The Gorelick Myth
The Gorelick Myth
In the National Review, Byron York has an article called “Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches.” In it, he cites then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick’s July 14, 1994 testimony where she argues “the President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes.” (This afternoon, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) quoted her testimony on the Senate floor.)
Here is what York obscures: at the time of Gorelick’s testimony, physical searches weren’t covered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). It’s not surprising that, in 1994, Gorelick argued that physical searches weren’t covered by FISA. They weren’t. With Clinton’s backing, the law was amended in 1995 to include physical searches.
York claims that, after the law was amended, “the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary.” That’s false. Neither Gorelick or the Clinton administration ever argued that president’s inherent “authority” allowed him to ignore FISA. (We’ve posted the full text of Gorelick’s testimony here).
The Clinton administration viewed FISA, a criminal statute, as the law. The Bush administration viewed it as a recommendations they could ignore. That’s the difference.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Good point. Now if only other news groups will state the same rebuttal when the right wingnuts bring up the subject again.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:22 pmThe reichwing press (aka MSM) told another lie? SHOCKING – I’m SUPRISED – NOT!
The folks at mediamatters catch these corporate ‘tools’ of fascism in their propaganda daily. They’re despicable unamerican schills!
December 20th, 2005 at 3:22 pmOnce again the Republican play-book is dusted off and the only defense they can find is:
“Clinton Did It”
When will they stop covering up the facts that this administration has done everything in it’s power to create a neofacist state.
They must be thrown out now!
December 20th, 2005 at 3:23 pmAnother dog of a post. When are you people going to get on board with the program to protect our country from Islamofascist Evil-doers? By the way…Bush’s poll numbers are rising at about the same rate as your attack dog posts.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:26 pmWhen are you people going to get on board with the program to protect our country from Islamofascist Evil-doers?
Well for a start you can turn yourself in.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:28 pmIRI…have a cracker you parrot.
Everyone else…carry on.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:30 pmAss Cheek-RIGHT-Ass Cheek,
We do have a program to protect us from Fascist Evil-doers, it is called the Constitution of the United States of America. And we have laws that support the Constitution.
Now, bush broke the law and engaged in activity which is unconstitutional. Therefore, by extension, bush is a Fascist Evil-doer.
Thank you sir for helping us make our case.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:30 pmhey, that’s great. i’m all for impeaching bush and clinton. let’s do it.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:32 pmNow, bush broke the law and engaged in activity which is unconstitutional. Therefore, by extension, bush is a Fascist Evil-doer.
Thank you sir for helping us make our case.
Comment by Optimist
You let me know how those civil rights of yours are working when you’re dead from another 9-11 style attack.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:32 pm#4
Is that the best response you have? Judd has debunked the Gorelick myth. Your response has no substance to it. You want to prove him wrong? Then do it.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:32 pmAss Cheek-RIGHT-Ass Cheek,
Shouldn’t you be chasing after that Fascist Evil-doer that you identified for us? His name is George and he is usually hanging out with some Dick. Should be easy to find even for someone with such limited intelligence such as yourself.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:34 pmAss Cheek-RIGHT-Ass Cheek,
Give me liberty or give me death – Patrick Henry
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety – Benjamin Franklin
Do you care to debate these gentlemen’s positions?
December 20th, 2005 at 3:36 pmThe reichwing press (aka MSM) told another lie? SHOCKING – I’m SUPRISED – NOT!
Right-wing press? Have you read this?
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664
If so, what do you think?
December 20th, 2005 at 3:39 pmTroll: “As a verb, to post controversial or provocative messages in a deliberate attempt to provoke flames.”
Stop feeding the trolls.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:39 pmGiacomo,
Nice try, but do a little background on the author and, low and behold, he’s as partisan as they come. Let’s see if you can call Mehlman and get a more credible source.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:43 pmGeo, did you read it? One of their methodologies was counting how many times reports mentioned certain groups like NAACP (crazy liberals they are) or the Heritage Foundation (crazy wingers). So Brit Hume could do a ’special report’ about wacky that NAACP is and it could be counted as a ‘left-leaning’ report.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:44 pmWing-nuts are scared as well they should be.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:44 pmGrasping at straws, or “straw men” seems to be all
they have anymore.
The end is near for this fascist administration.
