Jimmy Carter appointed this judge.

Posted by: jawa at August 18, 2006 12:34 PM

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit is the first judge to rule on the legality of the National Security Agency's program, which the White House says is a key tool for fighting terrorism that has already stopped attacks

Is this not a Clinton appointee? What does that tell you if this is the case?

Is this person actually qualified legally to be a judge in the first place?

Very interesting!

Posted by: witness at August 18, 2006 12:36 PM

CAIR is a propaganda organization, and an enabler of Islamic Fascists, and Senator Schumer has noted, CAIR has known connections to terrorists(Islamic Fascists). Folks should write often to their Reps and Senators, and the president, to demand a congressional investigation of this organization, including its funding sources.

Posted by: Frank at August 18, 2006 12:37 PM

Thank you, Judge, darling !
I am absolutely "sure" that the Constitution has been written to protect the rights of terrorists.

islamists attacking the Free World from outside, muslim immigrants and subversives from inside, this is quite a battle.

Godspeed to us all !!!

Posted by: POITIERS-LEPANTO at August 18, 2006 12:52 PM

donated by concerned citizen on another post.
“Let there be no doubt that CAIR is a terrorist supporting front organization that is partially funded by terrorists, and that CAIR wishes nothing more than the implementation of Sharia law in America.”
* CAIR is an “organization founded by Hamas supporters which seeks to overthrow Constitutional government in the United States and replace it with an Islamist theocracy using our own Constitution as protection.”
* “ACAIR reminds our readers that CAIR was started by Hamas members and is supported by terrorist supporting individuals, groups and countries.”
* “Why oppose CAIR? CAIR has proven links to, and was founded by, Islamic terrorists. CAIR is not in the United States to promote the civil rights of Muslims. CAIR is here to make radical Islam the dominant religion in the United States and convert our country into an Islamic theocracy along the lines of Iran. In addition, CAIR has managed, through the adroit manipulation of the popular media, to present itself as the ‘moderate' face of Islam in the United States. CAIR succeeded to the point that the majority of its members are not aware that CAIR actively supports terrorists and terrorist supporting groups and nations. In addition, CAIR receives direct funding from Islamic terrorists supporting countries.”
* “CAIR is a fundamentalist organization dedicated to the overthrow of the United States Constitution and the installation of an Islamic theocracy in America.”
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/WhiteheadStatement.html

This is a list that is proven legally defensible and should be memorized and frequently quoted by JW readers at every opportunity.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at August 18, 2006 12:53 PM

Here is the list of Plaintiffs:

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION;
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION; AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION OF MICHIGAN;
COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC
RELATIONS; COUNCIL ON AMERICAN
ISLAMIC RELATIONS MICHIGAN;
GREENPEACE, INC.; NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE
LAWYERS; JAMES BAMFORD; LARRY
DIAMOND; CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS;
TARA MCKELVEY; and BARNETT R. RUBIN

and additional case information (I had to download the "Memorandum Opinion" .pdf from Fox to view it, don't know why)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Hon. Anna Diggs Taylor
Case No. 06-CV-10204
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,208982,00.html

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 18, 2006 1:04 PM

The plaintiffs in this case supposedly went judge shopping, which is why it ended up in Detroit. It's also good the remember that Detroit was rated the most liberal city in the U.S. in a 2005 poll from the Bay Area Center for Voting Research.

Posted by: s at August 18, 2006 1:05 PM

The Maharushie has, after some 10 years, gone ballistic on this at last. Both yesterday and today, he railed about this ruling.

Good part of this story - the decision has been appealed, and stayed. But a nationwide clensing of all Jihadist Judges - Left or Right - is urgently called for.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 18, 2006 1:16 PM

If anything has summed up how soft we've become over the years, and why we've produced whackjobs like this soft-headed PC judge, this article really does it:

Weaponizing Civilization: The New Way of War
Written by Raymond Kraft
Saturday, August 12, 2006

War has morphed, indeed, in ways unimaginable fifty years ago.

The Islamic Resistance Movement (IRM), the Jihad, which includes Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and all other like-minded folk, is much smarter about it than we are. It has turned the civility of the United States and Europe, into a weapon and turned it against us. It has weaponized niceness, it has weaponized compassion, it has weaponized the fundamental decency of Western Civilization. It has weaponized our desire for peace. It has recognized that our goodness is no match for its savagery, and will continue to exploit that fact until we lose and they win. However long it takes. Centuries, generations, decades, years, months.

