View previous stories
	US Judge rules Bush Administration warrantless Spy Program Unconstitutional by Amy Goodman - Democracy Now USA   August 18, 2006   Ruling for the law. (The New York Times)   Ever since President George W. Bush was forced to admit that he was spying on Americans'' telephone calls and e-mail without warrants, his lawyers have fought to keep challenges to the program out of the courts. On Thursday, that plan failed. A federal judge in Detroit declared the eavesdropping program to be illegal and unconstitutional. She also offered a scathing condemnation of what lies behind the wiretapping - Bush''s attempt to expand his powers to the point that he can place himself beyond the reach of Congress, judges or the Constitution.   "There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution," wrote Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the U.S. District Court in Detroit. Her decision was based on a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.   She said Bush violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act when he ordered the National Security Agency to spy without a warrant on international phone calls and e-mail by Americans and foreign residents of the United States. She noted that the surveillance law was passed to prohibit just this sort of presidential abuse of power and provided ample flexibility for gathering vital intelligence. She also said that the program violated the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as the rights of free speech and association granted by the First Amendment.   The ruling eviscerated the absurd notion on which the administration''s arguments have been based: that Congress authorized Bush to do whatever he thinks is necessary when it authorized the invasion of Afghanistan.   It''s good news that this ruling exists at all. Bush''s lawyers tried to have the entire suit thrown out on national security grounds, a tactic they have used in an alarming number of cases.   No sooner had this ruling been issued than Bush''s loyalists in Congress, who have been searching for ways to give legal cover to an illegal spying program, began calling for new laws to overcome Taylor''s objections. Republicans quickly pointed out that Taylor was appointed by President Jimmy Carter and that some of the many precedents she cited were written by liberal judges. These efforts to undermine Taylor''s arguments will undoubtedly continue while the White House appeals the decision, and the outcome in the conservative 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is uncertain.   But for now, with a careful, thoroughly grounded opinion, one judge in Michigan has done what 535 members of Congress have so abysmally failed to do. She has reasserted the rule of law over a lawless administration and shown why issues of this kind belong within the constitutional process created more than two centuries ago to handle them.   August 18th, 2006   "There are no Hereditary Kings in America" - Judge rules NSA Warrantless Spy Program Unconstitutional. (DemocracyNow)   A federal judge in Detroit has ruled that the Bush administration"s warrantless surveillance program is unconstitutional and must be halted. In her 43-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor wrote "There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution."   A federal judge in Detroit has ruled that the Bush administration"s warrantless surveillance program is unconstitutional and must be halted. President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency program in 2001 and it was revealed in the media last year.   U.S. 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."   Attorney General Alberto Gonzales held a news conference after the decision came out to defend the surveillance program.   The wiretapping suit was filed in Michigan by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a number of journalists, lawyers and scholars who believed their communications had been monitored.   The Justice Department has appealed the decision and a hearing is set for September 7th. The ruling is on hold while the appeals process is under way.   ALBERTO GONZALES: We have confidence in the lawfulness of this program, and that"s why the appeal has been lodged. This is an important program. So, we"re going to do everything that we can do in the courts to allow this program to continue.   AMY GOODMAN: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The wiretapping suit was filed in Michigan by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a number of journalists, lawyers and scholars, who believe their communications have been monitored. The Justice Department has appealed the decision, and a hearing is set for September 7. The ruling"s on hold while the appeals process is underway. Glenn Greenwald joins us now on the phone, a constitutional law attorney specializing in presidential power and First Amendment issues, author of the new book, How Would a Patriot Act?   AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the significance of this federal judge ruling?   GLENN GREENWALD: Well, there are several aspects to why it"s so significant, the first of which is, this is the first time a federal court has ruled on the legality of the Bush administration"s highly controversial warrantless eavesdropping program, and the court rather resoundingly said that it violates several constitutional protections and also violates the law. So it"s the first judicial decision on what has been a highly controversial political issue.   