I-Scared Right to Death-I,
Why do you right wingnuts constantly use fear as a weapon against us Americans. Are you that scared, you chickensh*t bast*rd? Do you sleep under your bed so the boogey man won’t get you? You’re a traitor to everything us Americans believe in (such as the Constitution). You and your president are cowards and traitors. Impeach now.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:45 pmQuoted from Today’s WaPo
The Supreme Court spoke at the height of the Korean War on the president’s authority to override Congress. In 1952, President Harry S. Truman ordered a federal takeover of the steel industry to prevent a strike that would have disrupted the supply of weapons to troops at the front. He cited his authority as commander in chief.
By a vote of 6 to 3, the court rejected Truman’s claim. In an influential concurring opinion, Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote that the president’s power is “at its lowest ebb” when he “takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress.”
“With all its defects, delays and inconveniences, men have discovered no technique for long preserving free government except that the Executive be under the law, and that the law be made by parliamentary deliberations,” Jackson wrote.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:45 pmthey are swilling the Kool-aide lately.
They are scared. Why can’t righties be honest? Why do they hate America?
December 20th, 2005 at 3:46 pmOoh, dueling rapid response outfits! Thrust! Parry! Riposte! :-)
December 20th, 2005 at 3:49 pm#20 The real interesting exercise would be to see what Truman’s response was. I’ll bet he didn’t hold a press conference so he could stomp his feet and whine about how he can do what he wants because he said so.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:50 pmI sure hope George gets what he wants for xmas or we’ll all here about it in a news conference.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:51 pmIts amazing how these bums fall back on Clinton as if he was some sort of father figure and whose actions they must emulate. Regardless of what Clinton did, this action by Bush is clearly impeachable and surely illegal.
There is no reason to even justify Clinton’s action. I am sure if they were illegal, wingnuts would be after him (as they were anyway – for different reasons).
December 20th, 2005 at 3:51 pmWe should all as progressives feel totally justified in our political affiliation after reading #10, which must be the most braindead statement ever posted here.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:53 pmIs that the best response you have? Judd has debunked the Gorelick myth. Your response has no substance to it. You want to prove him wrong? Then do it.
Comment by WC
Why bother to haggle over little details that mean squat when Iran and Syria are banding together to really crank up WWIV. Judd’s a lawyer for the “other side”. He’d like nothing better than for America to get bogged down in fruitless exercises of parsing words while the country burns.
The fact is Bush & Company had looked at the question of warrantless searches in minute detail before they stuck their neck out. You’ll never get him that way.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:54 pmBushco claims their spying is to protect Americans. I’m certain they would have no problem sharing the list of targets with congress. Congress could then confirm the validity of bushco’s claim and all will be well with the world. In the unlikely event that some members of congress on are the list, they would be excluded from seeing the list as obviously, they are terrorists!
December 20th, 2005 at 3:55 pmQuick — look over there — isn’t there a young white female missing?
December 20th, 2005 at 3:56 pmWow, what an entirely disingenous post. The Clinton administration was merely seeking legislative cover in order to perform “black bag” operations. Why don’t you go here: http://www.cnss.org/fisa%20short.htm and read the position of the ACLU. Christ, I can’t stand what supposedly stands for the left nowdays.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:58 pmI would give my rights and my LIFE, not to be killed in another 9/11 attack!
December 20th, 2005 at 3:58 pmYou let me know how those civil rights of yours are working when you’re dead from another 9-11 style attack.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 20, 2005 @ 3:32 pm
This must be the latest talking point en vogue, since all our “conservative” friends are using it.
Let’s take that statement to its logical end: You let me know how those little things you call the constitution, laws, human and civil rights of yours are working when you’re dead from another 9-11 style attack.
Isn’t that right I-RIGHT-I? Let’s ignore all laws. What a wonderful world that would be.
December 20th, 2005 at 3:59 pmAss Cheek-RIGHT-Ass Cheek,
No, sir, they did not look at the question in minute detail. What they were counting on are constitutional cowards such as yourself who would WILLINGLY surrender their liberties.
Fortunately, this is the USA and there are far too many constitutional patriots to allow this to happen.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:00 pm#27
It’s your choice to be a giant chickenshit, IRI. Volunteers for the gulag are always welcome.
