Sunday, May 18, 2008

What Would Judge Anna Diggs Taylor Say In Regard To The NSA's Satellite Tracking & Remote Neural Monitoring Of American Citizens?

Given Judge Taylor's harsh criticism of the Bush Administration's use of the NSA to illegally spy on Americans, it is clear how she would rule if allowed to oversee a case in regard to Akwei VS NSA, or Akwei VS NSA, itself. In 2006, Taylor ruled against Bush's claim that as president he has the right to void the US Constitution during a time of war.

"There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution."

--Judge Anna Diggs Taylor

Based on her statement, it is clear that Judge Taylor would be outraged at the NSA's non consensual human experimentation of those Americans who have been made unwitting satellite prisoners by the NSA and FBI -- a clear indication that the NSA is in complete violation of the US Constitution and its Bill Of Rights.

However, the NSA's violations in this situation are such a completely outrageous abuse of the 4Th and 5Th Amendments, that under the present Congress and Bush Administration, she will never have the opportunity in which to oversee a case like Akwei VS NSA, because it would reveal to the public the treasonous and Orwellian ways in which the US Congress and Intelligence community are covertly operating within this country.

As well as the crimes of predation that the NSA and FBI are perpetrating by way of the NSA's Echelon and Tempest satellite spy networks.

Which is why Websites like this one are of paramount importance. What the US Federal Government will not allow to be revealed in US Courts of law, I am documenting in great detail right here. So use this information to your benefit so that you can begin to understand how extremely vulnerable you all are to the NSA's satellite predation -- the most outrageous and criminal violation of your inherent rights as both humans and American citizens.

A 2006 article from the World Socialist Website:

US court rules NSA spying program unconstitutional
Bush appeals decision and denounces judge
By Joe Kay
19 August 2006

In a sharply worded decision, a federal judge ruled on Thursday that a program set up by the Bush administration to monitor phone calls and emails of US citizens without court-issued warrants violates a federal statute and the US Constitution.

Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the US District Court in Detroit ruled that the program, operated by the National Security Agency (NSA) since 2001, violates the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution, the separation of powers principle laid out in the Constitution, and a 1978 law enacted to regulate domestic spying by the government. As a consequence, she ruled that the program must be stopped.

In a blunt rebuke to the Bush administration’s assertion of virtually unlimited presidential powers, Taylor wrote that the government “appears to argue here that ... because the president is designated commander in chief of the Army and Navy, he has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress, but the First and Fourth Amendment of the Constitution itself.... There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution.”

The Bush administration immediately announced that it would appeal the decision and filed a brief calling on the judge to stay her ruling pending the outcome of legal appeals. A hearing on the request for a stay was scheduled for September 7. In the meantime, the NSA surveillance program will be allowed to continue on the basis of an agreement reached between the chief plaintiff, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the US Justice Department.

The administration denounced the ruling, reiterating its position that the president has quasi-dictatorial powers, including the right to ignore federal laws and secretly wiretap Americans, by virtue of his position as commander in chief in the “war on terror.”

At a press conference on Friday, Bush said that he “strongly” disagreed with the decision and added he was confident it would be reversed on appeal. The appeal will go before the politically conservative Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and is expected ultimately to end up in the US Supreme Court, which has shifted further to the right with the addition of two Bush appointees—Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito.

See the rest of this article here:
untitled.bmp (image)


Wikio - Top Blogs

"The Mother Of All Black Ops" Earns A Wikio's Top Blog Rating

Julian Assange's WikiLeaks Alternative Media's Been Wrongfully Bankrupted By The U.S. Military Intelligence Complex

Rating for

Website Of The Late Investigative Journalist Sherman Skolnick