U.S. Judge Nixes Warrantless Wiretaps

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 as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

"Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

The Bush administration immediately appealed the ruling, and the parties in the lawsuit have agreed to a delay of the injunction to stop the surveillance until they can argue before Judge Taylor for a stay pending appeal, CBS News producer Beverley Lumpkin reports.

U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the surveillance program has been "very effective" in protecting Americans.

"We believe very strongly that the program is lawful. ...," Gonzales said in Washington. "We respectfully disagree with the decision of the judge and have appealed the decision."

---

Read the district court opinion.

---

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 monitoring phone calls and e-mails between people in the U.S. and those in other countries, without obtaining warrants from a judge, when a link to terrorism is suspected.

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.

"At its core, today's ruling addresses the abuse of presidential power and reaffirms the system of checks and balances that's necessary to our democracy," ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said in a conference call with reporters.

He called the opinion "another nail in the coffin in the Bush administration's legal strategy in the war on terror."

• 1
• 2
• Next Page »

[jlcmo]

I don't think ANYONE is saying that the wiretapping should not take place. But the LEGAL issue is that the wiretapping was done without a warrant. There is a law (FISA) that states there must be a warrant for the wiretapping to be legal. It would not be difficult for the administration to obtain the warrant(s). Why do they think they don't need to have them?

[kabijama]

It is interesting how judges are so quick on ruling on something that may not cause them harm. This judge probably does not live in the real world where the person sitting next to you at work turns out to be member of a sleeper cell. Everyone was quick to say how the Federal Government failed to protect us on 9/11. But when steps are taken to preempt another attack or send the danger elsewhere, the liberals start screaming "it is not constitutional",

[dx2krudop]

Hmm, I wonder what about this case made the ACLU decide that this Court and this Judge should hear it? Were most of the plaintiffs in Detroit or did they search out possible plaintiffs in Detroit to get this Judge?

Maybe some Cherry-Picking going on here?

[barney1940]

I remember the Nixon presidency when it was called the Imperial Presidency. Nixon way overstepped his bounds and it led to illegal activity. We are dealing with another imperial presidency. It needs to be brought back under constitutional control. But don't get to focused on Bush. The power behind the presidency is Chaney, who tries to call everyone "unpatriotic" if they differ with the Bush administration.
Sincerely;
Bernard W. Hess
Greensboro, NC

[irishchamps8]

after reading through all of the comments this morning about the NSA, I am shocked of the ignorance of the individuals that read this article. Do you liberal morons really believe that the government has the resources and time to monitor every phone call in America? No way... It is interesting to me that Mr. Bush is being demolished in the press on a daily basis for doing his job, protecting America from terrorism - something Clinton never did. Yes Mr. Bush has made mistakes but keeping America safe is not a mistake, it's his job. Liberals and the ACLU are either misguided, idiots, or ignorant and its obvious this job is doing this as a political statement. It isn't by chance that we have not been attacked on our home soil by terrorist since 9/11. Liberals have to realize that this sets a precedence for future Democrat Presidents as well (not that that will happen anytime soon) but this is a tool Presidents should have in fighting terrorism. Additionally, there is a reason we have not elected a liberal President in this country - they have no brains.

[irishchamps8]

I think the NSA should monitor phone calls to foreign countries such as Iraq, Pakistan and Iran. What's the issue here people, are you hiding something?

[book54552134]

The Bush Administration believes in following the law only when it fits within their particular point of view. This has become habitual for them whether they are dealing with illegal wire tapping, violations of the War Crimes Act of 1996, violations of the Geneva Conventions & International Law, or criminal abuse of Executive Power (i.e. lying to the American public, the U.S. Congress, & the United Nations about nonexistant Iraqi WMD's in order to falsely justify an invasion & occupation of a sovereign nation, Iraq.) This Administration believes in only those parts of the U.S. Constitution with which it agrees.

[long_rider]

A judge has stepped forward, out of the darkness, and gave a fair ruling about the constitution. Her words are being challenged, because she can%u2019t interpret the constitution the way this administration wants. Now one of our basic freedoms will be further suspended until this administration finds one of its appointed judges that will agree with them.

This administration has thumbed its nose at the constitution, at congress, and the American people (in the name of national security). They claim to be protecting us from terrorists, by listening to our phone calls, tight security at the air ports, monitoring the Americans on the internet.

Our constitution was created by people far wiser than the officials we have elected, and it was created for a reason %u2013 to live in an environment that is free from oppression. Our government has been defined as a republic %u2013 run by the people. The constitution is a document that gives us guidelines by which our democracy is to be governed. Now we have an administration that thinks it is above the constitution, congress, and the needs of the people.

I see no problem with the government having to obtain warrants to listen in on phone conversation, read other peoples mail, and check on their movements. Warrants were created for a reason, to protect us form administrations like this one.

[ratpuppy]

I applaud this decision in the strongest terms! I spent eight years in a US Navy uniform. I believed that I was doing so to protect and defend the US Constitution from all enemies foreign AND domestic. This has nothing to do with the politics of judical appointments, and EVERYTHING to do with direct violations of the First and Fourth Ammendments as well as specific violations of FISA. Why is it everytime a judge tries to reverse an injustice that Bush causes they are suddenly too liberal, or too female, or too short or whatever else can be spun by the wild-eyed anti-American neo-con fascists? If we won't defend the US Constitution, why are we even bothering to defend America at all? I personally believe that George Bush spits on the service of every Veteran when he turns his back on the Constitution that I, my father and my two brothers put on the uniform of our Country to defend. Bush should remember the oath that he took twice to defend the Constitution, and be reminded that the role of the President is only to advise or veto in the creation of law... Not to make them up if he doesn't like them. It is in the Constitution... Even Bush could look it up!

[CBSTV]

It's interesting how we'll impeach one president for being less than truthful about a sexual relationship, but look the other way when another president gets people killed and blatantly violates the Constitution.