Judicial Lunacy

Arch-Liberal, Diggs Taylor

Today, a federal judge in Detroit struck down a key element of the government’s war on terror. One would have thought that, in light of what happened last week in Great Britain, even liberal federal judges would reassess their unfounded suspicions regarding the Patriot Act and other programs like the National Security Agency’s wiretapping program. But political bias and personal animosity toward the president proved too powerful in the end to overcome and too difficult a pill to swallow. U.S District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled that the government’s wiretapping policies, aimed at intercepting terror plots, violated civil liberties. Carter-appointee Diggs Taylor wrote in her 43 page decision that the National Security Agency 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."

Ignoring the obvious and legitimate concern of court usurpation of executive and legislative powers as the far-more glaring example of very the “separation of powers” that Diggs Brown seems so concerned about, this ruling can only be seen as a blow against our efforts toward exposing terror schemes. The ruling also ignores the resolution passed by Congress shortly after 9-11 that gave the president the necessary powers to fight the war on terror. Not surprisingly, the ACLU was leading the charge to get the program axed, and the left was quick to express their joy as a defeat is handed to Bush. Liberal blogs can hardly contain their glee over the ruling. Ignored is the fact that not a single, concrete example of a citizen’s rights being violated can be proffered by opponents of the NSA program. It's all hysteria and speculation. For the ACLU, Bush’s resolve to fight terrorism seems to be a greater threat to America than the terrorists who attacked our country on 9-11 and who were planning to blow up ten planes en route to America. Fortunately, this ruling will be appealed and most likely overturned.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/17/domesticspying.lawsuit/index.html