Aug 17 2006

2nd Judge Demands US Disarm Against Terrorists

Published by at 11:38 am under All General Discussions,Bin Laden/GWOT,FISA-NSA

Update Mac Ranger has details on the calm inside the administration and appeals in process. Michelle has the round up. – End Update

Remember the UK Bomb Plot foiled last week? Remember how phone calls and money transfers from Pakistan to the UK helped expose the plot details and the fact we were days away from its implementation. Recall how all the lefties from Lamont on have claimed America cannot be allowed to monitor terrorist communications with their associates here in the US and monitor their financial transfers to detect and stop the next 9-11. Well hold on folks, but another unelected judge has decided Terrorists need protection because we may listen in on their calls to the Holiday Inn reservation line and that risk is more dire than 3,000 + people dying in an attack (more hear at WaPo). Or worse, journalists may have their conversations with terrorists monitored:

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs.

Now that is truly serious. The first judge to decide to disarm America issued his decision only a few days ago. These judges have ruled the US must take down its anti-terrorism defenses only one week after the UK Airline Plot was stopped.. OK Al Qaeda – it is now open season on Americans. Go to it. We are disarming. Journalists need to talk to you and so Americans must face death to make that happen.

Update: Lamont supporters at Kosland are all ecstatic that we have been ordered to surrender to Al Qaeda – read it all here in their own words.

Update: In case anyone is not clear on what this means, here are the germaine parts of my comment to someone truly ignorant of the facts of the NSA-FISA issue: The NSA was going through FISA since 9-11. Prior to 9-11 no intelligence information could be used to gain a surveillance warrant through FISA. In fact, the NSA would not pass any leads to the FBI-FISA regarding potential terrorists they uncovered in the US because of this restriction. The change after 9-11 was allow the FBI to get the leads and investigate. The NSA still monitors just the terrorists and anyone talking to them until a FISA warrant is passed which provides for complete surveillance of all communications on the person in the US. All that this means is there now will be NO LEADS coming out of the NSA to the FBI regarding possible terrorists in the US. That is what it means to go back to the pre 9-11 idiocy. Get here and the terrorists have more protections against detection than any other place in the world.

Update: The scary thing in the decision is the plaintiffs admit they are conversing with terrorists:

For example, scholars and journalists such as plaintiffs Tara McKelvey, Larry Diamond, and Barnett Rubin indicate that they must conduct extensive research in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, and must communicate with individuals abroad whom the United States government believes to be terrorist suspects or to be associated with terrorist organizations.12 In addition, attorneys Nancy Hollander, William Swor, Joshua Dratel, Mohammed Abdrabboh, and Nabih Ayad indicate that they must also communicate with individuals abroad whom the United States government believes to be terrorist suspects or to be associated with terrorist organizations,13 and must discuss confidential information over the phone and email with their international clients.

So while the idea their rights have been abused is purely speculative and unproven, their contact with known terrorists is not speculation. In fact, the arguement is the connection to the plaintiffs and to the NSA program is Al Qaeda:

The TSP admittedly targets communications originated or terminated outside the United States where a party to such communication is in the estimation of Defendants, a member of al Qaeda, a member of a group affiliated with al Qaeda, or an agent of al Qaeda or its affiliates. The injury to the Plaintiffs stems directly from the TSP and their injuries can unequivocally be traced to the TSP.

It seems the judge is concerned there may be a ‘chilling effect’ with regards to communications with terrorists overseas. Most of us would back such an effect. This is a joke of an opinion. The plaintiff’s complaints boil down to the cost of travelling to discuss things face to face, thus avoiding detection by the NSA. And there are numerous examples of contacts with overseas individuals and countries and organizations being restricted in some manner. The First Amendment allows these people to whine about the restrictions – not remove them. And finally the AUMF argument is ridiculous:

First, this court must note that the AUMF says nothing whatsoever of intelligence or surveillance. The government argues that such authority must be implied.

The AUMF does not say anything about killing people on the battlefield, dropping bombs on soveriegn soil, rounding up prisoners and enemy combatants on the battelfield to be held without respresentation idefinitely. The AUMF does not say anything about spying or snooping or any of the things we do when we us military action. So that arguement is a joke. The dems will love this for the pyhrric victory and the cons will love it because the dems will be seen as soft on terrorism. They are all running around saying we are not safer – but there answer is to make us MUCH LESS safer still! That’ll win in November.

26 responses so far

26 Responses to “2nd Judge Demands US Disarm Against Terrorists”

  1. sdmoderate says:

    Talk about fearmongering, the NSA can still do their monitoring, they will now just have to follow the law and go through the FISA court first or would you prefer that we just tear up the Constitution and let King George take over completely.

  2. AJStrata says:


    Your ignorance is stunning. The NSA was going through FISA. Prior to 9-11 no intelligence information could be used to gain a surveillance warrant thr0ugh FISA. In fact, the NSA would not pass any leads regarding potential terrorists they uncovered in the US because of this restriction. The change after 9-11 was allow the FBI to get the leads and investigate. The NSA still monitors just the terrorists and anyone talking to them until a FISA warrant provides for complete surveillance of all communications on the person in the US.

    And it is ignorance that kills people. Ignorance of Al Qaeda’s intentions and ignorance how things really work in government. Don’t expect me to be impressed by ignorance. All that this means is there will be NO LEADS coming out of the NSA regarding possible terrorists in the US.

    Congrats. That is the kind of results ignorance always produces.

  3. carol johnson says:


    You may believe all that nonsense about how we must uphold the constitution! How many times do you suicidal idiots have to be told that the constitution is NOT a suicide pact!