And then, beyond that, the court was very emphatic in rejecting the Bush administration"s arguments, not just with regard to warrantless eavesdropping, but more broadly with regard to its radical theories of executive power that say that the President has almost unchecked authority in the area of national security, and it"s now the second court, after the Supreme Court in Hamdan did that, to say that that theory is alien to our constitutional traditions.   JUAN GONZALEZ: Now, the administration has clearly indicated it"s going to appeal this ruling to the Federal Court of Appeals, and some critics have said that the judge"s ruling in some areas will open itself up to possible reversal. Could you talk about that?   GLENN GREENWALD: Well, the opinion in certain places is not a model of constitutional scholarly reasoning. It is a little bumpy in some places. But with an issue that is of this magnitude, of an initiative that’s this significant and has such implications for so many areas of how our government works, an appeals court is going to look at these issues starting from scratch, anyway. I mean, it doesn"t much matter how artful the district court"s opinion is, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeal, and quite possibly the Supreme Court after that, is going to look from the beginning to see whether or not this program really is unconstitutional and whether or not it violates the law. So there are parts of the opinion that are actually quite eloquent and quite powerful, in terms of reaffirming the basic principle of our system of government. There are other areas, though, where it’s true there are argumentative holes in the judge"s opinion.   AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald, that was a pretty strong quote of U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who said, "There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers created by the Constitution."   GLENN GREENWALD: Well, it is strong language. And interestingly, though, the Supreme Court of the United States used similar language one month ago in Hamdan, when it said also that the President has no right, including in the area of national security, including in time of war, to act outside of the law, that in our system of government, the President is subject to the rule of law. Only a king can operate outside of the rule of law. And this court has adopted that approach, that rhetoric, because the Bush administration’s theory of executive power really does vest in him the power of a monarch, and it"s very encouraging, and surprisingly so, to see courts being so explicit about what this government is arguing in and why it"s so wrong.   JUAN GONZALEZ: The judge’s decision, according to some analysts, would also be almost a prevent defense against the current legislation that Senator Specter is trying to put through in the Senate on the government surveillance program. Could you talk about that?   GLENN GREENWALD: Yeah. I think that"s actually, you know, one of the most significant parts of the ruling is, you know, there"s legislation pending, and since it was agreed to by the White House and Specter, it has a good chance of passing, which would all but eliminate restrictions on the President"s ability to eavesdrop on Americans. That’s its purpose, is to legalize what this administration has been doing, because they know that this program violates the law, as it"s currently written.   And this court ruling essentially prevents that strategy, because it concluded that warrantless eavesdropping, eavesdropping on Americans in secret and without any restrictions, violates the Constitution, the Fourth Amendment and the First Amendment, and since that practice is unconstitutional, no congress, no congressional statute could authorize it, because Congress can"t empower the President to do something unconstitutional. And the ruling likely means that that Specter bill would be dead on arrival, that it would be an unconstitutional bill, and it proposes to authorize the President to do things that the Constitution prohibits..   AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you about another recent court ruling. Last week, a federal judge ruled private citizens can be prosecuted if the government decides they"ve received or disclosed information harmful to national security. The ruling comes in the case against two former employees of AIPAC, that’s American Israel Public Affairs Committee. They"ve been charged with passing on classified information to the Israeli government. Can you talk about the significance of the ruling and the implication for journalists?   GLENN GREENWALD: Sure. One of the things that I focus on in my book, actually, is that the Bush administration is in intent upon shutting down all methods of the American people learning about what the government is doing. And the two principal ways we"ve learned about what they"re doing are whistleblowers, who are under vigorous attack, and the media. The reason we know about warrantless eavesdropping or secret prisons in Eastern Europe or the use of torture is because the media has found out about it and reported it. And this administration is intent upon criminalizing investigative journalism, by creating a way to put journalists in prison, for the first time in a long, long time in our country, who report on what the government is doing in secret.   And this AIPAC case is the first time ever that the government has tried to use a law that was passed in 1917 called the Espionage Act to imprison, not government employees who pass on classified information, but private citizens who do nothing more than receive classified information. You had mentioned that the employee -- the individuals had passed on the information to the Israeli government. There is a suggestion they did that, but that is not part of the criminal case. The only thing they are accused of doing is receiving classified information.   