of siding with the ACLU ...

hm

Yes, the Judge is a Democrap. And a Jimmy Earl Carter appointee, no less.

Sheesh. Let the Appeals Courts clean up this mess now.

I don't practice law in this area, but I would think the National Security of the country would lead Fed. Appeals Court to stay the order pending appellate review. If this ain't stayable, I don't know what the hell is.

Here's a surprise, guess who nominated her to the 6th...

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2345
http://www.daahp.wayne.edu/biographiesDisplay.asp?id=64

Looks like th good ole ACLU did a little Judge shopping when they filed that lawsuit...

Figures.

Violates free speech and privacy?

Foreign nationals have no US constitutional rights to free speech or privacy, so this 'ruling' can only apply to US citizens.

As I understand it, the only free speech 'repressed' would center in areas regarding terrorism, right? That's because computer software programs are doing the 'listening' and 'flagging' conversations to review by specialists when 'trigger' words are used.

AND, as the goal is effectiveness, those calls targeted are between known and suspected foreign terrorists and those engaged in conversations with the terrorists...

So the judge has ruled that US terrorist supporters have a right to free speech and privacy in the pursuit of goals which would end the 'American experiment' and most certainly the lives of the Judge, the ACLU and all of their supporters.

How 'noble', to take the position that better a dead but once free people than one living but compromised in principle.

Intellectual vanity, taken to the point of using the US Constitution as national and civilizational suicide.

I think it is forum shopping. Why Detroit, for God's sake?

It should have been brought where the FISA court sits in D.C. But that wouldn't have gotten the ACLU the result it was shopping for.

Looks like th good ole ACLU did a little Judge shopping when they filed that lawsuit...

Judges are assigned randomly, Greg.

I think it is forum shopping. Why Detroit, for God's sake?

There are currently four cases on this issue. The Michigan one is the first to arrive at a ruling.

Posted by: mantis at August 17, 2006 12:59 PM

What are the other three?

Judges are assigned randomly, Greg.

Mantis, read the facts in THIS CASE before you shoot your mouth off.

Mantis, read the facts in THIS CASE before you shoot your mouth off.

The facts of this case are irrelevant. The District Court of Eastern Michigan assigns judges randomly.

What were you saying about shooting your mouth off?

mantis: Regarding your opening comments, are you unable to speak forcefully without using obscenities?

Mantis's mouth is just like old "pucker puss" (lee lee)'s--it has a permanent pucker.

While Mantis is largely blowing smoke ("I for one have had enough of your bullshit." - so what the heck are you still doing here commenting and commenting and commenting? Guess you haven't had enough, have you?), it's correct that this ruling shouldn't be blown out of proportion or compared incorrectly. There is nothing in the ruling that will affect us from pursuing wiretaps in the presence of actionable intelligence (in other words, when we can get a warrant) as happened with the recent airline case (at least my understanding is that the ruling does not stop such surveillance, what with it being up and down the line in accordance with the FISA law). The potential problem is the time lag between the ruling and it being overturned (as is almost certainly will, given prior FISA rulings on Presidential authority), assuming that the administration decides to hang up the phones for that period instead of asking for warrants in each and every case, even when they know one will not be granted. The cost will be astronomical in terms of lawyer man-hours, and the court will be overwhelmed with the requests that they have to evaluate and then rule on, but it's probably the right thing to do. The question is how this serves any purpose to the ACLU? Basically there is nothing to keep the NSA from listening, as long as they then apply for a warrant, unlike, for example, routine police search warrants that you have to get first. If the warrant is denied...oh well, all that means is the data collected cannot be used in a criminal case. They will still have complied with the law (provided they make a realistic attempt to justify the request, which should be simple when one party is a known or highly suspected terrorist), but, like an improper search, the 'evidence' will be thrown out. Except in this case, the call record that gets thrown out will be useless material, because if there was anything actionable in it they would get their after-the-fact warrant. I must admit I don't understand all the fuss, other than tying up the AG and government lawywers, as well as the FISA court, I'm not sure what you're going to accomplish. Given the ability to apply retroactively for warrants all you have to do is apply for one every time. I guess that's what the ACLU wants, the AG says it's a pointless exercise ('we're going to listen to terrorists' phone calls, if they say anything that would trigger a warrant we'll get one, if they don't say anything to justify a warrant during that particular conversation, we're not going to waste everyone's time asking for one'). We'll see. I'm not nearly as disturbed by the ruling as I thought I might be. Mostly I'm ticked about the expense...this isn't going to shut down 'hot' investigations.

Regarding FISA warrants, oversight and the London conspiracy.

The London conspiracy was discovered long ago and thus there was plenty of time and evidence to pursue FISA procedures.

FISA alone is inadequate for dealing with terrorism's cellular nature.

To suggest otherwise is to reveal a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the terrorist threat.

To focus on 'legalities' and baseless fears of 'reduced' freedoms in a time of war with an existential threat is to reveal incompetence.

