Friday, August 18, 2006
Why does Judge Taylor heart Al Qaida?
One part of the judges ruling that has recieved very little publicity should give those attacking her pause. Judge Taylor dismissed a seperate claim by the ACLU that sought to stop the data mining of communications. According to the story the judge ruled that not enough was publicly known about the data mining program to rule on it's constitutionality, and that further litigation would jeopardize state secrets.
This then is hardly the wild eyed pronouncement of a radicalized jurist. She stopped the litigation she thought did not have sufficient evidence to rule upon, and would affect national security, but ruled to stop activities that clearly are unconstitutional based upon what already is public knowlege. Rather than blindly lashing out in partisanship, she makes a Soloman like decision. She holds the administration to account for that which is known, but doesn't even try to judge or attempt to discover that which is currently speculation. In splitting the difference the explosive news of the day is that she has ruled that the administration is out of bounds, leading to an outcry from the right, without considering the full context of the ruling.
Also of note is the Justice Department's statement protesting the ruling. Even as I pounded out this rebuttal of the administrations oft claimed primary duty of protecting the American populace, Mr. Gonzalez reaffirmed that position. To quote the Justice Department response:
"In the ongoing conflict with al Qaeda and its allies, the President has the primary duty under the Constitution to protect the American people," the department said in a statement."
The best rebuttal in detail of this patently unconstitutional illogic comes from the judges ruling itself:
"Implicit in the term 'national defense' is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this Nation apart. ... It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of ... those liberties ... which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile," Taylor wrote.With this line of reason, the judge appeals to America as an ideal. An America that stands for liberty and justice for all. In contrast, the harping of the administration on keeping you safe, keeping you in fear, and discrediting those who disagree with them as giving aid and comfort to our enemies appeals to the baser instincts of humankind. Down the road the Judge points to is the shining city on the hill. The place of ideals... the great melting pot of democracy. Down the road pointed to by the administration lies endless war, fear, distrust and danger. Let us choose our path wisely.
Plaintiffs here contend that the TSP [”Terrorist Surveillance Program”] has interfered with their ability to carry out their professional responsibilities in a variety of ways, including that the TSP has had a significant impact on their ability to talk with sources, locate witnesses, conduct scholarship, engage in advocacy and communicate with persons who are outside of the United States, including in the Middle East and Asia. Plaintiffs have submitted several declarations to that effect. For example, scholars and journalists such as plaintiffs Tara McKelvey, Larry Diamond, and Barnett Rubin indicate that they must conduct extensive research in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, and must communicate with individuals abroad whom the United States government believes to be terrorist suspects or to be associated with terrorist organizations. 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 to be associated with terrorist organizations, and must discuss confidential information over the phone and email with their international clients. 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.
WTF? "Believes to be terrorist suspects?"
Translation: The plaintiff leftists are communicating with terrorists.
There, fixed that.
All of the opinions on this judicial farce seem to miss one important point. Why would a judge be so eager to reach such a conclusion so as to potentially jeopardize her career? Who is she serving? (The opinion subjects her to considerable ridicule, and deliberately ignoring precedent has been cited by some as grounds for sanctions, for example.)
Here's a good reason:
The leftist "plaintiffs" have admitted they've been communicating with likely terrorists. They know they're dirty, and they suspect or know the NSA has the goods on them and that prosecution is likely.
Having shopped for and found a friendly in-the-pocket leftist federal judge to almost whimsically and arbitrarily declare the NSA surveillance program unconstitutional, and injunctioning it to stop immediately, is about the only way for the "plaintiffs" to avoid being destroyed and jailed.
Of course, you and I may get killed as a result, but what's a little death and destruction to good leftist malignant narcissists in their pursuit of their dreamy Marxist utopia?
It is also certainly in the Public Interest to know exactly who these "plaintiffs" were communicating with, why, what was said, and what messages they may have relayed for their "overseas clients" and to whom.
The one particular line of reason you refuse to understand is that we reasonable folk who want to follow the constitution do not wish for the government to throw up it's hands on domestic spying. We simply want them to present a bit of proof to a judge to get a warrant in order to do so! Having done that the constitutionality of the spying is no longer an issue and the program is entirely acceptable. After repeated examples of the administration claiming so and so or this and that organization are affiliated with terrorism, I no longer trust them to be the sole arbiter of who or who is not suspect in the matter. Indeed the attitude you and your brethren in hatred display, confirm me in this determination. It is clear that you consider any who disagree with you to be on the side of the terrorists. You have every right to think this in our system, but those who disagree with you also have not forsaken the rights that protect us... and in the long run if this nation is taken from that consitutional rule the damage to the American way of life will be horrendous.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]