For me, life without liberty is worthless. But I’m glad you’re enjoying your gradual enslavement, you coward.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:00 pmThis is exactly why having the repulicans in complete control of the government is a disaster. We need to use all our power and efforts to change the congress in 2006. Tony Trupiano is running for Michigans 11th district. We need to unseat the Bush following incumbent McCotter. Tony has a genuine chance of running and has recieved some great endorsements already. Today tony blogged about the spying issue, here is a small piece:
I spy something…
I spy something heinous…
I spy something dangerous…
I spy something wrong…
I spy something unnecessary…
Do you spy it too?
What in the name of terror is going on here? Well, accordingly, President George W. Bush, once again taking liberal license with the law, decided that you and I don’t need access to the Bill of Rights. Apparently as long as the word terror is attached to anything, this President can find a way to strip us all of our rights. Is this denial by President Bush concern, arrogance? I suggest what this really is, is another in-your-face breach of the law. Here is another in a line of reasons to seek and ask for accountability.
Will we?
read the rest of tonys blog
December 20th, 2005 at 4:01 pmBushco claims their spying is to protect Americans. I’m certain they would have no problem sharing the list of targets with congress. Congress could then confirm the validity of bushco’s claim and all will be well with the world. In the unlikely event that some members of congress on are the list, they would be excluded from seeing the list as obviously, they are terrorists!
Comment by Southwest Bob
Sharing any secret information with congress is the same as sharing it with the terrorists. Too many have already proven themselves untrustworthy ratbastardcommiemofos.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:02 pmAss Cheek-RIGHT-Ass Cheek,
I agree with your assessment in #36. However, the solution would be then to report only to the Democrats since the untrustworty ratbastarcommiemofos are the republicans that have allowed this to happen.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:04 pmStop lying! My Furher, I mean my President, has never said these things. He is a sweet man, a loving man. He loves dogs and children. He loves dogs loving children. You people are sickos! He is a great American and he gives the ladies a wicked body cavity search. He always wanted to be a gynecologist, (instead of a panty-sniffing and panty-wearing draft-dodging pussy), so he could get to practice his love on the ladies!
December 20th, 2005 at 4:05 pmFor me, life without liberty is worthless. But I’m glad you’re enjoying your gradual enslavement, you coward.
Comment by RunningDogLackey
You don’t know the meaning of the word liberty. Neither do you know the meaning of treasonousratbastardcommie. If FDR can put tens of thousands of Americans in the gulag for the way they look Bush can eavesdrop on you when you make that international call to one of your camel jockey friends.
You’re lucky I’m not running the show. I’d have that 1918 Treason and Sedition Law cranked back up and all your favorite Left Wing Losers would be doing twenty years in Ft. Leavenworth..
December 20th, 2005 at 4:06 pmSo, by your logic, those that shared information on CIA agents with reporters are also untrustworthy ratbastardcommiemofos. Typical righty. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:08 pm#39
By all means, keep hiding under your bed.
WE’LL be happy to keep running things until it’s safe for you to come out!
December 20th, 2005 at 4:09 pmYou’re a real meathead, IRI, aren’t you. Camel Jockeys? Wow.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:09 pmJust exactly who here has been violated by these wiretaps? Liberals are making a mountain out of a molehill here in an effort to take the attention away from the successful elections in Iraq. Anyone that claims the media is not biased and the mouthpiece for the democratic party is full of shit. They should have ignored this story for the larger one coming out of Iraq but no that would have helped Bush and Republicans. Unfortunately, for liberals, most Americans are not that stupid to see right the agenda.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:09 pmYou don’t know the meaning of the word liberty. Neither do you know the meaning of treasonousratbastardcommie. If FDR can put tens of thousands of Americans in the gulag for the way they look Bush can eavesdrop on you when you make that international call to one of your camel jockey friends.
You’re lucky I’m not running the show. I’d have that 1918 Treason and Sedition Law cranked back up and all your favorite Left Wing Losers would be doing twenty years in Ft. Leavenworth..
Comment by I-RIGHT-I
Stop lying! Bush would never do those things! He is a loving and gentle man. A compassionate man. He wants us all to get along, just not in private, and only with the kids and dogs.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:11 pmIRI, why do you comment on every post here? I mean, it’s great fun for us to bash your idiotic replies, but don’t you have anything better to do? Why don’t you go over to Freeperville and cross-breed with the rest of the slime? No one here cares what you “think.” It’s obvious you have no real-life friends or family who actually want to listen to your mindless drivel. So dust off those cheeto-stained hands of yours, tell Mommy you’ll be up for your after-school snack of milk and cookies in just a minute, and start typing: f…r…e…e…r…
December 20th, 2005 at 4:12 pm“the successful elections in Iraq”
____
Well, yes…if you’re an Iranian.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:12 pmDemocracy confuses me. I need to hear one voice, one command, keep it slow and simple, and I will listen unquestioningly and obey.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:12 pmRedBloodedAmerican,
How then do you reconcile bush’s activity with the position of these TRUE red blooded americans?
