It is another good day for democracy, even if it only lasts for a brief period of time. Today, buried beneath the apparently more important news of the JonBenet murder (seriously, it is great that they may have caught the guy, but this decision along with the entire Middle East “crisis” has a much greater impact on the world), was the fact that the NSA wiretapping program has been found unconstitutional by at least one judge. It will surely get appealed, and the decision will probably not take effect, but it is promising never the less.
In a 44 page ruling Judge Anna Diggs Taylor finds the Government afoul of the 1st and 4th amendments, the separation of powers doctrine, and FISA. I have been skimming through the opinion, and if you want a history lesson on the basics on Constitutional Law, it might make a good read for you. All the big names are there and even if you do not understand the law that much, the opinion will give you a basis to actually make a good argument about whether or not the program is or is not constitutional; regardless of whether you think in practicality, it should be. Here are a few quotes taken from the opinion that I found interesting…
Defendants have publicly admitted to the following: (1) the TSP exists; (2) it operates without warrants; (3) it targets communications where one party to the communication is outside the United States, and the government has a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member ofal Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda. As the Government has on many occasions confirmed the veracity of these allegations, the state secrets privilege does not apply to this information.
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 tobe associated with terrorist organizations,(FN)13 and must discuss confidential information over the phone and email with their international clients.(FN)14 All of the Plaintiffs contend that the TSP has caused clients, witnesses and sources to discontinue their communications with plaintiffs out of fear that their communications will be intercepted.(FN)15
The [Authorized Use of Military Force] resolution, if indeed it is construed as replacing FISA, gives no support to Defendants here. Even if that Resolution superceded all other statutory law, Defendants have violated the Constitutional rights of their citizens including the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and the Separation of Powers doctrine.
Last but not least, here in two lines is the counter-argument to the completely irrelevant argument of if you have nothing to hide, why do you care. It’s from the Fark comment discussion on this matter. Generally, not a place for good arguments, but great for one-liners.
My 2-year old’s safety comes before your inconvenience.
Well, then you can explain to her when she grows up why she lives in a fascist police state.
For some additional legal discussion here is a link to the SCOTUSblog