Warrantless wiretaps ruled unconstitutionalFollow

Interesting - and this coming on administration buzz trying to get increased powers (like in Britain, on the heels of the big liquid-bomb terrorist arrests there).

An option for the Rips is to wipe out the judge's jurisdiction entirely (in this case they don't impeach the judge, they just eliminate her bench) and start over with a new one. I wonder if they'd ever get that high-handed.

I'll say. Not only is Anna Diggs Taylor a woman, but she's a black woman! Plus, according to her bioI don't know what a Wolverine Bar is but it sounds like a lesbian hang-out.

There's no way she based her court decision on constitutional law.

And a Carter appointee!

The Supreme Court will hear this case, or one of the many other versions of it making the rounds currently, sometime in the next year.

Honestly, it's a toss up whether or not they'll uphold the ruling. They did rule that Guantanomo prisoners can challenge the legality of their detention to federal courts and that federal judges have jurisdiction. However, in the same ruling, they did state that the president has the ability to detain enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens, in the war on terror.

It'll be interesting to see how the administration attempts to navigate past this one and keep its program. Which, of course, they will attempt to do

Laugh and keep doing. They see the constitution as quaint outdated document they ignore at will. Stop being silly, "navigate", please. Don't you get it yet?

I'm not up for reading 40+ page rulings from the office desk That's quite the laundry list of no-no's.

That didn't take long.

Psst! The taps are outside the country...

The issue isn't the taps. It's already well established that taps conducted outside the country do not by themselves represent any invasion of privacy relevant to the constitution and fall well within the powers of the executive (that's the president in case you're wondering).

Where the issue becomes grey is that the program allows for taps to be conducted where one end of the line may be inside the US (but the other end and the tapping equipment itself is outside). FISA does not explicitely require warrants for that form of wiretapping (as long as the person inside the US is not the direct "target" of the tap). The administration claims that the program is in accordance with the rules because of this. Those opposed to it argue that FISA didn't address the issue directly, but that a need for a warrant is in the spirit of the law.


It'll go to the Supreme Court. I wouldn't get terribly excited about a lower court ruling at all. When it does get to the Supreme Court, it'll be an interesting case, because they'll basically have to rule on whether or not a US citizen has an expectation of privacy when making an international call, which puts the court in the odd position of trying to apply constitutional rights into areas not bound by the constitution (other nations). I personally think they wont find that there's a constitutional expectation of privacy when making an international call, simply because the constituion itself does not bind other nations. There's nothing preventing the government of France for example from tapping a phone call coming from the US. Thus, a US citizen making such a call, can't really assume that the US constitution protects the privacy of his call. He may expect or demand such protection of privacy from the carrier itself, but that's a business issue, not a constitutional one.


EDIT: Oh. And just to add something. If you actually bother to read the FISA, you'll find lots of references to "where such a tap would violate the 4th ammendment" or "where a citizen would have a constitutional expection of privacy". The requirements for warrants under FISA hinge upon that condition. FISA was originally intended to extend the warrant process that domestic police organizations are bound by to the US government to hem in the "national security" angle, specifically to stop abuses of the power back in the 60s. It simply does not address or limit international wiretaps.

Edited, Aug 17th 2006 at 8:50pm EDT by gbaji

Barrens chat would break the DOD.

You have anything to add other then making snide remarks about whether or not "the executive" refers to the president?