Judge Finds NSA Program Unconstitutional

I am sure that you have all heard the big news...

A federal judge on Thursday struck down President Bush's warrantless surveillance program, saying it violated the rights to free speech and privacy, as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

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.

"Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

The administration said it would appeal to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

"We're going to do everything we can do in the courts to allow this program to continue," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at a news conference in Washington.

White House press secretary Tony Snow said the Bush administration "couldn't disagree more with this ruling." He said the program carefully targets communications of suspected terrorists and "has helped stop terrorist attacks and saved American lives."

Taylor ordered an immediate halt to the program, but the government said it would ask for a stay of that order pending appeal. The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the suit, said it would oppose a stay but agreed to delay enforcement of the injunction until Taylor hears arguments Sept. 7.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit in January on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which monitors international phone calls and e-mails to or from the U.S. involving people the government suspects have terrorist links.

The blogosphere will no doubt explode with commentary regarding this decision over the next few days, so I figured I should jump in here, too. I am not big on the National Security/War on Terror type issues, not because I have no opinion or because I lack knowledge, but because that subject carries such high-level emotional baggage that I just don't want to get into it.

I did read something really, really interesting today, though. It was a comment on this post from a homeschool blog I read.

Newt Gingrich was on the Sean Hannity show, arguing that Americans will either perceive the upcoming election as a “political election” or a “historic election.” If conservatives vote their feelings this time around, the GOP is toast. They are MAD at Bush, Congress, the deficit, the border, and so much more.

But…

The dynamics are a little like Lebanon. There are plenty of Lebanese who despise or fear Hezbollah… but after Israel started attacking, those Lebanese citizens were ready to hand guns and ammo to Hezbollah to go kill Israelis. To the disgruntled conservative, every ACLU win is like another Israeli bomb.

I never really thought about it that way, but then I am no Newt Gingrich, am I?

This is going to be interesting. I have read a couple of blurbs on some right-leaning blogs that this judge is an activist from the Carter era. This could play right into the GOP's hands. If this program has foiled terrorist plots and saved American lives, as the Bush administration says, and the ACLU and some liberal activist judge wants to shut it down, the Republicans suddenly don't look so bad.