    Never mind, talking to people like you is like talking to the WALL!!! Go ahead and lie to yourself if it makes you feel better! The rest of us know better! This ruling would, if upheld and enforced, effectively drive this country to its knees in front of a murderous enemy! WAKE UP!!! BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!!


  4. dgfx says:

    Ignorance is stunning, agreed !

    SDModerate is, apparently, no better (or worse) informed than the Judge in this case, who commenced today’s Memorandum Decision with the following sentence:

    “This is a challenge to the legality of a secret program (hereinafter “TSP”) undisputedly
    inaugurated by the National Security Agency (hereinafter “NSA”) at least by 2002 and continuing
    today, which intercepts without benefit of warrant or other judicial approval, prior or subsequent,
    the international telephone and internet communications of numerous persons and organizations within this country. The TSP has been acknowledged by this Administration to have been
    authorized by the President’s secret order during 2002 and reauthorized at least thirty times since.”

  5. patch says:

    The NSA is actually a military operation. The President can order the NSA to continue on while under appeal.

    However, even if the Supreme Court ruled against the President, he could tell them to go urinate up a rope. (See Lincoln during the Civil War.)

  6. opinionsarefree says:

    This silliness will not stand when it is challenged at the next level. And either way the NSA, FBI etc. will continue to do as they must. The cost of failure is too high.

    Maybe we could portion off a leftwing enclave, and allow terrorists the free access there that some seem to think they deserve. Then stand back and watch the fireworks.

  7. Terrye says:

    The thing that astonishes me is that the left wants America to be more like Europe but in truth terrorists in Europe do not have anywhere near the protections to plot and plan murder as they do here in the US.

    I hope that Lamont and his friends realize that if this stands and there is a successful attack on this country there will be those among us who wonder if the morons on the left helped make it happen. Again.

  8. retire05 says:

    Anna Diggs Taylor, Clinton appointee. Campaigned in 1979 for Jimmy Carter. Ruled in favor of the ACLU to have nativity scenes removed from public property in Dearborn (Islamonazi haven) and Birmingham in 1984. Married to S. Martin Taylor who, according to his U of Michigan bio, is a DEMOCRAT.
    Any questions?

  9. lurker9876 says:

    AJStrata, the response from SDModeratoe is so typical of all leftwingers.

    They refuse to understand the program. Funny how this NSA terrorist surveillance program has not changed (the only difference being the Gorelick Wall) between Clinton and Bush. So why weren’t the leftwingers screaming and hollering about this program while Clinton was in the office?

    Time to write emails or petitions to both of these judges as well as to all of those judges that have identical lawsuits under them.

  10. lurker9876 says:

    So…SDMODERATE, how come you didn’t scream and holler about this NSA terrorist surveillance program while Clinton was in the office? There were no changes to this NSA terrorist surveillance program between Clinton and Bush. The only difference is the Gorelick Wall that Bush tore down.

    Because the NSA terrorist surveillance program operated exactly the same way under Bush as it did under Clinton, what are you complaining about?

  11. Another Anti-Terror Tool Gone…

    One can only hope that SCOTUS is smarter than these idiots. To paraphrase Bush, the terrorists have to succeed once, the government has to succeed every time. The ACLU has increased the chances of us being unsuccessful at the potential cost of American…

  12. Judge orders halt to NSA program – Look for an overturn on appeal…

    The title says it all. Just perusing the opinion but it looks a little weak on a first pass. Expect the program to continue as it has for the last 20 years, pending review and what I believe will be an overturn on appeal.
    In meetings right now, but …

  13. carol johnson says:

    Sean Hannity just played the recently released 911 emergency tapes from the September 11th attacks! One woman was screaming for help! It tore my heart out to listen to it. This judge is saying that it is more important to protect the privilege of the “press” to keep their sources secret and so-called “scholars” for no other reason than they are offended by this country and what it stands for. I kid you NOT!! This is the end of any connection I have EVER had with the Democratic Party. They have officially gone off the cliff as far as I’m concerned! Behold…the utter disgrace that this party has become and remember it well in 06, 08, and in EVERY SINGLE ELECTION in our “future” if we indeed are lucky enough to have despite this act of utterly reckless legal sabotage!!!


  14. MerlinOS2 says:

    SD has said this type of thing before and will do so again in the future. It is not about being right or wrong, it is about BDS types throwing hand grenades into the room for effect. I expect this type of activity to only increase as November approaches.

  15. Carter Lackey Overturns Program That Protects This Country…

    But this is what we get. A biased Carter lackey doing the bidding of the left. Amazing.
    But in the end it’s the liberals and the leftwing looking out for the interests of those who want us dead. They care little that we are indeed in a war for…

  16. elendil says:

    Could even Karl Rove have planned a better lead up to the 2006 elections than this? Let the debate begin, and go on, and on…

  17. Barbara says:

    I wish someone would tell me how a district (unelected) judge can overturn an act of executive power . I understand that a suit was brought before this judge, but this judge should have said that she was not qualified to decide national security. If this keeps up any individual can overturn any decision of the president or any laws legislature enacts if the presiding judge so decides. This is a dangerous situation and should be stopped.

  18. luc says:

    Your ignorance is stunning’ …..
    Left by AJStrata on August 17th, 2006

    AJ your comment is another proof, not that it was needed, that you are a gentleman. In reality author is a leftist “agent provocateur” which is not necessarily ignorant, although basically all of them are stupid, but is a contemptible and totally morally corrupt scum. I wanted to get it of my chest 😉

  19. "NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional"…

    From CNN: A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the Nati…

  20. ReidBlog says:

    Our Lady of the Constitution…

    A 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 w…..