Law and Journalism BlogHers weigh ruling against NSA program

A federal district court judge ruled Thursday that the National Security Agencyâ€™s program of tapping international telephone calls without a warrant is unconstitutional, and ordered an immediate halt to the practice. Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's ruling was in response to a suit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who said that the program impeded their ability to do their jobs. You can read .pdfs of the opinion and the judgment and injunction order. Hereâ€™s a quick sampling of opinion on the case from the Law and Media/Journalism blogrolls.

Law BlogHers reacted quickly to the ruling. â€?Weâ€™ll see how that holds up,â€? said Ann Althouse. In the past, she has suggested that Congressional objections to the program were more posturing than principle. On the other hand, Echidne offered evidence that the programâ€™s defenders would accuse the judge of coddling terrorists. Susie Madrak had a one-word description for people who think that way: â€?moronsâ€?.

Reactions from journalism BlogHers were also strong. Firedoglake noted that that this was the second judicial ruling to reject the Bush administrationâ€™s legal argument, and recommended Glenn Greenwaldâ€™s analysis. And Joy Reid didnâ€™t mince words. Calling Judge Taylor, â€œOur Lady of the Constitution, she said,

â€œA federal judge in Detroit accomplishes in one ruling what the entire, sycophant Congress has failed to do for five years: provide proper checks and balances to careening, rapidly accumlulated, unprecedented presidential power. In other words, this wonderful African-American jurist just bitch-slapped the POTUS.[President of the United States]â€?

The Justice Department has appealed, so stay tuned for the next episode in this saga. What do you think the ultimate ruling should be?

Submitted by Kim Pearson (view blog

) on Thu, 08/17/2006 - 4:53pm

Posted In

Media & Journalism

Comments (3)

Tell a Friend

Comments

my sophomoric humour again

I was always amused by the thought when 'talking' ~wink, wink~ to my now-husband before he moved to America, that some NSA guy is popping into telephone calls and might come across ours. ~snicker~

But seriously...
Ultimate ruling? I don't think it should be allowed without first seeking some sort of court order.

Melanie Perry
***not all who wander are lost***
http://mistressofthedorkness.blogspot.com

Submitted by Mistress Of The Dorkness on Thu, 08/17/2006 - 17:21

Checks and Balances

I never understood in the first place how this activity was being allowed but when the government's doing it, the only way to stop it is by groups like the ACLU.

It's a slippery slope with things like the PATRIOT Act that are well-intentioned but start slicing off bits of freedoms built into the Constitution and the Amendments. We want to catch terrorists but without impinging on the freedoms of our citizens because if we keep slicing and slicing we'll end up with a government with no accountability.

What I don't want to hear again from the Bush administration is something about "activist judges". That just makes me sick. This judge is being strong supporting the checks and balances built into our government by its founders. Any kind of search or spying without a warrant is unconstitutional. Period. It's not over though - my guess is this one will end up a Supreme Court case.

Submitted by Sarah Granger on Thu, 08/17/2006 - 18:48