JUDGE BLASTS WIRETAPS But legal experts say WH likely to prevail on appeal

[omega minimo]

“JUDGE BLASTS WIRETAP POLICY
But legal experts say White House likely to prevail on appeal”

:wtf: How DARE the Sacramento Bee editorialize IN THE HEADLINE while reporting that U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said in a 43-page opinion, “There are no hereditary kings in America and no power not created by the Constitution” -- coercing the public to be convinced that there’s no need to even read the story: the headline tells you what to think about the implications: “But legal experts say White House likely to prevail on appeal.”

“What, me worry?” :shrug:

This is the same Capital of California daily paper that editorialized on Nov. 6, 2004-- demonizing, ridiculing and blacklisting anyone who raised the legitimate concerns about the electoral debacle of Nov. 2, 2004.

And they make it damn hard to find the bloody story from today:

http://www.sacbee.com
http://www.mcclatchy.com
Ron Hutcheson and Margaret Talev
McClatchy Washington Bureau

“In a scathing rebuke, a federal judge ruled Thursday that the Bush administration’s warrantless eavesdropping program is unconstitutional and should be shut down, but legal scholars said the administration has a good chance of reversing the decision on appeal.”

WOW :wow: Sounds like a done deal. Why bother reading the ARTICLE when the HEADLINE tells you everything you NEED to KNOW?!!!! That’s more than Dubya Bush reads!!!! !!!!11111!!!!

90 miles and several IQ points away, the San Francisco Chronicle had a different take on it.



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/08/18/DDASMUSSENBR.DTL

Way below the fold, below a ginormous photo of John Mark Karr, celebrity distraction du jour, ran THIS headline:

Judge's rejection of Bush wiretaps just first round
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/08/18/MNGT9KL3F81.DTL

A federal judge's emphatic rejection Thursday of the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping of calls between Americans and alleged foreign terrorists is far from the last word on the legality of the program, which most likely will be determined by the Supreme Court or Congress.

But the ruling by U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of Detroit is one of a mounting series of judicial rebuffs of President Bush's claim of virtually absolute authority, as the leader of the nation's battle against terrorism, to redraw the boundaries between government power and individual rights.

"There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution,'' Taylor said in finding that the administration's wiretapping violates an array of constitutional rights and a 1978 law requiring court warrants for electronic surveillance related to terrorism or espionage. It was the first ruling in the nation on the legality of the program.

She granted the American Civil Liberties Union's request for a nationwide injunction halting the surveillance, which Bush secretly authorized shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The president acknowledged the program's existence after it was disclosed by the New York Times in December.

<snip>

Taylor's ruling was "another nail in the coffin in the Bush administration's legal strategy in the war on terror,'' said Anthony Romero, the ACLU's executive director. "It is a flat rejection of secret government ... a flat rejection of an all-powerful presidency.''

[fooj]

1. I don't think they are going to win this one. We'll see.

[acmavm]

2. We NEED to organize and make sure they don't win this one. I'm

calling the ACLU Monday. See if there's some kind of boots to the ground volunteer help that I can do.

If we lose this, we lose 'em all. There will be no stopping these thugs. It's the litmus test for what rights do we have and where does this corrupt administration have to draw the line.

[omega minimo]

4. Agreed. & this insane, chuckleheaded, brainwashed headline is part of the

litmus.

Or illitmus. :evilfrown:

HOW DARE THEY? :bounce:

[Guaranteed]

13. I'm not sure lobbying judicial decisions is a good idea.

[Solo_in_MD]

5. Actually I think we will, but the decison was crapily written

I've read it and agree with the WaPo on that part. The language and reasoning need to be sharpened considerably, but I really think even SCOTUS will uphold it.

[sgxnk]

6. yes

and i have made this point elsewhere

there is an excellent argument to be made, that regardless of whether one thinks the NSA program is unconstitutional, that this DECSION was a very poor one, from a process based analysis

the NYT, the WAPO, and numerous legal eagles types (i have cited in the other thread) have made some good points in regards to this

the judge could have made much stronger decision based on completely different concepts than she brought up

[omega minimo]

8. Telling lazy public Bushco's SC won't uphold the case=extremely dangerous

and doing so in a headline is criminally negligent and irresponsible.

