BREAKING: Bush spying is unconstitutional

Posted by Evan Derkacz at 9:51 AM on August 17, 2006.

A federal judge in Detroit, Anna Diggs Taylor, has ruled (pdf) that Bush's NSA spying program is a violation of the Constitution (clip right).

Thinkprogress writes:

The lawsuits have alleged that NSA program violated the First and Fourth Amendments, as well as a number of federal statutes, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The defendants included AT&T and the federal government.

We all want our government to monitor suspected terrorists, but there is no reason for it to break the law to do so. The administration went too far with the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program. Today's federal court decision is an important step toward checking the President's power grab.

[A]s of right now, it is illegal, according to this federal court, for the Bush administration to continue to implement its "Terrorist Surveillance Program," and since it is grounded in constitutional conclusions, nothing -- such as Arlen Specter's dreaded bill -- could change that.

a sterling reputation as one of the earliest black women to attend Yale Law School. She was a fierce Civil Rights advocate in the 60s and has, according to a Detroit Free Press article, a reputation for showing excellent judgement. According to former National Bar Association president Harold Pope III, "She'll rule based on what the law requires, not on what people perceive her biases to be."

The Free Press article goes on to note that while Pope and Taylor worked together to integrate Detroit's city government in the 70s, Taylor ruled against Pope's effort to reserve city jobs for minorities in the 90s.

Judge Taylor, who notes that...

"The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well"

The Government argues here that it was given authority by that resolution to conduct the TSP in violation of both FISA and the Constitution. First, this court must note that the AUMF says nothing whatsoever of intelligence or surveillance. The government argues that such authority must be implied. Next it must be noted that FISA and Title III, are together by their terms denominated by Congress as the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance may be conducted. Both statutes have made abundantly clear that prior warrants must be obtained from the FISA court for such surveillance, with limited exceptions, none of which are here even raised as applicable. Indeed, the government here claims that the AUMF has by implication granted its TSP authority for more than five years, although FISA’s longest exception, for the Declaration of War by Congress, is only fifteen days from date of such a Declaration.

Implicit in the term 'national defense' is the notion of defending
those values and ideas which set this Nation apart. . . . It would
indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would
sanction the subversion of . . . those liberties . . . which makes the
defense of the Nation worthwhile.

Evan Derkacz is a New York-based writer and contributor to AlterNet.