SCORE ONE FOR THE GOOD GUYS

CNN.com:

A federal judge on Thursday ruled that the U.S. government's domestic eavesdropping program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately.

...

In a 44-page memorandum and order, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor struck down the NSA program, which she said violates the rights to free speech and privacy.

The defendants "are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program in any way, including, but not limited to, conducting warrantless wiretaps of telephone and Internet communications, in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Title III," she wrote.

She declared that the program "violates the separation of powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III."

Her ruling went on to say that "the president of the United States ... has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders."

The lawsuit, filed January 17 by civil rights organizations, lawyers, journalists and educators, "challenges the constitutionality of a secret government program to intercept vast quantities of the international telephone and Internet communications of innocent Americans without court approval."

This is wonderful news for those of us who value the rule of law and the constitution. I was just in 2 Way, and the typical troglodytes were eyeing this ruling with slope-browed confusion. Asslink thought this was all good for the terrorists, despite the fact that eve this most recent UK plot was broken up by LEGAL surveillance, not warrantless roving taps.

Next, Virginia told us that Bush decided to bypass FISA because they were blocking him. Hello, V, FISA has approved over 19,000 taps in their history, and only ever denied a handful. Besides, if Bush wants to have new wiretapping powers, why secretly break the law? No neocon has ever answered this question for me. With a Republican congress, Bush could have gotten all new powers passed easily, even over Democratic objections. So why, pray tell, did he need to act in secret, in violation of the law? Remember the 90s, when rule of law mattered to these hypocrites? Those were the days, huh?

Finally kellygurl used the classic argument, "Well, if you're not doing anything wrong, why do you care about illegal wiretaps?" I am frequently left speechless by the stupidity and ignorance of this argument. Linky likes this one too. It comes from people who have not studied the history of our nation or its founding. The Founding Fathers had lived under a system where a person's home could be violated, and himself be carried off to prison, at the whim of a king. They knew that the only way to protect against such abuses was to enshrine in the constitution itself the limitation of government power to violate your person or papers without probable cause. It isn't your job to prove to anyone that you're innocent, it is their job to show some judicial power their probable cause. Only a fool would watch the rights of others be eroded and think their own are secure. If one person's rights are violated, then everyone's rights are violated. I wish more of these conservatives had learned that lesson.

JC