The argument is that reporters, scholars and lawyers constitutional rights to talk to terrorists have been violated. Nobody has that right. The point being that you can't tap anyone because their lawyer might call. That would mean no bugging would be allowed at all.
Even the WP is saying WTF http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081701540.html [T]he decision ... is neither careful nor scholarly, and it is hard-hitting only in the sense that a bludgeon is hard-hitting. The angry rhetoric of U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor will no doubt grab headlines. But as a piece of judicial work -- that is, as a guide to what the law requires and how it either restrains or permits the NSA's program -- her opinion will not be helpful. Judge Taylor's opinion is certainly long on throat-clearing sound bites. "There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution," she thunders. She declares that "the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution." And she insists that Mr. Bush has "undisputedly" violated the First and Fourth Amendments, the constitutional separation of powers, and federal surveillance law. But the administration does, in fact, vigorously dispute these conclusions. Nor is its dispute frivolous. [For details, see the editorial itself. -EV] ... The judge may well be correct in her bottom line that the program exceeds presidential authority, even during wartime. We harbor grave doubt both that Congress authorized warrantless surveillance as part of the war and that Mr. Bush has the constitutional power to act outside of normal surveillance statutes that purport to be the exclusive legal authorities for domestic spying. But her opinion, which as the first court venture into this territory will garner much attention, is unhelpful either in evaluating or in ensuring the program's legality.... On 8/18/06, Gruss Gott wrote: > > RoMunn wrote: > > You guys are all fantasizing. This puppy is getting overturned on appeal. > > > > I agree, but not due to sound legal reasoning, due to politics. I've > read the ruling and while I'm no expert it's a damn strong argument > that I don't find flawed with vindictiveness. > > If there it is overturned for other good legal reason then it'll need > to go to the Supreme Court which means that it'll be given the > political treatment by them. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:213579 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