And the reason it"s so dangerous to make that a crime or to try to make that a crime is because that is something that journalists do every single day, by definition. They receive classified information that they know is classified. And if you can be imprisoned for that act, it essentially means the government can imprison journalists at will. It is an extremely dangerous decision, and the whole case, the purpose of the case, is to enable and empower the Bush administration to put journalists in prison.   JUAN GONZALEZ: Now, this Espionage Act, which as you mentioned was passed right around the time of World War I, led to quite massive crackdowns during that war on both the press and activist groups, didn’t it? And it has a pretty checkered history, in terms of constitutional law scholars.   GLENN GREENWALD: Right. I mean, at the height of World War I, there was definitely sort of a crazed domestic intent to declare people who were opposed to the war as subversives and to put them in prison. And that was why that law was passed. And you"re right, it was exercised in ways that we would today find not only horrifying, but clearly unconstitutional, after a century of Supreme Court cases.   But even back in 1917, when the Congress debated this law, there was a proposal to include the media, to include journalists within the provisions of the law, and the Congress rejected that provision on the grounds that it would essentially render journalists useless, because they would be too afraid to report anything meaningful. And despite the Congress doing that, the law was enacted without that provision and now the administration is trying to use it against journalists.   AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald, in May, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was questioned about the whole AIPAC case by ABC"s George Stephanopoulos.   GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So you believe journalists can be prosecuted for publishing classified information?   ALBERTO GONZALES: Well, again, George, it depends on the circumstances. There are some statutes on the book, which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility. That"s a policy judgment by the Congress in passing that kind of legislation. We have an obligation to enforce those laws. We have an obligation to ensure that our national security is protected. Obviously, we want to work with the press in getting the information that we can to pursue criminal wrongdoing, but we want to do so in a way, of course, that"s respectful of the role that the press plays in our society.   GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, let me try and get specific on it then. Are you open to the possibility that the New York Times should be prosecuted for publishing their initial story on what the President calls his terrorist surveillance program?   ALBERTO GONZALES: George, we are engaged now in an investigation about what would be the appropriate course of action in that particular case. I’m not going to talk about it specifically. But as we do in every case, it"s a case-by-case evaluation about what the evidence shows us. Our interpretation of the law, we have an obligation to enforce the law and to prosecute those who engage in criminal activity.   GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Including possibly the journalists themselves?   ALBERTO GONZALES: I’m not going to talk about, again, specific cases, but if the law provides that that conduct is in fact criminal and the evidence is there to support it, we have an obligation, of course, to look at that very seriously.   AMY GOODMAN: Alberto Gonzales, the Attorney General, being questioned by George Stephanopoulos. Glenn Greenwald, your response?   GLENN GREENWALD: You know, one of the reasons why I wrote my book is because I felt like the national media was failing to report what this administration is really doing, just how radical and extremist they are. And the most surprising failure in that regard is the fact that the Bush administration is being quite open about the fact that they"re entertaining the possibility of criminally prosecuting journalists for the stories that they write about the Bush administration.   And you would think that if the national media cared about anything, took a stand against this government on any issue, it would be that one, and yet there was Attorney General Gonzales openly speculating about the possibility that Jim Risen and Eric Lichtblau and the editors of the New York Times will be criminally prosecuted for the story they wrote about the warrantless eavesdropping program, and the media virtually did nothing. There was no outcry. There was no defense collectively on their part in order to defend against these measures.   There is nothing more dangerous than even the threat that journalists can be put into prison, because that will be in their minds when they go to report on the Bush administration. Our democracy needs a very aggressive and adversarial press. And this is what the administration is doing, is they’re trying to neuter the press, even more than it"s been neutered, with the threat of imprisonment. And it’s hard to think of a greater danger to our democracy than that.
