Part-Time Pundit: Federal Court Rules Protecting America is Unconstitutional

« Wictory Wednesday Presents Tom Kean for US Senate | Main | What are we Conserving? »

August 17, 2006

Federal Court Rules Protecting America is Unconstitutional

The ACLU has convinced a federal judge that monitoring overseas communications of terrorists is against the constitution. Despite the fact the preamble lists defending the nation as an acceptable federal government function, the ACLU and US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said that the risk "innocent" communications could be intercepted far outweighed the risk of Al Qaeda attacking the United States. Despite programs such as ECHELON, CARNIVORE, and others that existed happily (albeit controversially) under the Clinton Administration, the possibility that George Bush might actually defend the country is a threat the Constitution cannot bear.

Despite the evidence, the media still calls the case a matter of "warrantless wiretapping" despite the fact that the clear intention is to monitor international calls. This ongoing deception is an attempt to create hysteria that the US is becoming a "police state" and that the treats are from Republicans, not terrorists. This is the same political quarter that brings you the idea (despite all evidence to the contrary) that George Bush and not Al Qaeda is behind 9/11.

The judge in this case, an appointee of Jimmy Carter, doesn't seem to understand the difference between overseas surveillance and domestic surveillance. Will the CIA start needing warrant the next time the spy on a terrorist overseas?

According to the ruling:

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.

Let's skip past the FISA court idea, one that is still in dispute publicly and in the courts (other district courts either ruled for the government or declined to rule at all) and discuss the First Amendment issue. Debating what due process should exist for wiretapping is something that can and will take place, however, the idea that plotting terror attacks against the citizens of the United States of America could even possible be protected by the First Amendment should make everyone who cares about the safety of their family cringe. What other possible meaning is there to that phrase?

Many scoffed at the idea of framing resistance to the Patriot Act and the "warrantless wiretapping" programs as an attempt to establish an "Al Qaeda Bill of Rights", however, with Judge Taylor's ruling and the help of the ACLU, the shroud of the First Amendment has been extended to protect those who plot to kill Americans.

Posted by John Bambenek at August 17, 2006 2:26 PM