Give me liberty or give me death – Patrick Henry
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety – Benjamin Franklin
December 20th, 2005 at 4:12 pmHahaha. Look at all the “red-blooded Americans”. You don’t have the right kind of b lood in your veins, sonny. Now get my luggage.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:13 pmHas anybody else noticed how selfish wingers are? As long as they personally are not affected, then everything is A-OK. The fact is my rights are not likely to be violated any time soon. I’m concerned about preserving the constitution and the rights of other people who aren’t as privileged as I am.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:14 pm16 & 17
I agree that bias can creep into “scientific” polls … I thought the metrics they chose were fair though.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:15 pmIf FDR can put tens of thousands of Americans in the gulag for the way they look Bush can eavesdrop on you when you make that international call to one of your camel jockey friends.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 20, 2005 @ 4:06 pm
The internment of Japanese-Americans was wrong, and it is a disgrace nobody stood up against it. You cannot use a past wrong to justify a current, ongoing one. That is a morally corrupt position.
Plus, how do we know it is not you making those calls to your terrotist friends bent on blowing up another federal building?
You’re lucky I’m not running the show. I’d have that 1918 Treason and Sedition Law cranked back up and all your favorite Left Wing Losers would be doing twenty years in Ft. Leavenworth..
We are lucky indeed. You would bring back not just the Sedition Law, but also Jim Crow, and would take away women’s right to vote.
But it is not your fault to have been born in the wrong century.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:15 pmIR Baboon: You’re lucky I’m not running the show.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:16 pmYou couldn’t even get elected high school president, you loser. Though its enlightening to hear what a conservative’s cheeto-induced day-dream is like.
“Sharing any secret information with congress is the same as sharing it with the terrorists. Too many have already proven themselves untrustworthy ratbastardcommiemofos.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I ”
Spoken like a true traitor fascist. You aren’t an american, heck you don’t even qualify as a human being. You’re just an of hate and ignorance.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:16 pmLiberals are making a mountain out of a molehill here in an effort to take the attention away from the successful elections in Iraq.
Comment by RedBloodedAmerican — December 20, 2005 @ 4:09 pm
The Bush administration: Pretending to like, respect elections and democracy over there, so they don’t have to pretend to like them over here.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:18 pm#48
December 20th, 2005 at 4:18 pmLiberty is not going to do you much good if you’re dead. Liberals are just not going to get it which for the life of me with so many of them living in the areas targeted by terrorists (i.e. NY, Wash, LA etc). I guess the only thing that will shut them up is when they lose again next year. Maybe, just maybe then they will realize that they are in the minority and are not in fact, mainstream. Most of American hates the liberal agenda. Get over it.
#44
So now you are referencing FDR? Tell me, is that the latest Rightwing talking point? I saw the very same reference (FDR and the Japanese-American internment) on another thread here at TP.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:18 pmJust exactly who here has been violated by these wiretaps? Liberals are making a mountain out of a molehill here in an effort to take the attention away from the successful elections in Iraq. Anyone that claims the media is not biased and the mouthpiece for the democratic party is full of shit. They should have ignored this story for the larger one coming out of Iraq but no that would have helped Bush and Republicans. Unfortunately, for liberals, most Americans are not that stupid to see right the agenda.
Comment by RedBloodedAmerican
Don’t worry, we’ll get to that, as soon as all the votes are counted and an Islamic state under the control of Iran is replaced by the secular one under the control of Saddam. compliments of El Chimpo and the Banana Republicans. Right now our faltering democracy is more important than the radical Islamic one about to take shape in Iraq. Now get my luggage, boy. Hop to it!
December 20th, 2005 at 4:18 pmThe President was in fine voice yesterday, and his soaring words put steel back in the spine of our wavering herrenvolk!
Truly, he exhibited the snap and dash of a born commander in his manly handling of the press corps!