The soft underbelly of America in particular and Western Civilization in general is that it has become so excessively nice and decent and civilized that it is now loathe to rise to its own self-defense, loathe to kill civilians when necessary, loath to cause "collateral damages," loathe to fight and defeat other countries, even when its own survival is at stake. We have emasculated our will to rise to our own defense, to the defense of our interests, to the defense of our friends and allies, to the defense of our own civilization and its unique freedoms. We would rather die than kill. We are willing to martyr ourselves and our children and their children and our country to the conceit of our own goodness. We have spent sixty years obsessing (as a culture, as a nation) with whether we might have done the wrong thing by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even if it did end World War II, even if it did save a million American casualties and maybe five or ten or twenty million Japanese casualties . . . the nuclear annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki might well have saved Japan from extinction, since if the Japanese had all fought to the death as they promised and threatened to do there wouldn't have been enough Japanese left to be Japan anymore, so that, in a perverse way, Japan may now owe its existence to America's willingness to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We can't imagine ourselves nuking Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or firebombing Dresden or Tokyo anymore, killing scores of thousands of civilians in the process, or laying waste to Beirut, or Damascus, or Tehran. We're way too nice for all that, now. We have become much more civilized.

Read it all on http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=23022&catcode=13

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at August 18, 2006 1:27 PM

It seems to me that those who oppose wiretapping are the Islamic terrorist groups and Muslims of all sorts. Generally speaking , Americans have no issues with it.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at August 18, 2006 1:34 PM

I heard the attorneys (plaintiffs) have Middle Eastern clients. The attorneys claimed they could not conduct business over the phone for fear of the government listening in.

Imagine that!! The Muslims are afraid of Uncle Sam listening in. Just what is their "secretive business"..

Goes to show ,,, old GWs wiretapping works.It bothers the Muslims, (and we know what they are up to)

Posted by: exsgtbrown at August 18, 2006 4:20 PM

Quite telling that CAIR got involved in this so quickly. As if we had to wonder what they've got to hide....

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at August 18, 2006 5:00 PM

US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor found that the program violated freedom of speech, protections against unreasonable searches and a constitutional check on the power of the presidency. In her 43-page ruling, Taylor wrote: "There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution." The wiretapping suit was filed in Michigan by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a number of journalists, lawyers, scholars and rights workers who believed their communications had been monitored. The Justice Department has launched an appeal and a hearing is set for September 7th. The ruling is on hold while the appeals process is under way.

As much as I would like to see the government exercise power to monitor Muslims, the fact is that the government (despite it's wiretapping) does not do that and won't.

More worrisome is that such activities (and ill conceived laws) though championed by the right (or left) ALWAYS have unintended adverse consequences.

For instance RICO was enacted supposedly to monitor the Mafia and enable the gov to prosecute the mafia, but in it's long history the use of RICO against organized crime is a rarity, not the rule.

Do we really want to empower fascistic authoritarianism. I thought that it was fascist authoritarianism of Islam that we were motivated against.

Like it or not, admit or not, King George acts very much like a proto fascist and in line with his corporate handlers, patrons and base..

So what do we do, hand the Republican Party and Dubya a "mandate" for authoritarian control, like the Germans did Adolph after the Reichstag fire?

Posted by: Nariz at August 18, 2006 5:05 PM

Nariz as usual you took the wrong side on this issue, this has been around for a long time, it was used under Clinton, and geesh no demoncrate judge said a darn thing. you look at the powers of previous president, such Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, Roosevelt during the WW2 they took much more powers than Bush. it is plain and simple hatred of Bush that moves the left in a frenzy and endangers the country and world! yes damm hatred of a standing president during a war, they will do anything, just to get power back and drag Bush in the gutter. Bush has been great a appointing judges
who reflect knowledge of the constitution, not some stupid emotional Taylor who only got there because of her gender and race. this Taylor has no leg to stand on, it will be repealed, it should not of ever had come to this.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at August 18, 2006 5:50 PM

Judge Taylor is a Carter appointee
Expect more to come out about her and the plaintiffs in the coming days.
In any case, she's no judicial genius, or she has poor clerks. The opinion is nothing but circular reasoning and pontification. Inexcusable.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at August 18, 2006 6:06 PM

One hopes for a reversal on appeal. One hopes if a reversal is not obtained , then Congress will do what it should do, and give the President the authority this opinion insists he does not have. And it should do so, not because it necessarily supports Bush, not because it is endorsing that maddeningly wasteful and counter-productive campaign in Iraq, the one in which the American government is expending lives and money in order to prevent sectarian and ethnic divisions from returning Iraq to the three Ottoman vilayets from whence it was created, but because everyone should agree that in a war against the active participants, or passive supporters and defenders and explainers-away of Jihad, practices may be necessary that we would all object to in other circumstances. Lincoln understood this. Franklin Roosevelt understood this. Everyone should understand it, and swallow , if haters of Bush, that Bush-hatred and agree that these measures are justified and withstand the scrutiny of all but the true believers, the blind absolutists, who if they have their way will endanger the rest of us -- and we don't deserve that.