"the judge could have made much stronger decision based on completely different concepts than she brought up"

Like what? Would you like to link your other thread?

Already the Dittohead meme is out there (and in here) that this case is no big deal because everything depends on what the Supreme Court (supposedly) decides on it........................................................................................ :crazy:

[sgxnk]

9. here's da links - more and more my point is proven

two of my metalinks, and a link to a daily kos diarist who thinks this decision is hella weak

frankly, the response has been predictably kneejerk. on DU et al it has been laudatory, before anybody read or digested the actual decision. on freerepublic et al it has been critical in the same kneejerk fashion

however, NOW that a little passage of time, HONEST and reflective analysis even by (and i justify this with ample cites) harsh critics of bush's NSA program is that this judge's decision is simply LAME - even the NYT (*who originally kneejerked a hell ya praise of the decision BEFORE (obviously) reading it and digesting it's lack of logic, circular reasoning, etc.) the WAPO and tons of smart legal doods are jumping on this decision. from ALL across the political continuum

i don't expect most people to admit they were wrong in jumpin' all over my okole for DARING to suggest there are serious structural flaws in her argument. cause when evidence runs contrary to ideology, cognitive dissonance kicks in. it's the internet where you never have to learn something new that interrupts one's preconceived prejudices. just hit "ignore" or blather out irrelevant tangents. although there WAS one notable exception of a poster who restored my faith in rational thought.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1942736&mesg_id=1943363

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1942736&mesg_id=1943347

also note that even a DAILY KOS diarist finds this decision hella weak
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/18/1950/58256
"As everyone knows, today District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the Eastern District of Michigan declared Bush's NSA surveillance program unconstitutional in a variety of different respects and issued a permanent injunction barring the President from conducting further warrantless surveillance pursuant to the program. While I wholeheartedly agree with the general result, the court's opinion and reasoning are weak in a variety of ways, and given the magnitude of the opinion and the efforts that will be made to undermine it, I fear that Judge Diggs Taylor has, in the long run, undermined those of us who have believed the NSA program is illegal since its existence was revealed several months ago."

excellent points

[omega minimo]

10. Your rhetoric here resembles what you are criticizing

:shrug:

Even that last paragraph-- which looks like it has some content at first glance-- is relatively info free.

Thank you for the links. I will look for the actual information you seem to be referring to :evilgrin:

But all the histrionics and bits about the internet.......... kind of an unecessary diatribe that could backfire, esp. if you don't bring something definitive to the discussion.

Just sayin' :hi:

I listened to Thom Hartmann, who downloaded the decision from the ACLU website and referred his listeners there; he read some on the air. I respect his work enough to value his assessment:

Hartmann said that the case was built extremely methodically and thoroughly, one section building to the next comprehensively.

I'd believe him (before I read it) before I'd believe Dittohead memes, editorializing headlines, M$M bullshit artists and vague handwaving about how the case is "weak."

How much backbone did it take for anyone to bring any case at all?

[sgxnk]

11. the million points of data are rolling in

prejudice is rearing it's head. not racial prejudice. just PREjudging. people who believe bushco's policy is wrong are instantly lauding the decision, and people who like bushco's policy instantly criticized.

look at it this way. you have a frigging DAILYKOS diarist criticizing the decision. contrary to some earlier poster's rhetoric, this is not a "reich-wing" propaganda push. you have the NYT doing it (in a classic backtrack, since they did kneejerk originally), the WAPO etc. i provided more cites than any of the rhetorical whiners whose sole argument came down to ad hominem attacks and the "it's rightwing propaganda" which isn't a rational discussion - it's rhetoric.