He seems rejuvenated — almost reborn — from his weeks of seclusion at the Wolf’s Lair!
Would that my neck could make a worthy footstool for such a Leader!
– I-RIGHT-I
December 20th, 2005 at 4:19 pmThese people are actually going to defend these goons in the whitehouse! I am stunned! They’re actually going to try and do it….man Bush & Co. must really have some dirt on these Malkins, Yorks, Krystol’s of the world.
Pathetic!
December 20th, 2005 at 4:19 pm“Liberty is not going to do you much good if you’re dead.”
______
Spoken like a true collaborator and coward.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:20 pmAre you on your period, RedBloodedAmerican? Or are you always this puffy, bloated and irritating?
December 20th, 2005 at 4:20 pm#56 And who did the people who live in the places hit or threatened by terrorists vote for in the last election? The most vulnerable people seem to have figured out that Bush’s policies are bad for them.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:21 pm“Liberty is not going to do you much good if you’re dead.â€
I’ll have what Patrick Henry was having, thanks.
Give us liberty or give us death. But you better have packed a lunch, pussy.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:21 pmLiberty is not going to do you much good if you’re dead.
Comment by RedBloodedAmerican — December 20, 2005 @ 4:18 pm
Ah, a variation on the latest winger talking point.
Tell us, RedBloodedAmerican, what good is the constitution, laws, human and civil rights if you are dead. Let’s do away with them all in order to win this “war on terror”, right?
December 20th, 2005 at 4:23 pmI support torture if we can torture Pat Buchanan by making him marry his ugly sister Bay.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:23 pm#56 – You’re just a coward. Oh, boo-hoo! I’m afraid of big scary terrorists! Help me, King Bush, I wet myself in terra!
If you’re so scared of some fundie cave-dwellers, you don’t deserve any liberties. But the rest of us like being free. I’ll reverse you’re positions – what good is it being alive, if we aren’t free?
Conservatives are such weenie little wimps. I’m glad liberals like T. Jefferson ran the American Revolution. Otherwise, we’d still be kissing King George’s ass beceause the Tories would be afraid he’d come after them.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:24 pmThese people are actually going to defend these goons in the whitehouse! I am stunned! They’re actually going to try and do it….man Bush & Co. must really have some dirt on these Malkins, Yorks, Krystol’s of the world.
Pathetic!
Comment by johnnyr
They learned all these tricks from the Soviets. They are the new evil empire, er… we are.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:26 pmI’m telling you. This blog is no fun to read when you have some twerp saying bullshit every other line. Why are all psychos tweeking speed/coke freaks? Their lines of reason aren’t much better.
Judd, can you change the posts so that the tag line comes first? That way I could hit the scroll button a whole lot faster.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:26 pmHe’s not a coward! It’s just that time of the month.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:26 pmI’m glad liberals like T. Jefferson ran the American Revolution. Otherwise, we’d still be kissing King George’s ass beceause the Tories would be afraid he’d come after them.
Comment by sohei
Jefferson didn’t run the war, Washington did and he was no limp wristed touchy feely Liberal like you guys. He had queers drummed out of the service and cowards hung. Jefferson wasn’t a fag either. When the Muslims tried to extort money from the USA he sent the marines down to kick their ass for them. Just like Bush.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:28 pmSo now you are referencing FDR? Tell me, is that the latest Rightwing talking point? I saw the very same reference (FDR and the Japanese-American internment) on another thread here at TP.
Comment by WC
That was me. I see no reason not to repeat myself when there are so many of you yet untouched by my brilliant observations.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:31 pmAss Cheek-RIGHT-Ass Cheek,
I see that your grasp on American History is at the same level as your grasp on the Constitution – none. You are just throwing out whatever inflamatory and sensational crap you can make up in an attempt to derail this thread. Fortunately, everyone here is smarter than you are.
Goodbye troll.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:32 pmJudd,
What does it take to get a comment deleted? “Queers, fags, camel jockeys” have all popped up without being dumped.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:32 pm#71 – Tories = conservatives
Conservative Motto: “Kissing the asses of kings for 200+ years, and still going strong.”
That, or “Cheetos give us POWER!”
December 20th, 2005 at 4:33 pm#71
Yeah, well…in the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, we told the Muslims we weren’t by any means a “Christian nation.”
