CNN Developing Story: DOJ appealing wiretapping ruling

[catlawyer]

http://www.cnn.com/

The U.S. Department of Justice has announced that it will appeal a federal judge's ruling that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional.

Just listed as banner on home page. More later as CNN or other news organizations post it.

New link at Reuters:
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-08-17T190131Z_01_WBT005804_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-EAVESDROPPING-APPEAL.xml

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department said on Thursday that it has appealed an order by a federal judge in Detroit to halt the National Security Agency's program of domestic eavesdropping.

"Because the terrorist surveillance program is an essential tool for the intelligence community in the war on terror, the Department of Justice has appealed the District Court's order," it said in a statement, adding that the department believes the program is "lawful and protects civil liberties."

[Atman]

1. Of course it will. Can they continue to wiretap in the meantime?

Sure. Stall this one as long as possible. Maybe it will be heard in, say, 2009.

[Kagemusha]

2. They need a stay to continue to wiretap.

Of course, that's just what the law says, not like laws haven't been ignored before..

[jberryhill]

4. No, enforcement of the order was postponed as issued n/t

[EST]

5. I wonder which pet judge they'll get to order an immediate stay.

I read the opinion and decision and my limited legal knowledge doesn't inform me as to whether they have to desist right this minute, at the end of the day, or what.

I should think that the judge meant that the warrantless activity must stop immediately, on the issuance of the order.

Do you have any clearer notion?

[catlawyer]

7. According to this news clip

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_on_go_pr_wh/warrantless_surveillance

"Beeson predicted the government would appeal the wiretapping ruling and request that the order to halt the program be postponed while the case makes its way through the system. She said the ACLU had not yet decided whether it would oppose such a postponement."

[Kagemusha]

10. If that's the case the 6th circuit appeals court will give a stay soon

How it could *not* be coming, I have no idea...

[saigon68]

18. Some Thug Judge NeoCon Enabler will order a stay.

The whole system is highly corrupt

[rocktivity]

3. Notice how they consider the APPEAL the news

rather than the ruling itself. MSNBC got it right.

I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why domestic spying CAN'T be done without a warrant.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Supersedeas]

24. Did anyone see CNN's Legal Expert (TOBIN) marginalize the decision

by calling the judge LIBERAL.

That's some unbiased legal analysis for ya. Not one quote from the decision itself, but plenty of ad homenim attacks from the shill...errr....reporter...err...legal expert.

[truthisfreedom]

6. supremes! supremes! supremes! what will they do when they're forced to

face this mess... refuse to hear it?

[catlawyer]

8. "Protects Civil Liberties"

"Because the terrorist surveillance program is an essential tool for the intelligence community in the war on terror, the Department of Justice has appealed the District Court's order," it said in a statement, adding that the department believes the program is "lawful and protects civil liberties."

Not surprising, but sickening ...

[rocktivity]

25. For the ten millionth time

WHY CAN'T YOU DO IT WITHOUT A WARRANT???

:headbang:
rocknation

[MessiahRp]

9. They'll take this for sure...

This is why Alito and Roberts were pushed so hard... This is the exact issue they want the right wingers up there voting on in the SC decision. It will make it final and legal.

Rp

[Benhurst]

13. Send it to the clowns!

They'll know what to do.

:silly: :silly: :silly:
:silly: O8) :silly:
O8) O8) O8)

[Bacchus39]

11. completely predictable

n/t

[rodeodance]

17. quick but very predictable.

[Uncle Joe]

12. They need to wiretap, we have an election coming up,

how else will they know what their opponents are up to? Nixon was so old school, why break in to the opposition Party's headquarters to tap their phones, when you can tap the whole nation at will? Makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?:sarcasm:

[warrens]

14. They're going to lose

That's why they fought so hard to keep it out of court. They knew if a judge looked at it, they didn't stand a chance.

We only have one constitution. That one the DOJ is using doesn't count. Hell, it doesn't even count in Germany anymore.

[Bake]

15. Hard call for the "strict constructionists"

If they don't want to infer a "right to privacy" in the Constitution, they'll be hard pressed to find a "unitary executive" in there either.

But I'm confident Scalito et al. will find a way.

Bake

[rodeodance]

20. maybe under the desk?

[rodeodance]

16. Listen up JR== the judge said we had no KINGS in AMERICA

[catlawyer]

19. I love how the judge quoted Justice O'Conner

from Hamdi:

"It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments that our Nation's commitment to due process is most severly tested; and it is in those times that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad."

[catlawyer]

21. ... and also Justice Warren

"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."

U.S. v. Robel

[UCLA Dem]

22. Surprised it took them this long-----

Can't let all that court packing go to waste now can they?

[OneBlueSky]

23. even if DOJ loses on appeal, that won't stop BushCo from . . .

continuing to do whatever they feel like doing -- illegal or not . . . they're convinced that they're immune, since we're "at war," and the president has virtually unlimited powers in wartime . . .

where their argument collapses, of course, is in the fact that we're NOT at war . . . and that NO president has unlimited powers ANY time . . .