Carol Platt Liebau: Thanks, ACLU

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Thanks, ACLU

The ACLU is trying with all its might to stop programs that help to prevent threats like the British airlines confronted last week, and it's won at least a temporary victory thanks to a federal district judge in Detroit.

See here and here and here for analysis from when this case broke -- and note that the judge has apparently ignored the precedents with which she disagrees politically.

The ACLU had better savor its victory now, because it's far from clear that this ruling will stand when more sober, seasoned jurists have heard the case.

As always, Investors Business Daily hits the nail on the head.

12 Comments:

Blogger Editor said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

3:43 PM  
Blogger Editor said...

Of course the ruling will stand and the president will be found to have violated more laws. Just like Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

3:54 PM  
Blogger Fredrick Schwartz said...

"The ACLU had better savor its victory now, because it's far from clear that this ruling will stand when more sober, seasoned jurists have heard the case."

Carol,

Have you taken leave of your senses or are you taking the same pills that Amber is?

You know the big orange ones that say "I never check my facts because my readers only WANT to hear one side of the story."

Judge Anna Diggs Taylor has been in her current job as Senior Judge of the US District Court for Eastern Michigan for seven years and has been on the federal bench for 20 years.

Sober? Seasoned? This arbiter of justice is distinguished in her field and would be a suitable addition to any bench including the SCOTUS.

I know you get paid well for being a conservative pundit but you are still a lawyer in there somewhere. Put your brain back in and try to think like one for five minutes.

They have a court and an appeal process that gets the job done in secret both the FISC and the FISC-R and they have to have judges within 20 minutes of DC. What else could the White House and the DOJ need the whole arrangement is secret.

To wiretap without a warrant is a crime any cop in a squad car or wearing a sheild will tell you so. Application of exigent circumstances is very rare. can anyone give me a legal reason why they need to do this without warrants other than "Osama might get us!"?
And no the Constitution is not a suicide pact isn't going to work either.

F.S.

4:00 PM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

That there might be disagreement amongst the judiciary should go without saying. That's why, for example, there's not just one Supreme Court Justice. The Hamden decision wasn't unanimous and but for one knucklehead it would have gone the other way. You and eddy-boy believe the decision proper only because it went your way. But in reality, it didn't go your way, because the public interest is best served by not getting blowed up. These decisions hamper the actions of those working to protect us, and those with BDS simply interfere. I won't accuse you, Fredrick, of suffering from that malady just yet, but eddy's got it bad! Thus, for him, winning the real fight is not as important as messing with Bush.

5:24 PM  
Blogger Editor said...

It really is as easy as this:

http://tinyurl.com/rxbbz

6:29 PM  
Blogger Bachbone said...

Judge Diggs Taylor, in addition to having been on the job over 20 years, is described by the liberal Detroit Free Press as a "...liberal with Democratic roots..." She once was married to the late Charles Diggs, Jr., Democrat congressman from Detroit who was convicted, censured by Congress and sentenced to prison for mail fraud and filing false payroll forms (he gave staffers pay raises, then required them to kick back part of the raises). She has banned nativity scenes from municipal properties in two Dearborn and Birmingham, MI. When the University of Michigan was sued for using race as part of its admissions criteria, she tried to take the case away from the judge to whom it had been assigned and give it to another judge, while her husband was a member of the UM Board of Trustees. (Another member of her court strongly criticized her for attempting to intervene.) Diggs Taylor was appointed to her post, after working for Jimmy Carter's presidential election, by Carter.

Even the leftist Detroit Free Press noted: ...if Taylor harpoons the spying program, experts said, the decision likely would be overturned by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals."

8:21 PM  
Blogger Fredrick Schwartz said...

No Marshall I deem the decision proper because it is just. Even our host will not tackle to constitutionality of the NSA Wiretapping Program because she knows there is no precedent even in time of war for any sitting President to take such a power unto himself.
Bush has a court to go to to get a hot warrant with nearly a 95% certainty. While the FISC isn't a rubber stamp it's pretty close.

Will someone please tell me why The Government of the US will not follow the law and just get the warrant? That is other than we are war and we're so scared and al Qaeda might get us. Imagine if people had been this weak and fearful during the Second World War?
And that brings me to another point . . . if you are so worried about the next attack go to the source. Scrap the NSA plan and do what you want to do. Suspend the rights of all muslims in America and put them in internment camps for the rest of their lives and refuse to allow any muslims into the country again ever. Isolate America from the threat.

F.S.

5:32 AM  
Blogger eLarson said...

What standing did the plaintiffs have here? The suit Terkel had attempted to file was booted out for lack of standing.

What changed with the present suit?

9:55 AM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

The decision is improper because there is no Constitutional protections for the enemy. They don't have the right to conduct their terrrorist business in privacy. There's no precedent for forcing the commander in chief to beg for warrants to spy on the enemy. Why do you want to inter all Muslims when Bush just wants to investigate those suspected of having ties to the headchoppers? Why don't you drop the charade and just admit that you oppose these strategies because success will make Bush look good? Your concerns are hollow because they have no basis in reality.

