Interesting

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081700650.html" title="Free Registration Required">Judge Rules Against Wiretaps</a><br />n<br />n<blockquote>A federal judge in Detroit ruled yesterday that the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program is unconstitutional, delivering the first decision that the Bush administration's effort to monitor communications without court oversight runs afoul of the Bill of Rights and federal law.<br />n<br />nU.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ordered a halt to the wiretap program, secretly authorized by President Bush in 2001, but both sides in the lawsuit agreed to delay that action until a Sept. 7 hearing. Legal scholars said Taylor's decision is likely to receive heavy scrutiny from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit when the Justice Department appeals, and some criticized her ruling as poorly reasoned.</blockquote><br />n<br />nVery Interesting. I'm sure this will end up in front of the Supreme Court and it will be interesting to see what the final decision is at that time. I have on question. Is it really so hard for the administration to get a warrant for their wiretaps? They have judges in their back pocket so it's not that difficult. They would have avoided all of this if they had taken the few extra minutes required to get the warrants.<br />n<br />nEven if the Supreme Court were to agree with this position, will it stop this administration <strong>or any other administration, Republican or Democrat,</strong> from doing the same thing? No!!! It will continue to be done so the ruling means nothing. Remember, Big Brother is watching.<br />n<br />n<strong>It is an interesting question how far men would retain their relative rank if they were divested of their clothes. Henry David Thoreau</strong>