i will say this about my personal opinion. i am far from an expert on THIS aspect of constitutional law. but as a person with YEARS of detective experience, i spent a LOT of time in court, i heard a LOT of legal arguments, and i was on the deciding end of tons of constitutional law decisions myself (as any busy cop is) - miranda, search and seizure, use of deadly force, etc. etc. i've written umpteen search warrants for all sorts of 4th amendment related issues including surveillance, etc. i've dealt with this stuff firsthand, and i read dozens of court decisions every month

this decision is laughably bad.

the kos guy said it best. i'm almost ready for the rovian conspiracy angle. this decision is SO bad, one could make the (well it's dumb but no dumber than other rovian evil genius (tm) claims) claim that this judge is actually a rove plant who in a great bit of psyops and sun-tsu'ian deception came out with this decision to HURT the anti-NSA case since she came to the "right" conclusion for entirely wrong reasons.

i don't expect prejudiced ideologues (and i;m not talking about you here) to look at this issue dispassionately, objectively, and with an open mind. that would be asking too much.

reason's blog has a nice thread on it
http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006/08/liberal_judge_b.shtml#comments
(reason is alibertarian site and a frequent critic of buscho's war on terror and statist govt. oin general)

as does the volokh conspiracy

mark my words. this is just beginning. within a week or two at max, you will see more and more legal eagle types come down against this decision. and MANY more of them (there are already many) will be people who think bushco's NSA program is unconstitutional

that is very damning evidence. it is powerful, like an "admission against interest".

the rhetorical blowhards will probably fade into the woodwork, cause they will never admit they were (lord forbid) wrong, but I will stand by my assessment. this decision is SERIOUSLY flawed. and time (and history) will prove it to the ideologically blinded.

[omega minimo]

12. Yes and I object to the "prejudging" in that headline, enabling more

"prejudging" by readers to the point that they deduce they don't even need to read the story or read the case, cuz the headline tells em Bushco. will likely "prevail" before the Supreme Court.

"the million points of data are rolling in prejudice is rearing it's head. not racial prejudice. just PREjudging. people who believe bushco's policy is wrong are instantly lauding the decision, and people who like bushco's policy instantly criticized."

The issue is not "bushco's policy." The issue is that they executed that policy by violating FISA law. When this lawbreaking was revealed, Bushco. insisted it would continue and the rationale amounted to "because I say so."

Apparently, this Federal judge has written a 43 page decision showing that the execution of "bushco's policy" also violates the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

There are books, Congressional bills, state bills and web sites detailing the case for impeachment of Bush and Cheney. All of these impeachable offenses (including this weeks Federal ruling) are skillfully buried in the tons of catapulted nonsense designed to talk around and about the cases, rather than about the offenses and actions of the perpetrators themselves.

[sgxnk]

15. this is where we differ

you say

"Apparently, this Federal judge has written a 43 page decision showing that the execution of "bushco's policy" also violates the Constitution and the Bill of Rights"

she has written rubbish. that's my point, and that's the point that legal analysts on BOTH sides of the debate (iow even those who think bush's policy is unconstitutional STILL think the decision was , to put it bluntly - rubbish

dailykos is not "reichwing" nor were some of the attorneys i cited who have plenty of "leftwing" cred.

cause the issue is not POLITICS. it is rule of law.

this decision fails to follow rule of law. it's not coherent, it's ridiculously ideological and not on point on constitutional case law

and mark my words, you will see continued criticism from legal experts that this decision is just plain BAD, even if the RESULT is right

constitutional law analysis is based on process not results analysis

i'd rather not devolve into tangents. i am making a very specific point and i provided ample evidence for the point: that this decision is flawed AND that critics on BOTH sides of the debate (whether or not the policy is constitutional) have criticized the opinion as seriously flawed

those who disagree with the above have NOT provided evidence - they have provided ad hominems, irrelevant tangents, etc. the cites are pretty compelling. as is the decision. like i said, i've read 100's of court decisions in full. and testified to 4th amendment issues on scores of occasions. this decision is SERIOUSLY flawed

and mark my words. that will be a near consensus opinion among all but the most ideological legal analysis

[omega minimo]

16. Yeah, that's how they got rid of Rather too

"you will see continued criticism from legal experts that this decision is just plain BAD, even if the RESULT is right" or something like it, when he revealed on TV Bush's AWOL Nat. Guard status.