	China clamps down on "rights protection movement" by John Taylor ABC Online China   27 August , 2006   Chinese Rights Movement Suffers Setback, by John Taylor. (ABC)   China"s embryonic "rights protection movement" has suffered a significant setback with the imprisonment of one of its leading members, and the detention of another.   The movement is a loose group of lawyers, academics and activists committed to ensuring that the legal rights enjoyed by Chinese on paper exist in the real world.   But last week, a blind human rights campaigner was sentenced to four years in prison, and another prominent civil rights lawyer was detained in what appears to be an intensifying crackdown by the authorities.   This report by China Correspondent John Taylor.   JOHN TAYLOR: These are rough times for those people in China that what to change the political system and aren"t part of the ruling Communist Party elite.   China appears to have launched a crackdown on "rights defenders" - a growing network of lawyers, academics and dissidents seeking to expand freedoms through litigation and Internet-driven campaigns for legal reform.   Thirty-four-year-old blind civil rights activist Chen Guangcheng was jailed on Thursday.   Time magazine this year named him one of the world"s 100 most influential people for this year, but he"s now serving a four-year and three month sentence for damaging property and organising a mob to disturb traffic. He says he"s innocent.   But while he"s in jail, authorities have acted against another – 42-year-old Beijing lawyer Gao Zhisheng.   In bland sentences, China"s government-controlled media announced Gao Zhisheng"s detention.   "The Beijing Municipal Bureau of Public Security said on Friday that it has detained Gao Zhisheng for questioning for his suspected involvement in criminal activities", the official state newsagency reported.   The incident sounds standard enough, but Gao Zhisheng"s friend and supporter, Hu Jia, says it was terrifying.   (sound of Hu Jia speaking)   "Around lunchtime on August the 15th, Gao was kidnapped from his sister"s home by police officers from the state security squad of the Beijing Public Security Bureau. From the beginning to the end, during the entire event, no one spoke, showed the legal documents, or verbally expressed why they were there. They put a black mask on lawyer Gao, twisted his arms behind his back, and pushed him out."   Gao Zhisheng hasn"t been seen since. Meanwhile his wife, son and 13-year-old daughter remain under house arrest in their Beijing apartment.   The lawyer isn"t a stranger to trouble. He"s emerged as a fierce advocate prepared to challenge government abuses, fight for the rights of victims, and stand up for practitioners of the banned Falun Gong spiritual movement.   He was defiant in an ABC interview earlier this year, even though he"d lost his legal licence and he was under round-the-clock secret police surveillance.   (sound of Gao Zhisheng speaking)   "The Chinese Government chants the fake slogan that people can have rule of law. But when people take it seriously, the Government uses all sorts of hooligan ways to crack down on them," Gao Zhisheng said.   About 40 mainland dissidents and activists have signed a petition calling for his release.   "Whether as a lawyer or citizen, Gao Zhisheng has fully exercised his right to engage in civic rights defence activities and his freedom to express his political views," they wrote.   Goa Zhisheng is a leading figure in a new emerging group in China, the so-called "rights protection movement". It"s a loose and informal group of lawyers, academics, activists and ordinary people who want to ensure that Chinese people are able to exercise their legal rights.   His friend and AIDS activist Hu Jia believes the ruling Communist Party has had enough.   (sound of Hu Jia speaking)   "It took the Chinese Communist Party a very long time to make the decision," he says.   "The civil rights movement is gaining strength, and lawyer Gao Zhisheng is the leader. His influence and his fighting spirit is providing more public space for other people, and sets an example. The Chinese Communist Party worries that if it doesn"t crack down on the civil rights movement now, it will be out of control in the future. Therefore, they will shoot down the head, and that"s why they"ve taken such action against lawyer Gao," he says.   Gao Zhisheng"s supporters believe his detention augers a serious escalation in repression.   The group Human Rights Watch says there has been a recent spate of harassment, detentions and physical attacks on lawyers.   Hu Jia fears that Gao Zhisheng"s recent activities have provided cover for authorities to act.   (sound of Hu Jia speaking)   "Recently, there"s an overseas organisation called the Future China Forum, led by lawyer Guo Guoding and Professor Yuan Hongbing, and they cooperated with lawyer Gao, and drafted a future constitution for China.   I think, on this point, it"s highly possible that the Chinese Communist Party charges lawyer Gao with colluding with overseas anti-China forces, and subverting the state, and the crime for subverting the state is very serious," he says.   No charges have been announced, but Gao Zhisheng now needs his own lawyer.   13 August , 2006   In China, the authorities are closely watching the development of what"s been called the "rights protection movement".   It"s a loose group of people seeking to ensure that the legal rights enjoyed by Chinese - at least on paper - exist in the real world.   One of the groups" champions, a blind, self-taught lawyer in the country"s east, is facing trial over his alleged involvement in a public protest.   But as China Correspondent John Taylor reports, others are bravely rallying around him.   JOHN TAYLOR: Teng Biao is a university lecturer, and part-time lawyer. He"s also prepared to speak publicly about injustice and political change in China.   TENG BIAO: The totalitarian system is very strong. And we have to change it bit by bit. And I believe most of the common people and many of the officials have the same ideas of liberal democracy.   