Judge Nixes Warrantless Surveillance

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Have not done any digging to see if this judge is notoriously a liberal wacko or not, but someone in a robe thinks this "practice" is wrong. Before this one gets torn apart, my concerns with this program doesn't really deal with journalists, scholars and lawyers being able to do their job, it's the fact that there is no system of checks and balances in place to prevent abuse by someone (ahem) less honest and reputable than say (ahem) Bush and his administration. Definitely some key words here like ACLU and journalists, so I'm sure the patriotic conservatives will have plenty to say on this one... :)

-----------------

Judge Nixes Warrantless Surveillance
Aug 17, 12:10 PM (ET)
By SARAH KARUSH

DETROIT (AP) - 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 National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.

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. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly taping conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.

The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.

The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,480
157
63
Bowling Green Ky
Anyone want odds on this standing? Couldn't think of any judge making such ruling until I read the judges bio---

Biography
Prior to her appointment to the Federal Court in 1979, Judge Taylor was a private practitioner, a legislative assistant, an Assistant Wayne County Prosecutor, an Assistant United States Attorney, an Adjunct Professor of Law at Wayne State Law School, and an Assistant Corporation Counselor, City of Detroit. She is a 1950 Graduate of the Northfield School for Girls, East Northfield, Massachusetts, and received her B.A. from Barnard College in 1954 and L.L.B. from Yale Law School in 1957. Judge Taylor was appointed to the bench on November 2, 1979.

She is a Trustee of the Detroit Institute of Arts, the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan and the Henry Ford Health System.

She is a member of the State Bar (Committees on Character and Fitness and on U.S. Courts), Federal Bar, Wolverine Bar, Black Judges Association and Women Judges Association.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,480
157
63
Bowling Green Ky
Matt Don't be pulling liberal blog aka Micheal Moore interpretations on me :)

It "all" collectively fits together--you don't think it was accident ACLU used this liberal frienlly venue--do you.

Not hard to get favorable treatment "intially" if you can get area you want.

On same tangent they had court in New Orleans today rule against Merck in their Vioxx ordeal after other courts ruled in favor--no secret New Orleans juries have a history of favoring plaintiffs over companies.

In both cases--best thing that might have come out of GW's term--is sanity in the the higher courts that interpret the law and not dictate it. ;)

--and to answer your implication --is was not the fact that she was woman or black-- but the fact that being so and the area of jurisdiction made her chances of being a flaming liberal almost 100%.

As far as being black and female I applaud her for her accomplishments and drive --quite impressive resume--I just don't like her politics.
 
Last edited:

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
It "all" collectively fits together--

I dunno, bud, I don't see anything else on her bio that screams 'liberal', other than that black judges association thing. Even that doesn't automatically make her a flaming liberal, but it's the only thing that even hints at it.

Maybe you can point something else out to me. :shrug:
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
--and to answer your implication --is was not the fact that she was woman or black-- but the fact that being so and the area of jurisdiction made her chances of being a flaming liberal almost 100%.

As far as being black and female I applaud her for her accomplishments and drive --quite impressive resume--I just don't like her politics.

I posted before your edit.

Not sure that women are known as generally liberal.

And if Detroit is liberal, it's because it's mostly black.

Which brings us back to the only thing in her bio that might indicate liberal leanings.

And you say you don't like her politics, yet you haven't the foggiest clue what her 'politics' are.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
In doing some research, she does seem to be pretty left-leaning in some of her dealings. I see that Jimmy Carter appointed her to a lifetime spot on the District Courts after she campaigned for him (Not sure why I'm helping you guys out, but fair is fair...:( ), and she has ruled pretty liberally in a couple of areas, to the point of campaigning. All that being said...

She is generally lauded for her intelligence and take on the law and I'm not sure this case should be considered a strictly political one. This is about the interpretation of the constitution, and following existing law that other administrations have chosen to follow. All THAT being said, there is this from another article...