We'd have to be real morans to believe-- based on rhetorical pooh-flinging-- that a Federal judge put herself on the line to bring a case that is "rubbish." All you are talking about is the punditocracy back and forth, not the case itself.

"i am making a very specific point and i provided ample evidence for the point: that this decision is flawed AND that critics on BOTH sides of the debate (whether or not the policy is constitutional) have criticized the opinion as seriously flawed"

Maybe you have, but you have not done so HERE. So far, you seem to be playing dueling invective rather than addressing the "ample evidence" that the case is rubbish.

These are verbal traps and mindgames that hold too much sway these days. That is why I object strongly to the Bee's headline that predicts an unknowable outcome and in 15 words tells the public everything they think they need to know about the case. So they won't bother to think about it at all.

That is what this OP was about.

[sgxnk]

17. a million points of data.. again

i provided cites

i read at least 2 dozen or so constitutional case law decisions a month.

i have testified in court on dozens of occasions on 4th amendment type of issues etc.

i will repeat the cites here. let's stop dealing in irrelevancies here (rather). let's deal with the INSTANT CASE. let's deal with THIS decision.

let me make this clear. you got lots of lefties and righties (and libertarians) who think bush's program IS unconstitutional who criticize this decision. i've cited plenty. you got a frigging dailykos diarst (OBVIOUSLY A RIGHTWING SHILL lol) giving some great criticism. i've seen libertarians adamantly opposed to bush's NSA program give some great criticisms of this decision. it really is rubbish

i simply cannot remember reading any constitutional case like this that was this bad. and like i said, i read them a LOT.

yale law professor jack balkin an OPPONENT of bush's NSA program says

"Although the court reaches the right result-- that the program is illegal, much of the opinion is disappointing, and I would even suggest, a bit confused."
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/08/federal-court-strike...

"It is quite clear that the government will appeal this opinion, and because the court's opinion, quite frankly, has so many holes in it, it is also clear to me that the plaintiffs will have to relitigate the entire matter before the circuit court, and possibly the Supreme Court. The reasons that the court below has given are just not good enough."

even the frigging Wash. post which has been critical of Buscho's NSA program wrote an excellent article vis a vis the structural problems with the decision

is the NYT a "reich wing" source?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/washington/19ruling.h...

washignton post?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

also note that even a DAILY KOS diarist finds this decision hella weak
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/18/1950/58256
"As everyone knows, today District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the Eastern District of Michigan declared Bush's NSA surveillance program unconstitutional in a variety of different respects and issued a permanent injunction barring the President from conducting further warrantless surveillance pursuant to the program. While I wholeheartedly agree with the general result, the court's opinion and reasoning are weak in a variety of ways, and given the magnitude of the opinion and the efforts that will be made to undermine it, I fear that Judge Diggs Taylor has, in the long run, undermined those of us who have believed the NSA program is illegal since its existence was revealed several months ago."

[omega minimo]

7. "I really think even SCOTUS will uphold it."

"The language and reasoning need to be sharpened considerably"

Will you share what you think the flaws are?

Any thoughts on why so many papers are so eager to diss the decision, downplay it's importance, reinforce the national complacency epidemic and even-- like the BEE-- tell readers in the headline (!) what the future outcome will be?

[flyarm]

3. the sac bee has turned into a reich wing rag! n/t

[mmonk]

14. Yes

McClatchy papers support warrantless surveillance. I posted an editorial from them earlier and their reporters don't even approach the issue as breaking the law but report that the administration has some sort of legal standing or right and if they don't, then the laws should be changed.

[AtomicKitten]

18. I'm reasonably certain the Supremes will vote in favor of the WH.

The recent plants have made their position on executive authority in a time of was pretty clear.