To posit that Judicial and Congressional 'oversight' is required is to reveal a desire to replace singular executive administration with 'rule by committee.

No 'committee' ever won any war.

Lose this war and their will be only one set of laws.

Sharia.

Well, it is unconstitutional.

Doesn't mean it is of no benefit. Doesn't mean the ultimate ruling won't allow it - look at Kelo, after all; the Supremes no longer follow the Constitution.

None of that changes what is.

Mantis:

The recent investigative work was accomplished thru FISA. No information has been declassified that points to how the plot was discovered. We probably will never know how it was discovered, unless the NY Times decides to leak the information.

Also, I hope W pulls a President Jackson (remember him, one of your great Democratic presidents?)and tells the court to stuff it.

Isn't it great that our taxpayer dollars allow an organization like the ACLU to shotgun cases around the country, taht are designed to lose the War on Terror? Almost makes one nostalgic for the Sedition Act of our early history.

It's creeps like the ACLU and Democrap Judges like Taylor that would strike down a seperate line at the airport for Muslems and making Muslems wear Yellow Cresents on thier outer clothing.

Unpatriotic America haters !! All of them ! We will surely die now thanks to the Godless ACLU and Democrats

Atu

As an attorney practicing for more years than I care to member, be assured this will be overturned in the 6th circuit. Putting all politics aside, law is not made by a sole individual. That is truly why we have appellate courts.

And an issue as important as this one -- both from a security level and with certain political ramifications in light of recent events and upcoming November elections -- would find its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if need be!

Trust me, it will not be decided by one individual.

Surprise, Surprise. Didn't everyone know they would Eventually dig up a Dimmy Carter/Slick Willie appointed judge (and use the term judge loosely) to make a political and not a legal decision. You can not only indict a ham sandwich before a liberal (stupid) jury, can find a Judge (liberal politician) to make any decision the anti-american socialist/communist wing of the democratic party wants.

Just read the Dimmy made the statement that Israel had 'no right' to defend itself when invaded by a terrorist organization. Truth is I spent 22 years in the military and intended to spend 25+ but got out because of Dimmy's destruction of the military capability. That is fact not fiction. Had orders to Iran in 1979, they invaded the American Embassy (same as America) and Dimmy did nothing. I retired at the earliest op. which was 1980. Someone put that senile (idiot before he became senile) in a cage and keep him there.

Just finished reading the ruling...I highly recommend it before railing against it or proudly defending it. The first 3/4 are excellent reading. The last 1/4 could, and has, I'm sure, appear on Kos. First, the good:
- the judge openly and repeatedly points out that the program is completely and utterly INTERNATIONAL in scope, so continue to fight the 'domestic wiretapping' parrots.
- the judge openly and repeatedly points out that the administration has claimed the program is legal, so keep fighting the 'Bush says he's above the law' looniness.

And the bad:
- as I said, the first 3/4 are good reading, it's well researched and presented...unfortunately it all leads up to the plaintiffs being given standing on the basis that they absolutely have to have the ability to communicate with terrorists without the pesky government listening in without a warrant (oddly, I didn't see the issue raised of how surveillance with a warrant would 'chill' their relationships with terrorists)
- and the last 1/4 is mostly insanity, at least as far as I can tell, the judge wanders off into 1st amendment violations, claims that the defense's argument is that their program is unconstitutional, applies mid-1900's issues to modern day communications (piles of trac phones, anyone?), fails to acknowledge the overlap between times when the surveillance resulted in warrants and those when it didn't, and discerns limitations on things like the congressional aumf that, frankly, aren't there (finding some things that aren't there are there and other things that aren't there aren't there, if you can follow that).

Three keys to take home with you:
1) this reinforces the fact that the 'domestic surveillance' meme is a lie
2) this reinforces the fact that the administration has made that claim that the program is legal, not that they are 'above the law' (although the ruling ultimately is that it is not legal, that is not the point I make here)
3) the ruling is based on the fact that the plaintiffs relationships with terrorists is 'chilled' by the program, so they have standing

My take is that, up until the last 1/4, the judge is very careful in her ruling to keep it targeted to these plaintiffs, and she does a good job, because, hey, we should all have the right to talk to terrorists if we want without fear of repurcussion, by limiting it to ruling on public statements. I think where she's going to get overturned is in finding limitations on the Presidency that other courts have specifically said are constitutional powers and her attempt to tie this to the FISA court...not that it shouldn't be, but in the way she goes about it.

It technically wasn't "judge shopping." It was "forum shopping." As another commenter above noted, there was no other reason to file suit in Eastern Michigan.

Overturned on appeal. Ho-hum.

What kind of judge thinks putting a wiretap on a phone in the Middle East requires a warrant?

What's next, warrants before we do satellite reconnaisance of places overseas?

You think this judge would feel differently if her ruling allowed terrorists to kill another 3,000+ peple. Would she say that the Constitution doesn't allow us to protect our citizens? Would she agree she's interpreted it as a "suicide pact?"