>> But even if Taylor harpoons the spying program, experts said, the decision likely would be overturned by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Given the composition of the 6th Circuit and its previous rulings in related areas, it seems more likely to favor national security over civil liberties if that issue is squarely presented," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia. "And that's what this case is all about."<<

I seriously wonder, to take this back to a political area again, if this was Bill Clinton - or Hillary, for gawd sakes - would you guys be taking the same stance? And would the 6th district court do the same? Do you think that this judge would rule differently if that were the case? Interesting thoughts to ponder. Evidently, Hillary may be able to do whatever the heck she wants to in about 3 years. Listen to whomever she wants, whenever she wants, attach signing statements to any legislation she wants to mess with down the road, etc. That HAS to send a reality check into you fellers, doesn't it?
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
And you say you don't like her politics, yet you haven't the foggiest clue what her 'politics' are.

her ruling tells you everything you need to know about her politics....
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
And you say you don't like her politics, yet you haven't the foggiest clue what her 'politics' are.

her ruling tells you everything you need to know about her politics....

I don't normally judge somebodys 'politics' on one ruling. Maybe she's just a constitutionalist or somebody interested in the executive office following the law. :shrug:

I really don't care about the tapping at all, but all of the 'letter of the law' 'conservatives' seem to run from this one.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
In doing some research, she does seem to be pretty left-leaning in some of her dealings. I see that Jimmy Carter appointed her to a lifetime spot on the District Courts after she campaigned for him (Not sure why I'm helping you guys out, but fair is fair...:( ), and she has ruled pretty liberally in a couple of areas, to the point of campaigning. All that being said...

She is generally lauded for her intelligence and take on the law and I'm not sure this case should be considered a strictly political one. This is about the interpretation of the constitution, and following existing law that other administrations have chosen to follow. All THAT being said, there is this from another article...

>> But even if Taylor harpoons the spying program, experts said, the decision likely would be overturned by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Given the composition of the 6th Circuit and its previous rulings in related areas, it seems more likely to favor national security over civil liberties if that issue is squarely presented," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia. "And that's what this case is all about."<<

I seriously wonder, to take this back to a political area again, if this was Bill Clinton - or Hillary, for gawd sakes - would you guys be taking the same stance? And would the 6th district court do the same? Do you think that this judge would rule differently if that were the case? Interesting thoughts to ponder. Evidently, Hillary may be able to do whatever the heck she wants to in about 3 years. Listen to whomever she wants, whenever she wants, attach signing statements to any legislation she wants to mess with down the road, etc. That HAS to send a reality check into you fellers, doesn't it?

Thanks for doing some research beyond skin color, Chad. Not surprising that she leans liberal, just like it would be no surprise if she leaned conservative.

Without some facts, I try not to paint anybody with a broad brush.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
True conservatives should detest this proposal of the Bush administration. Christ sake, don't fall for all the scare tactics. This is a clear invasion of privacy.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
well,i`ve got money going on the ravens and the ufc fight night tonight...so,i`ll defer my rant for tomorrow..

(i can tell that kosar/stevie/chadman/smurphy et al are highly upset by their smilies...:spotting: :clap: :thumb::firing: :fingerc: )

but let me make one comment...the plaintiffs in this action.........

she grants standing to such plaintiffs as the aclu and cair(these two are intent on ruining this country,imo)..... greenpeace,the national association of slip and fall lawyers(otherwise known as criminal defense lawyers).......... and some others... without a shred of information showing any connection between the plaintiffs’ assertions of constitutional violations and any harm to them....

this was shopped by the aclu to a friendly carter appointee....

i`ll abstain from getting nasty....tonight......because i sense that this one could get long and ugly.....

i`m not happy...and anybody that thinks this makes us safer,is living in la-la land...

more to come....after i fill the gardenweasel coffers tonight....

carry on masochists...
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,480
157
63
Bowling Green Ky
Yes thinks Chad--you saved me the effort--Admittedly I did not look at any of her rulings to base opinion on but did know Carter appointed her and do know 90% of black vote liberal--there fore conservative/neocon logic told me add the 2 together and 97% + chance she is liberal :)

--and on to fact of matter--somehow I feel she knows it will be overturned--couldn't fathom a person knowing maybe thousands of people would die and they would be responsible.
If I had the remotest doubt I know which way I would lean--and certainly can't see this issue cut and dried--and while on subject --any takers on wager it will be overturned?
 
