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.
I rarely agree with the ACLU , but this time one has in fact been scored for freedom .
__________________
Kevin Haendiges
NAHC Life Member
NRA Member
Wildlife Forever Member
GOA Member
Buckmasters Member
http://hunting-indiana.com
This lady is nothing but another liberal activist judge. She's just a puppet. She campaigned for Carter (coward treasonist [:'(]) and he got her this gig. Now she's just trying to get her name in the news.
Maybe she'll change her mind when one of her kids is killed by a terrorist because she wouldn't let the men in black do their thing.
__________________
Member of Team "REAPERS OF THE HARVEST"
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House "couldn't disagree more" with a federal judge's order on Thursday to halt the National Security Agency's program of domestic eavesdropping.
White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Bush administration's "Terrorist Surveillance Program" is "firmly grounded in law and regularly reviewed to make sure steps are taken to protect civil liberties."
"We couldn't disagree more with this ruling, and the Justice Department will seek an immediate stay of the opinion and appeal," Snow said in a statement.
yes, im awaiting bush's annoucement that he is dissolving the senate and proclaiming himself Emperor of the North American Empire.
democracy has failed again..
The Great Decider gets to choose what is in the best interest of the nation give the current climate and the fact that there is a world war on against terrorsim.
I believethat thisis just a technicality they are stuck on, fix it so it is not against theconstitutionandthis evenually will go through...there are reasons for this as in catching bad guys in the act....go git 'em GW....
I believethat thisis just a technicality they are stuck on, fix it so it is not against theconstitutionandthis evenually will go through...there are reasons for this as in catching bad guys in the act....go git 'em GW....
Its an easy technicality to get around, all they gotta do is get a warrant.they want wiretaps, they can get a warrant, they want video survieliance, theres warrants for that to.They want to search, sieze records, anything like that, theres warrants to be had that would cover all of it.Isnt privacy a right in this country?
The suspected terrorists' privacy is of no import; ALL US citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The U.S. Constitution is one of the most remarkable governing documents ever drafted in human history. I'm all for getting the bad guys. I am NOT for shredding our constitution to do so. we do that, bad guys win.
The U.S. Constitution is one of the most remarkable governing documents ever drafted in human history. I'm all for getting the bad guys. I am NOT for shredding our constitution to do so. we do that, bad guys win.
I hear this argument an awful lot, but it seems to me that the bad guys win if they simplykill us. What does the Constitution have to do with a terrorist victory? They're trying to blow up passenger jets, not take over the government.
I've gone back and forth on this . . . From loathing the practice to being wholeheartedly in favor of it. Honestly, I see both sides of the equation, but I'm not sure where I stand.
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
I am wondering if we as North Americans should be so rigid in applying our constitutions to current climate and terrorist era, should we not be able to ammend the constitution so that we retain our rights but also give the flexiblitlity to our agencies to do the job to get the bad guys?
Judge nixes warantless surveilance