That was under Washington, in his second term.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:40 pm#67
December 20th, 2005 at 4:40 pmListen ass-wipe. Try telling that to the families of the victoms of 9/11. I’ll bet those people jumping from the WTC wished that Clinton had done a better job protecting us from another attack instead of getting serviced by Monica. We’re about to put up the Gorelick wall again, hope you all enjoy your liberty while it lasts, you morons. Again, are you personally violated or are you just trying to take down Bush? I’m not and I for one am glad that Bush is tapping our enemies’ conversations. The voters next fall will, and I mean will, vote out whomever is weak on terror.
That was me. I see no reason not to repeat myself when there are so many of you yet untouched by my brilliant observations.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 20, 2005 @ 4:31 pm
So that was you. Not surprised. But posting under a different name? Why? To make it look like there are more Rightwingers here than there actually are?
December 20th, 2005 at 4:47 pmThe Gorelick Precedent? Pro and Con
Byron York claims that the President is only following the precedent of the Clinton Administration when it comes to warrantless searches, citing testimony by then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick. Not so fast, says Think Progress – Gorelick tes…
December 20th, 2005 at 4:54 pm#77 RBA…I haven’t seen you around before so I wanted to give you a chance. It appears, however, that you are just another Limbannity parrot.
bbbrraaaawwwccckkk…here’s a cracker you cute wittle guy.
Everyone else…carry on.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:56 pm#77
Sorry. You’re STILL a coward and a sell-out.
December 20th, 2005 at 4:56 pmAgain, for the last time, no one has been personally violated? OK, then what is the big deal? Folks, like it or not, we are at war. Bush did not break any law and he will not be impeached. Alito will be confirmed in January. Dems will lose 2-3 senate seats and 5-6 more house seats in the mid-term elections. Maybe then you’ll get it through your thick skulls that we are doing the right things.
December 20th, 2005 at 5:02 pmRedFacedMoron,
A violation of the constitution and the 4th amendment personally violates all americans. Your ‘defense’ of these actions is anti-american, anti-constitution and seditious. You are unfit to call yourself an american, but clearly you belong with the other republican nazis! You’re a FOOL!
December 20th, 2005 at 5:12 pmRBA,
Violating the rights of the few violates the rights of all. This concept is foreign to you, and any facist. So, remove “american” from your moniker because you sir are anything but an american.
By the way, I hear North Korea is looking for subserviant fascists and you seem to fit the bill perfectly.
Bye bye…
December 20th, 2005 at 5:17 pm“[. . .] I see no reason not to repeat myself when there are so many of you yet untouched by my brilliant observations.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 20, 2005 @ 4:31 pm
“Brilliant observations” like this psychotic drivel?
“I would give my rights and my LIFE, not to be killed in another 9/11 attack!”
Comment by IRI — December 20, 2005 @ 3:58 pm
Hey brainiac, how can you “give your life not to be killed?”
December 20th, 2005 at 5:22 pmAss Cheek-RIGHT-Ass Cheek,
I see that your grasp on American History is at the same level as your grasp on the Constitution – none. You are just throwing out whatever inflamatory and sensational crap you can make up in an attempt to derail this thread. Fortunately, everyone here is smarter than you are.
Goodbye troll.
Comment by Optimist
When you are hanging out down at the Power Bullet after the monster truck pull, swilling down crap ass American beer with your kissing cousins Joe Bob and Billy Ray, this is the kind of clap trap that gets them all excited.
December 20th, 2005 at 5:23 pm“I would give my rights and my LIFE, not to be killed in another 9/11 attack!â€
Comment by IRI — December 20, 2005 @ 3:58 pm
The founding fathers knew men just like you, and they thought you were useless pond scum as well.
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain
December 20th, 2005 at 5:26 pma little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Benjamin Franklin
Judd,
What does it take to get a comment deleted? “Queers, fags, camel jockeys†have all popped up without being dumped.
Comment by MLDB — December 20, 2005
Are you kidding, MLDB? Think about it… we want this kind of thing to be here for all to see. This is the true face of the conservative movement. Keep it coming. The more they reveal themselves, the better.
December 20th, 2005 at 5:27 pm“I would give my rights and my LIFE, not to be killed in another 9/11 attack!â€
Comment by IRI — December 20, 2005 @ 3:58 pm
That’s a joke, right? Or are you really that stupid?
December 20th, 2005 at 5:29 pmdeath watch, yes, IRI really is that stupid (retarded and psychotic are more accurate descriptions).