Last edited:

bjfinste

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 14, 2001
5,462
18
0
AZ
Whether you agree with this or not (personally, I'm indifferent), the wiretapping was one of the most blatant constitutional violations done by the American government that I can remember in my lifetime. I'm assuming that those who staunchly oppose gun control and cling to the second amendment as the be-all, end-all of American life are very pleased with this judge's decision.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,480
157
63
Bowling Green Ky
so just who are these plaintiffs filing this suit that appear to adamantly agree with some here---

January 18, 2006
Who's Behind the ACLU NSA Lawsuit . . . And Why Are They Lying?
Printer Friendly

By Debbie Schlussel

You've heard a lot about the ACLU lawsuit since its filing yesterday.

But you haven't heard much about its less famous plaintiffs, plaintiffs with whom I'm all too familiar and about whom I've written a great deal. The details on these individuals makes the National Security Agency's monitoring of phone calls not just warranted, but a necessity.

I'm not referring to the famous Plaintiffs about whom you've heard: For example, Christopher Hitchens, the well-known Vanity Fair writer who is tight with convicted felon lobbyist Jack Abramoff's money launderer Grover Norquist. (Norquist's receipt of thousands from Saudi charities raided by Customs for billions in Al-Qaeda money laundering is well-known, and Hitchens wrote glowingly of Norquist's efforts on behalf of radical Islam).


ACLU Lawsuit's Noel Saleh & Mohammed Abdrabboh:
They SHOULD Be Monitored.
I'm referring to ACLU lawyers Noel Saleh, Mohammed Abdrabboh, and Nabih Ayad, the ACLU Plaintiffs named in the yesterday's Complaint, attorney William Swor, a member National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Nazih Hassan--all named in the lawsuit. They are exactly the kind of people whom the federal government SHOULD be watching, but probably isn't. One of these men admitted to funding Hezbollah, one was accused of tampering with a witness, and a third signed a document contradicting statements he made in the lawsuit. Not to mention, one of these men engaged in exactly the same "spying" (on me) that he now opposes when done by the NSA.

Their clients are no different from that of convicted Attorney Lynn Stewart's (convicted of helping the Blind cleric spread terrorist messages in Egypt), and in some cases, their behavior is far worse. Yet, instead of monitoring them, the federal government's representatives in Detroit--including U.S. Attorney Stephen Murphy III, FBI Special Agent in Charge Daniel Roberts, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agent in Charge Brian Moskowitz--have been courting them, their clients, and friends in a series of exclusive meetings.

Take Noel Saleh. The thrice-disciplined attorney (who was suspended from the practice of law) openly stated at a town hall meeting with federal officials that he has financially contributed to Hezbollah. He heads an Arab welfare agency that gets millions in our tax dollars, yet was raided by the FBI for engaging in Medicaid fraud. The organization also spent thousands in our tax dollars on "job training" (commercial driving lessons and attempts at HazMat hauling certificates) for two men indicted as members of the Detroit Al-Qaeda terror cell. He has represented a number of Islamic terrorists, including Ibrahim Parlak and "former" PFLP terrorist Imad Hamad.

Then, there is Mohammed Abdrabboh, a Palestinian attorney and ACLU of Michigan Board Member.

Not only does he represent a number of accused terrorists, he lied in signed documents about it. In the ACLU lawsuit, Abdrabboh's ACLU claims:

86. As part of his criminal defense practice, Mr. Abdrabboh has represented and continues to represent people the government has suspected of allegedly having some link to terrorism or terrorist organizations.
But in a grievance Abdrabboh filed against ME to the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission (designed to deny my right to free speech and get me to change this column about him--I didn't and won't), a year ago, Abdrabboh wrote (and signed his name to) the following:

Without hesitation, I affirmatively state that I have never represented anyone accused of terrorism or money laundering. I can also affirmatively state that I have never represented or consulted with anyone accused/suspected/indicted of money laundering, let alone money laundering to finance Al-Qaeda. . . . Debbie Schlussel will not be able to provide the ADB [Attorney Discipline Board] with a single court appearance, document or public record that would indicate that I have ever represented a suspected terrorist or money launderer.
Hmmm . . . I think a grievance against Abdrabboh for lying either in Court or to the Grievance Commission is appropriate.