Mantis and her Judge live in an alternate universe, clearly. It's interesting to me that FISA judges, the judges tasked with interpreting this area of law, have been pretty uniform in finding the Prez. has inherent authority, and the court even penned a decision with dicta to this effect. (And, yes, I know there was one lib. judge who got off the FISA court ostensibly as a "protest" despite his being a judge, ethics bound to judge these cases, and now refusing to do so, for what purpose, exactly . . .is he indicating he thinks the FISA court is a Bush-controlled conspiracy; it's idiotic).

But we have a garden-variety fed judge in Detroit who is going to make a name for herself, so a serious discussion is damned in her courtroom.

Addison is correct, Mantis. Typical numb-nuts changing the terms of what was said here . . .

And you are the first to post here, Mantis. Are you poised at the keyboard for CNN newsflashes to type out your idiotic rants? Why here?

You really don't have a life, do you, Mantis?

The one thing that the GOP base shouldtake away from this ruling today is a determination to get out and vote this November. We cannot afford to let the Dem's have control because if we do, then they will dismantle every effort Bush ahs made to protect thiscountry from terrorists.

Not to mention that we'd be subjected to 2 years of Impeachement hearings.

If these type of things don't motivate us, then what will (short of another attack in this country).

Falze,

While Mantis is largely blowing smoke ("I for one have had enough of your bullshit." - so what the heck are you still doing here commenting and commenting and commenting? Guess you haven't had enough, have you?)

I wish she would stop lying, is all.

The question is how this serves any purpose to the ACLU? Basically there is nothing to keep the NSA from listening, as long as they then apply for a warrant, unlike, for example, routine police search warrants that you have to get first.

Yeah, what is the ACLU thinking, wanting the government to follow the law? The nerve!

d_brit,

FISA alone is inadequate for dealing with terrorism's cellular nature.

How so?

To focus on 'legalities' and baseless fears of 'reduced' freedoms in a time of war with an existential threat is to reveal incompetence.

Nice that you consider the law to be waste of time "legalities". We like our rule of law, thank you very much. As far as baseless fears, do a little reading of our history and find out how "baseless" the fears are of government violations of citizens' rights.

To posit that Judicial and Congressional 'oversight' is required is to reveal a desire to replace singular executive administration with 'rule by committee.

Read our Constitution. Separation of powers is fundamental to functioning of this democracy. Apparently you pine for the days of your all powerful King.

No 'committee' ever won any war.

The Allies did (The Atlantic Charter, Tripartite Treaty of Alliance, etc).

Lose this war and their will be only one set of laws.

If we have to get warrants to wiretap, the Muslims will take over the world!

enigma,

The recent investigative work was accomplished thru FISA. No information has been declassified that points to how the plot was discovered. We probably will never know how it was discovered, unless the NY Times decides to leak the information.

I find it hard to believe there are a bunch of government officials lying about the procurement of FISA warrants, as there would be little reason to do so.

Also, I hope W pulls a President Jackson (remember him, one of your great Democratic presidents?)and tells the court to stuff it.

That didn't actually happen the way you probably think it did. Jackson said "the decision of the supreme court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate,". Jackson's only action was to not send federal marshalls to enforce the decision, which the court did not require. The current case is not analagous to that, and if the President were to ignore the ruling he would do so at his peril. It is interesting that you like what Jackson did, considering the effect it had on the Cherokee under Van Buren (the Trail of Tears is not an admirable chapter in our history). By the way, Jackson is not one of my Presidents, as I didn't vote for him. He is one of our Presidents, as in all Americans. You are an American, right?

Isn't it great that our taxpayer dollars allow an organization like the ACLU to shotgun cases around the country, taht are designed to lose the War on Terror?

Taxpayer dollars do not fund this type of case. The only time the ACLU gets any money from taxpayers is when they win establishment cases and recoup attorney fees, as allowed by law.

Almost makes one nostalgic for the Sedition Act of our early history.

You don't have much respect at all for the Constitution, do you?

I don't understand how you can state what you have in your post Kim. As mentioned the London bombing arrests were based on warrants secured, not circumventing the law.

The meme that FISA doesn't adequately protect the country from terrorism is (a) wrong, in my opinion and (b) changeable if brought through congress.

Addressing (a) the government can spy on whomever they want at any time then get the warrant afterwards. They have three days to secure it. How does this not keep up with the cellular aspect of terrorism? Addressing (b) the judge may be a dem, may be an activist judge, my hate Bush, but by law technically what the Bush administration is doing is illegal. Either change the law or shut up. If this is such a huge deal, and the Bush administration thinks its 100% necessary (which, it isn't) why not change the law to state as such? Is it because it would be unpopular politically and the Republicans don't want to have their members to have to vote on it?

Let us not despair. We are not ruled by Dearbornistan, nor by the Courts in Michican. Appeals' Court will chuck this smelly crap.