December 20th, 2005 at 5:45 pm[Comment deleted by admin]
December 20th, 2005 at 5:54 pmBTW, retard is what my little head calls people when I can’t win an argument.
Comment by Ryan’s Sphincter — December 20, 2005 @ 5:54 pm
And your screen name is what people use when they have an unhealthy obsession -both with the person and the anatomical location.
December 20th, 2005 at 6:05 pmJudd,
What does it take to get a comment deleted? “Queers, fags, camel jockeys†have all popped up without being dumped.
Comment by MLDB
What is it about freedom of expression that upsets you the most? Loser.
December 20th, 2005 at 6:12 pmAss Cheek-RIGHT-Ass Cheek,
I see that your grasp on American History is at the same level as your grasp on the Constitution – none. You are just throwing out whatever inflamatory and sensational crap you can make up in an attempt to derail this thread. Fortunately, everyone here is smarter than you are.
Goodbye troll.
Comment by Optimist
What do you call a bold declaration of facts not in evidence? Bull Shit
December 20th, 2005 at 6:18 pm“What do you call a bold declaration of facts not in evidence? Bull Shit
Comment by I-RIGHT-I”
That’s amusing coming from a psychotic like you. You’re unable to distinguish what a ‘fact’ is – and yet you claim to possess them. Would that be like the fact that you ‘claim’ to be both a christian and a divorcee who dates? The fact is you can’t be both of these according to your bible.
The evidence says you’re a liar, an idiot, a fool and a terrorist.
December 20th, 2005 at 6:47 pmA true Limbannityism…
Hate speech = Free Expression
December 20th, 2005 at 7:21 pmNice to see John Cornyn on CNN just now pulling this same line of crap.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:27 pmWould that be like the fact that you ‘claim’ to be both a christian and a divorcee who dates? The fact is you can’t be both of these according to your bible.
Comment by Ryan Neat
I wouldn’t expect you’d know how that could be even though you did spend most of an hour in a seminary once. What seminary was that anyway?
December 20th, 2005 at 7:28 pmMizzWrong,
It must hurt to know that you’re not a christian despite such a ’strong stated desire’ to be one…
You know jesus says you’re going to hell, I agre with him.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:32 pmIt must hurt to know that you’re not a christian despite such a ’strong stated desire’ to be one…
You know jesus says you’re going to hell, I agre with him.
Comment by Ryan Neat
I guess you don’t want to explore divorce and re-marriage? Don’t blame you. But if you do I know the answer.
December 20th, 2005 at 7:38 pmMizzWrong,
Funny that you won’t respond on the issue of divorce and remarriage, and like a typical republican, you project that failure on others.
jesus forbade both divorce and remarriage, and yet you don’t explain why you’re unchristian.
You’re such a liar and a loser… clearly you’re just another psychotic anti-christian..
December 20th, 2005 at 8:37 pmIt seems to me there is an interesting desire to conflate issues here. Everyone is harping that Bush acted illegally and unconstitutionally, but in light of your stance on Clinton’s action, it could only be the former. Clinton and Gorelick derived their power for warrantless searches from the Constitution, what the argument against Bush would then be is that the FISA explicitly took away those powers. It may have, and its an interesting argument, but its not an argument on Constitutionality.
For my part, I think its difficult to argue that, given the Hamdhi descision, the precedent for Bush’s powers do not allow him to conduct this sort of search outside the authority of the FISA given the language in the authorization of the use of force issued directly after Sept 11. If the left wants to know why no one takes its arguments seriously for long, its because they exhaust their own logic and the patience of swing voters by crying fascist (without a clear unstanding of the history or scope of the term) everytime a Republican does something, regardless of the relative merits.