In fact, Mohammed Abdrabboh represented Gamil Manea Ahmed Al-Najar, arrested in December 2002 in raids by then U.S. Customs (now Immigration and Customs Enforcement--ICE) for operating a money-laundering business, Najjar Money Transfer, through Dix Dollar Mart--one of six businesses believed to have transmitted as much as $50 million per year to Yemen, in violation of the Patriot Act and other reporting requirements. Customs Agents told me they believed the money was going to finance terrorist activities, likely Al-Qaeda. Abdrabboh is listed as Al-Najar's attorney on the federal court docket.

So we know only one thing for sure about Mohammed Abdrabboh: He is a liar.

What we also know is that many of his clients are involved with terrorist and other nefarious activities. He appeared at the arraignment for two Palestinian and Lebanese clients accused (and later convicted) of chopping a Jordanian Palestinian to death. All three were under investigation by the FBI for mortgage and real estate fraud and were suspected of sending the proceeds "back home" to the Mid-East for assorted nefarious activities.

Abdrabboh is heavily involved with the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, which openly praises Hezbollah--the terrorist group that murdered over 300 U.S. Marines and civilians in Lebanon. In the West Bank, Abdrabboh made a career of legitimizing Palestinian terrorists in his work for Al-Haq, the Palestinian version of the ACLU (only worse, if that's possible). In work for the United Nations, he co-authored a report on the "Syrian Golan." (The Golan is in ISRAEL.) Clearly, this man has a political agenda, not friendly to the United States or our key Mid-East ally.

Spying? Taping phone calls? Abdrabboh doesn't have a problem with that either, when he's the one doing it. On September 7, 2004, the same day he filed his phony grievance against me, Abdrabboh had one of his friends, a man identifying himself as "Casey Khalil" call me and try to entrap me in a taped phone call. But it didn't work. The man, whose number came up as "Khalil Companies" on my caller ID, claimed he was a client of Abdrabboh for his mortgage company's problems with the State of Michigan and wanted information on him.

The ACLU lawsuit claims:

88. The Program has inhibited communications between Mr. Abdrabboh and his family and friends because he is less candid about his political views and avoids saying things that are critical of the U.S. government over the telephone or through email.
Puh-leeze. Abdrabboh is a vocal member of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission, appointed by Michigan's liberal Democrat governor, Jennifer Granholm. There was a meeting of his commission since the NSA program was disclosed in The New York Times, and he is as vocal as ever. All of these attorneys had a press conference in Detroit, yesterday, upon the filing of the suit. Contrary to being silenced, they couldn't seem to shut up.


ACLU Lawsuit's Nabih Ayad, Nazih Hassan Deserve Heightened Scrutiny
Next, there's Abdrabboh's law partner, Nabih Ayad. Both Abdrabboh and Ayad go on annual trips to the Middle East with Hamad. The trips involve meetings with Lebanese and Syrian officials tied to Hezbollah, and their travel-mates include officials of a Detroit charity that openly donated millions to HAMAS and privately raised money for Iraqi insurgents at a Los Angeles area fundraiser. Federal officials suspect that money laundering--and who knows what else--may be going on during these trips.

Ayad represented Omar Abdel-Fatah Al-Shishani, stopped at Detroit Metro Airport with millions in phony bank checks used to fund Al-Qaeda operations. Shishani--a friend of John Kerry's--didn't get much for his money, though. I had dinner with Abu Shishani in fall 2003, prior to his sentencing. It was a secret meeting with law enforcement members, and he did not know my real identity. Shishani told me that Mr. Ayad ripped him off of $25,000, did not help him, and he had to hire a new attorney. Based on that, it's hard to see how NSA spying would affect his "representation" of his client.

Then, there are his 130 clients paid off an INS inspector and committed visa fraud. Ayad got these clients from his buddy, former "terrorist" Hamad. Paying off INS inspectors, visa fraud--these are things we SHOULD be spying on.

