www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall US judge rules wiretaps illegal

A secret wiretapping scheme brought in as part of the Bush administration's war on terror is unconstitutional and must stop, a federal judge has ruled.

The programme, approved by President Bush in 2001, allows for the monitoring of millions of US citizens' phone calls abroad without the need for a warrant.

Civil liberties campaigners brought the case against the programme, which was uncovered by the US media.

The White House says the scheme is legal and is seeking an appeal.

In her 43-page ruling on the case, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit said that the surveillance programme violated protections on free speech and privacy.

"Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our constitution," Judge Taylor wrote.

Stinging rebuke

White House spokesman Tony Snow said: "We couldn't disagree more with this ruling."

The programme is "firmly grounded in law and regularly reviewed to make sure steps are taken to protect civil liberties," he said in a statement.

He said the Justice Department had launched an appeal and a hearing was set for 7 September. The judge's ruling is on hold while the appeals process is under way.

"We're going to do everything we can do in the courts to allow this programme to continue," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told a news conference.

The judge's ruling is a stinging rebuke to President George W Bush over what he has called a vital tool in the war on terror, says the BBC's James Westhead, in Washington.

Mr Bush authorised the Terrorist Surveillance Programme, as the secret interception scheme is known, after the 9/11terror attacks.

But after the programme was uncovered by the media a year ago, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit arguing that the secret interception of US phone calls was unconstitutional.

The ACLU welcomed the judge's ruling. "It's a sound rejection and rebuttal to the Bush administration argument on the war on terror," said executive director Anthony Romero.

The ruling is a further set back for the president's self-proclaimed wartime powers, our correspondent says.

He has already been rebuked by the US Supreme Court over his plans to try suspects being held in Guantanamo Bay. The Supreme Court stated that the president did not have a blank cheque.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/5260892.stm

Published: 2006/08/18 08:36:41 GMT

I wonder how many assurances of radical Islam's intentions we need?

CDL

This is very sad. We are at war.

It makes me feel a lot less secure about the imminence of another catastrophic terrorist attack. President Bush has done a terrific job of trying to protect us since the fateful day of 9/11/01. With one less tool of ammunition against the enemy, it is just a matter of time now.

Alice

Let us pray that Taylor's dangerous ruling is overturned on appeal.

CDL

Dear Professor Dan,

Right now, we are less safe than we were before the Iraqi war.

The international conflict involving terrorism is only deepening.

President Bush and his administration haven't done anything to ameliorate the situation - and I'm not blaming them since it is very complex.

It is all so sad.

But the USA should be more concerned about its ability to be culturally competent in an international context.

It still continues to get an "F" grade in this department.

Your great General MacArthur should be the role model for anti-terrorism efforts.

It was that general's trained ability to understand cultures that enabled him to read his enemy's mind sufficiently so as to defeat him.

Let's remember that he strenuously opposed the use of the A bomb against Japan. It was he who did the unthinkable for a military man when he bypassed hundreds of islands in the Pacific, leaving the Japanese soldiers on them as he made his way directly for Tokyo, cutting their supply lines etc.

Americans seem to think that "culture" is what you find in Manhatten and Hollywood and that English is the universal language etc.

It is the U.S. culture itself that is the greatest stumbling block against winning the war on terrorism.

Alex

Sadly, you are correct. Then again Jesse Jackson is good at rhetoric but is not a leader I'd follow.

Mr. Bush made an excellent speech on the ruins of the WTC, but has not shown much ability to make speeches since then. However, it's hard to make convincing arguments against many of his actions.

1. We do need to pay better attention to national security.

2. We do need to correct the SS problems we face.

3. We do need to inspire entreprenurial activities.

There are two positions he's taken that I disagree with:

1. The prescription drug plan for seniors. It seems too costly. But I won't hesitate to use it when I reach the required age.

2. The number of programs he's supported which has pushed us into debt.

I think our overall efforts to create more democratic environments in Muslim dominated nations may prove to be a failure but time will tell. It better to try than to do nothing.

CDL

Dear Dan,

There's a ray of hope though!

With Americans like you, I think the USA might just pull through!

Cheers,

Alex

But a Canadian might ask, "What terrorism?"

Dear Alex,

You must have a hyper-stereotype view of us "Americans" - assuming Americans are only U. S. citizens. But if that is what other Americans perceive us to be then their world-view is even more limited and narrow. I thought you were more educated than that.

As for English being the universal language, just ask Indians and the Chinese. English is a mandatory class in their education. Even the late Mother Theresa of Calcutta adopted English as their order's international lingua Franca.

Joe

Professor Alex,

I didn't see the rest of your post. There are some things with which I disagree. Your reference to our cultural misunderstandings of Muslim culture are partly correct, but I don't think that they are entirely correct. I believe that events have shown that Muslim people in both Afghanistan and Iraq are more open to change than are their sometimes Facist influenced leaders. I believe their openness is not anti-Islamic nor is our encouragement for those changes.

Much more could be said but I must get my syllabi into the chairs of the departments. Classes begin Monday.

On General MacArthur. You have forgotten to mention that he was in favor of nuking the Chinese during the Korean war. President Truman had to reign him in.

CDL

BTW Not all of us are enamoured with Hollywood morality down here. Yet, I think your point is that this is the face that many see first outside our borders. Elinor Burkitt in her travelogue of her visit in the various Islamic countries of South Asia takes note that for most on the street Muslims the religion is nominal. Many gobble up American "culture" with a vengeance. They tend not to digest the work ethic of America and so they complain bitterly, have posters about, and burn American flags over the fact that we ruined their socialist gravy train when we helped bring down the USSR.

It is indeed complex.

CDL

I've heard this argument used time and time again by certain pundits, but I don't understand the analogy at all. India and China learn a second and third language - English, therefore US citizens shouldn't learn any more? That makes no sense. If Indians and Chinese are learning English, maybe US-ers should learn Hindi and Chinese to keep up! Spanish and French SHOULD already be a given.

By the way - English isn't anymore a "universal language" than Spanish, French, Chinese, or Arabic. When one wants to do business, one learns whatever it takes to keep the money flowing - it has nothing to do with the universality of English.

What do you call someone who speaks three languages? Answer: Tri-lingual.

What do you call someone who speaks two languages? Answer: Bi-lingual.

What do you call somone who speaks one language? Answer: An American.

I know it's old and hoary, but it's appropriate here. America would be far better off if at least one additional language were required, and at a very early age, rather than waiting until the mind is fixed in high school.

I think this is a very good thing. The program was clearly illegal, I thought. Apparently so does the judge.

Anyway, those labeling themselves "conservative" would stereotypically be pleased by something like this, i.e. less government, less prying, etc. And those considered "liberal" would generally promote such a program.

Logos Teen

Balogne. I don't label myself at all except in one way. I'm quite willing to have communications between known international criminals monitored. I don't wish to endanger those I love just so I can be labelled either conservative or liberal.

CDL

Bush has consistently showed a lack of regard for the checks and balances laid out in the Constitution, an unwillingness or unability to admit mistakes, a lack of regard for our freedoms, a lack of regard for the truth, and he is perhaps the most secretive President we've ever had. I'm glad of this ruling. I would also say that people who are willing to trade in their freedom for so-called security are a people who are ready to be ruled by a dictator-which is exactly what Bush has acted like.

Setting aside whether or not I agree with your diatribe I take offense at calling our president by his last name only. I don't think St. Paul has much use for this practice either.

Romans 13 1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God�s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God�s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience� sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God�s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

CDL