JOHN TAYLOR: This is what he wrote in an opinion piece recently in the South China Morning Post: "Sooner or later, national rulers will need to learn that catchwords like "human rights", "rule of law" and a "harmonious society" will not lead to legitimate government until concrete safeguards are in place", he wrote.   The article was about the plight of a 35-year old blind, self-taught lawyer Chen Guangcheng, who"s awaiting trial in China.   Chen Guangcheng came to Government attention last year. He boldly mounted legal action against local authorities over their enforcement of China"s family planning policies. Mr Chen alleged that local officials were involved in forced abortions, sterilisations, arbitrary detentions, and beatings.   After half a year of house arrest, he was charged with destruction of public property and public unrest, and is in prison awaiting trial.   Mr Teng believes his legal colleague is the victim of trumped up charges.   TENG BIAO: It is usually used by local governments to use this kind of excuse to persecute human rights activists.   JOHN TAYLOR: Other supporters who tried to visit Mr Chen"s home earlier this year were variously beaten, harassed, or detained.   Nicolas Becquelin is from the Hong Kong office of Human Rights Watch. He says China is witnessing a shift to people increasingly trying to assert their legal rights.   At its forefront is the so-called "rights protection movement"- a loose and informal alliance of lawyers, law professors, legal experts, activists and ordinary people.   Chen Guangcheng, is for now, it"s most famous member.   NICOLAS BECQUELIN: No they"re not dissidents in the sense that they don"t have on the forefront a political agenda. The issues that they are dealing with are livelihood issues for Chinese citizens. This is property rights, land rights, jobs and laid off, this is the payment of pensions, the reimbursement of medical expenses, the abuses committed by illegal acts of local governments.   JOHN TAYLOR: For about two decades now there"s been a flurry of law making in China. Partly it"s to do with China"s economic opening to the world, and business" need for predictability and security.   Ordinary people have also turned to the law for protection. They want to ensure that their lives can"t be turned upside down on someone else"s whim, as was often the case during Mao"s reign. And as many have become richer, they want to hang on to what they"ve got.   The Government has championed this change, and passed a series of laws specifying rights for citizens. Rarely an official occasion passes without mention of China"s embrace of "law".   This was an official from Beijing"s Olympic Organising Committee on Tuesday, marking the two-year countdown to the games.   CHINESE OFFICIAL (translated): Another aspect is legislation. China is rapidly developing towards a society ruled by law…   JOHN TAYLOR: But a big question remains. Can a country in the control of one unelected and unaccountable political party have rule of law?   Nicolas Becquelin from the group Human rights Watch says no.   NICOLAS BECQUELIN: That"s the fundamental contradiction, the fundamental schizophrenia of China today. It purports to have rule of law, to have a functioning legal system and judiciary. At the same time, it keeps for the party leadership rule, and the party remains above the law.   JOHN TAYLOR: The legal system is under pressure to maintain "social stability" at all costs, and to protect the authority of the Government. Problems occur when citizens are in dispute with the Government, and want to exercise their legal rights.   In December, paramilitary police shot and killed at least three villagers in southern China that were protesting against a lack of compensation for land appropriated for a new power plant.   A Hong Kong newspaper last week reported that a Chinese villager was arrested for running down and killing three law enforcement officials and injuring eight others when they began to tear down his home.   The number of sometimes violent protests occurring in China appears to be increasing. Many appear to be driven by anger over local government decisions or behaviour. There is the popular belief that official corruption is rampant and that what is legal often doesn"t matter.   Chen Guangcheng and Teng Biao are among the campaigners trying to ensure that disputes are resolved peacefully and fairly according to the law.   Nicolas Becqeulin believes their work is ultimately to China"s benefit.   NICOLAS BECQEULIN: There"s a sense that if the legal system is not stepped up to match the demands of the population, then unrest may develop and spread. And this is the kind of urgency that actually echoes in certain government circles.   So I think even if these people are taking a lot of risks to stand in the limelight and take a principled stand, this is not the end of it. And we"re going to see more and more of these advocates, as we may see more and more government heavy-handed silencing and repression of these people.   JOHN TAYLOR: Despite all of China"s economic growth and relaxation of controls upon ordinary people, this is a nation that still imposes harsh penalties on those who officials consider to have crossed the line.   It leaves rights campaigners like Teng Biao on dangerous uncertain ground. He says there are risks in what he"s doing, but he counters that he"s not involved in anything illegal.   TENG BIAO: It seems dangerous for a lawyer to accept interviews for foreign media, but I"m not afraid because what I do, what I said, is right. I haven"t violated the law.
	View more stories