Robert mentions a problem of standing but if there is an actual case or controversy, an aggrieved party, then there is standing. The ACLLU brought the lawsuit on behalf of journalists and lawyers who say that contacting certain parties -- clients, informants -- overseas has been made more difficult. That is standing enough.

Yes, the ACLU in this sickening case, with this disturbing result, possesses legal standing. Over the last decade or so, of course, the ACLU has in the minds of those who might once have supported it, who are quite capable of distinguishing between the need to protect people from the likes of Joseph McCarthy, and the need for the government, these days, to protect us from the likes of people who make Joseph McCarthy seem a creature of sweet reason and charm, such as Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Osama Bin Laden, and Sheikh Nasrallah, and Yusuf al-Qaradawi, and a cast of hundreds of millions who, as their Qur'an and their Hadith and their biography of Muhammad all make clear, view the world as an uncompromising struggle between Believer and Infidel.

The ACLU doesn't care. The ACLU doesn't wish anymore to recognize reality, and how there is a danger, all over the Western world, of losing not this or that right temporarily, but the entire edifice of rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And the ACLU doesn't realize as one obvious reaction to the failure of Western governments to protest its indigenous Infidels from the menace and instruments of Jihad, groups apparently far to the right -- the LePenistes of the National Front in France, and the BNP in England -- are gaining supporters, with all that that may imply for what political and social harmony may continue to exist. It is coming to that, unless respectable governments, run by mainstream parties, are allowed to be as vigilant as they so clearly need to be, in monitoring the Muslim populations both abroad -- and within Dar al-Harb.

Posted by: Hugh at August 18, 2006 6:08 PM

Bush has been great a appointing judges
who reflect knowledge of the constitution.

What about that one chick he wanted to appoint.

Isnt their some kind of secret court,where bush could do all the phone tapping he wanted,and had 3 months to tell them?and that all long as the court has been around it has never ruled againt the government?the issue was that they were doing it withought telling that court?

Posted by: Patriot8 at August 18, 2006 6:27 PM

The Left cannot conceive of an America that truly faces a devastating attack. Today's Leftists are too young to remember World War II and mostly grew up in pampered suburban middle-class homes.

I have tried to explain to them that if the U.S. cannot prevent WMD attacks on our country, the social consequences will be just as devastating as the physical ones. If the U.S. were nuked, actually nuked, by North Korean nukes and/or Iranian nukes, with millions of Americans dead, the Government would assume emergency powers under the Continuity of Government (COG) program. And we can kiss our freedoms good-bye.

The Left doesn't believe it. They really think that even after a nuclear war, the ACLU and the peace protesters will just continue dancing and prancing like they always did. They are incredibly naive, totally ignorant of history, totally ignorant of world affairs, and there's no way to reach them. Our educational system has failed our young people.

Posted by: Steven L. at August 18, 2006 6:48 PM

OK, for those who have been following the legal rot of our society, there are three kinds of suits: Class Action, Joint and Several Tort Liability, and finally, the SLAPP suit.

Anyone who has seen what happened to the Tobacco industry knows how a Class Action works. (The Lawyer reaps most of the benefit, the plaintiffs get crumbs.)

A Joint and Several pits an accident victim against a slew of defendents who must all respond or risk becoming the "deep pocket" who must make the victim whole. This practice almost wiped out the light aircraft industry and, for a while, closed a lot of parks and swimming pools. It is also the vehicle used by cities such as Sacramento to sue gun makers into oblivion at a time when we need guns to defend ourselves against the Islamofascists.

The SLAPP suit was first used by polluters against citizens who complained. The acronym stands for Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation and is used by Big People to shut up little people. In short, it is an effective intimidation tool. CAIR was using SLAPP suits prior to 9/11 to the extent that the screeners at Boston Logan were understandably "gun shy". One screener's supervisor over-ruled questions about young swarthy males who reeked from the amount of purfume water they were wearing.

Well, here we go again. This time our government is being sued to stop the use of effective surreilance techniques. The sad part of it is that some of the Plaintiffs in this action would be among the most impacted if they had to submit to Islamic Law.

Posted by: JeromeFromLayton at August 19, 2006 1:23 AM

As for lawyers and their Muslim clients, haven't we already seen a precedent when one of the first world trade center bombers' lawyers was in fact disbarred (served jail time) for passing on terror related information to his follers?
So yes, in the name of common safery, these people have to be watched!

Posted by: lonewolf at August 19, 2006 2:11 AM

Islamofascist CAIR Doesn't Like the Term "Islamic Fascist": FNC video, 8/14/6 http://www.terrorfreeoil.org/videos/FN081406.php

CAIR Terrorist Apologist Blames Israel, FNC video, 8/12/6 http://www.terrorfreeoil.org/videos/BG081206-2.php

Free Patriotic Corner Banners: http://www.terrorfreeoil.org/cb/

Posted by: Terror-Free Oil at August 19, 2006 5:21 PM