10:47 AM  
Blogger eLarson said...

Hmm... inter all Muslims. Sounds like something FDR would have done.

10:55 AM  
Blogger Fredrick Schwartz said...

Marshall,

I know you are smarter than this and that you actually do care what happens to America. The Unites States has amazing technology at its disposal that makes the acquisition of FISA warrants nearly instantaneous. And by the way the NSA can set up their listening open their wiretaps and keep them running until they get the warrant. But UNDER THE LAW they are no better than any police department seeking to gain entre into the privacy persons or paperson of a CITIZEN. The very reason you can bloviate here in this forum Marshall is because of that document you seem so willing to cast aside.
And how dare you accuse me aor anyone else of wishing ill on America such attacks are base acts of cowardice. Americans will shout and shake their fists at the opposition politcally but the avergae American has such an easy life that he is willing to die for nothing. This is the very root of the jihad that has come to America's shores. The concept that death is greater in the end than living in oppression. But alas, America feels she is better than everyone else but it is merely a nation of colonial thinkers and thrid world thugs who without their material possessions to salve their egos would fell they had absolutely nothing.
Well Marshall enjoy your comfort, my friend and I wish you a long life of nothing but conmfort and joy. But you are wrong, my friend because I feel America is greater than any terror attack that Hamas or al Qaeda or Hezbollah could throw at her in the name of same Shai'tanic form of Islam. America is greater than that because not of what you fear losing a home a car or things but she is greater because of the document that wraps you in Freedom. No it not a suicide pact but i would die for the protection of the Constitution before I would rip it up in the name of business as ususal Wal-Mart low prices and gated communites full of people afraid of all of those unlike them.

And how you howl when they say they would take away your guns! That if you had not read it any time in recent history is the 2d amendment. But firearms are power and allow you to defend your weak selves for that enemy that is always coming. Would you let that one go too if this or any other president said it was necessary to win the war on terror?

I want to see Bush succeed America grow strong and cut out of Islam this dark heart. Do I make myself clear? Also I would reject him putting troops in people's homes or force me infront of a judge to defend myself aginst charges not brought by a grand jury.

Your guy being in office does not rule out failure. It is that simple. Failure against terrorists also means destroying liberty out of wanton fear.

Have I made myself clear?
This is not political it is a matter of law! Change the law let Arlen Specter draft a bill that allows a greater time before you have to appear before a FISC judge 14 days is plenty that way you lose nothing. But NO PRESIDENT AT NO TIME SHOULD BE ABLE TO DOMESTICALLY SPY FOR ANY REASON WITHOUT GETTING A WARRANT.

Law not politics.

May America live long and prosper!

2:33 PM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

C'mon Fred. How do you REALLY feel?

This issue is what is debated, that FISA does not require warrants in times of war. I continue to hear Constitutional professors on radio shows like Hugh Hewitt and others describe how the president ISN'T breaking any law or infringing on Constitutional rights. Just today Prager had such a person on and another well versed in FISA law due to his government/military job spoke of section 13 allowing Bush's actions. (He didn't get specific and the guest began to comment when work prevented my listening). Bush's detractors constantly and predictably paint all of his actions in the worst possible manner. They accuse and suggest wrongdoing when none exists only to pump themselves up. I don't believe that anything Bush has been doing is done without intense consideration and discussion with all of his advisors from every sphere. I don't believe there is any evidence to suggest that his motivations for doing so are any less than for the absolute good of the country. While much of your scolding carries worthy points, none of us can live by your vision if we're dead. It's not my comfort I wish to protect in all this, but my life and the lives of my fellow Americans.

I don't recall anyone but Democrats wanting to take away guns. (I'm sure there must be some Repub so no need to list the very few). With this trouble, it's more likely that George would pass them out.

You damn well better believe it's political. The Dems have no other means of regaining power other than to squawk about the actions of this president. They use this era, when he has to act in a manner that is unique to the situation, a situation that FISA and other laws aren't really set up to handle, and they revel in the chance to accuse him of wrongdoing while caught in the imprecise dynamic of dealing with an unprecedented foe.

I will state that I don't believe you are insincere in your position and your feelings about the situation. But I believe your position and feelings are based on the insincere blather from Bush opponents. Bush isn't concerned with imposing on innocent citizens or even innocent foreigners. He's concerned with preventing attacks that are difficult to predict. He's trying to be proactive with a goe that seeks to come up with a new way to kill people.

As far as rights and law and the Constitution, war changes things. Martial law, if declared, infringes on rights big time. Yet, it is not prohibited. So to say Bush is breaking a law and to do so without considering the war we absolutely MUST win is NOT dealing with reality. And no one has been forthcoming with evidence to suggest that Bush is acting out of evil or selfish intentions. Sure he could fail. Don't support those who are trying to make that happen.

12:28 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google