William Swor, another Plaintiff in the suit, represented an accused member of the Detroit terror cell. During the trial, the judge reportedly lashed at him for trying to tamper with and intimidate the government's Arabic translator in the case. He sat on the Board of Saleh's Arab welfare agency, and reportedly threatened to take work away from the translator, who also did work for the agency. Like Saleh, Swor was also disciplined by the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board, for snorting up his clients' money. (He had a cocaine problem.)

Finally, there is Nazih Hassan, a member of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Michigan Chapter--a group founded with funds from HAMAS political director Moussa Abu Marzook. Of all the Plaintiffs detailed within the case, he is the most worthy of government monitoring. He is not an attorney, but is admittedly a friend of deportee Rabih Haddad--founder of Global Relief Foundation (GRF).

President Bush designated GRF as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Entity and shut it down, because it was laundering money back and forth to Al-Qaeda and had strong ties to its Hamburg cell. Haddad was caught lying to the government about his income for the purpose of getting subsidized housing, carried a briefcase full of bricks of cash (which he showed federal agents), and lied on an application to buy a rifle less than six months after moving to the U.S. His charity, GRF, sent out letters in the name of Osama Bin Laden's spiritual leader, Abdel Azzam, and attempted to raise funds for a "Pakistani Taliban" and jihad.

Hassan was president of Rabih Haddad's mosque and helped him. The federal government SHOULD be investigating his mosque. They should be investigating Hassan. If our government is not investigating the mosque, friends, and helpers of a man raising money for worldwide jihad and laundering money for Al-Qaeda, then whom ARE they investigating?

Hassan also admits being friendly with individuals connected to IANA (Islamic Assembly of North America), a charity raided for financing Saddam Hussein (while pretending the money was going to fund needy Iraqis who needed food). IANA, which was raided by the FBI, operated websites BEFORE 9/11 that featured fatwas urging the use of planes directed at buildings as a way to murder Americans. IANA's executive director, Islam Almurabit, and a key operative, Mohammed Al-Ahmari, fled to the Mid-East when the Detroit FBI tipped IANA off that it was investigating the group--both going to Saudi Arabia. Sami Omar Al-Hussayen, a Saudi national who was indicted but unfortunately acquitted, designed and operated the websites.

Again, Mr. Hassan's own admission of being close to IANA operatives makes it quite clear that he certainly SHOULD be monitored by the government.

Some of the Plaintiffs and attorneys in the ACLU's lawsuit against the NSA are the same as in a 2003 lawsuit the ACLU filed against Section 215 of the Patriot Act. That lawsuit languishes before another Detroit Federal Judge, without ever being decided.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Can any one point to one time a wire tap was turned down that affected our security. I know 4 out of something like 25000 have. But know one ever said that any were in last 8 years. Hell they can start the tap and go to a Judge with in 5 days for the warrant. So why does law need to be broken.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
no problem....i said this one would get shitty....and i think i`ll be proven correct...we should get it out,and then leave it here...

""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.".....????

journalists sued for the right to speak privately to terrorists?...not for the purposes of informing on them, 'natch....."just to put some perspective into their story"....lol.....

""journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, monitoring phone calls and e-mails between people in the U.S. and people in other countries when a link to terrorism is suspected"...

insane....you can't eavesdrop on me when I speak to my client who is a terrorist because we really need to share confidential information and your wiretap is "cramping our style"?....

that`s ****ing laughable....it`s all about bush...at least be honest....if this were clinton,nobody would be saying a word...

f-ck `em...

here we have the aclu... the same organization that ..
(1) tried to prevent the nypd from inspecting backpacks and bags of people going into the subway system..

(2) has tried to prevent inspections of passengers getting onto airplanes...

(3) has fought for decades to keep the boy scouts from using any public facilities anywhere...

the aclu naturally avoided the circuits that had already upheld warrantless surveillance as an executive power(this woman was the first to rule against)...even though the 6th circuit will almost certainly overrule her...

when groups (like the aclu,the nyt`s..cair for christ sakes... et al) spend all their energy doing things that will HELP OUR ENEMIES, then what is the difference between our enemies and these groups?.....

i would suggest that there is no difference at all...

if a nuke goes off in nyc, it will be the result of liberal hatred for bush and america.... preventing sane people from doing what is necessary to defend ourselves.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top