Basically, if you think you have a compelling legal argument, then state it. Logic is much more persuasive than the slight ego boost you might get from calling a sitting President with whom you disagree dirty names. I’d be interesting in seeing how the position of this board squares with hamdhi.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:30 amI-RIGHT-I, you have swallowed the Kool-Aid of the insane, Alice in Wonderland, Orwellian freaks who you apologize and ass kiss for in the White House. The alternate reality you and your freaks live in is totally discredited, wiped from the universe…step out from the Looking Glass…although unfortunately, from the illogical and nonsensical posts you splatter here, I think (like the Fat Slob you emulate, Thrush Limburger)the Oxycontin cocktail has really kicked in…nothing of what you write here is anything but babble and nonsense…when you have come out of this other dimension you and other Bush apologists live in, you can be taken seriously. Until then you don’t exist. Don’t bother lurking here with unintelligent blather. If you can reason like a humanoid, which is not likely from neocons, then you will be taken seriously.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:37 amRyan Neat,
Thanks for the response that has absolutely no substance. You’re whole argument lies on the assertion that the 4th ammendment “prohibits warrantless searches – PERIOD,” is laughable. Have you ever read the ammendment? Let me post it for you:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (emphasis added)
In fact, there are many cases where law enforement officials can establish probable cause and search without a warrant. You’d have to ignore a vast area of criminal law to not be aware of this. Guess I’m the one with no knowledge of the Constitution or American values, huh?
As far as Think Progress debunking the constitutionality of these searches, they didn’t even attempt to do so. Carter, Clinton, and likely many other presidents, certainly felt there was no Constitutional restraint placed on them in the area of searches in the name of national security. The fact that many leading democrats in congress knew of this program attests as much to the fact that it is, at least, not blatantly unconstitutional, as you seem to so vehemently believe… based on, what appears to be, only your disdain for the sitting President.
Furthermore, that you cannot see the connection between Hamdhi and this instance either means you haven’t read Hamdhi, or don’t understand it. Hamdhi wasn’t just about enemy combatants; more broadly, it addressed the scope of presidential powers, specifically those derived from the congressional statute authorizing the use of force against terrorist organizations, and decided that they were not limited to those merely enumerated in the statute. That’s why detaining Hamdhi was legal, and that’s likely why this sort of system would be legal, regardless of the FISA.
That is why hamdhi is the important precedent for this case. If any intelligent progressive poster would like to debate this on the legal merits, I’d be happy to listen. I don’t want to bother debating the wisdom of the act here, there is too much of a fundamental ideological difference, but I am very interested in everyone’s take on how exactly it is illegal given presidential wartime powers. The reference to Truman is interesting, but I think the situations are not very comparable: taking over a steel industry was never constitutional, and, as I’ve said, it seems that, it is likely that these searched were constitutional, just not legal under FISA.
December 21st, 2005 at 5:50 am“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.†(emphasis added)
So what’s reasonable about spying on Greenpeace and the DNC? Because that’s the gist of who he was watching 18,000 times!
Really, your boy is just a Peeping Tom…
December 21st, 2005 at 8:58 amGuess I’m the one with no knowledge of the Constitution or American values, huh?
No, there are a few other neocon trolls in here with the same lack of knowledge…
December 21st, 2005 at 9:01 amYou’re such a liar and a loser… clearly you’re just another psychotic anti-christian..
Comment by Ryan Neat
That really sounds funny coming from a secularist burger flipper and fundy-atheist. It’s called projection. Get back on your meds.
December 21st, 2005 at 9:50 amA true Limbannityism…
Hate speech = Free Expression
Comment by MLDB
Hate speech and hate crimes are an invention of the ill-liberal Leftist elitists who pretend to a superior morality when in fact their every presumption is based on the grossest of immorality; that they need not be held accountable to anyone. Woe to the man that stands in front of me to inform that I can’t call a spade a spade a rump ranger a sexual deviant or a Progressive a ratbastardcommiemofo.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:05 amHate speech and hate crimes are an invention of the ill-liberal Leftist elitists who pretend to a superior morality when in fact their every presumption is based on the grossest of immorality; that they need not be held accountable to anyone. Woe to the man that stands in front of me to inform that I can’t call a spade a spade a rump ranger a sexual deviant or a Progressive a ratbastardcommiemofo.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 21, 2005 @ 10:05 am
Why so angry? Don’t you have anything intelligent to post for a change? I’ve tried to communicate with you, but all you do is rant and rage as if you’re some victim. IRI, you should be happy if your life is the life you claim (go travel and my point here will be validated). You live in a country where you are free to speak your mind (for now), yet all you do when you do speak is insult people or spout hatrid. Don’t you think that with the ability to say anything you want, you could find something better than this hate?
December 21st, 2005 at 10:13 amYou live in a country where you are free to speak your mind (for now), yet all you do when you do speak is insult people or spout hatrid
Comment by unbelievable
Pointing out the inherent evil of the Progressive system is an act of love. Besides, didn’t you see the post where I absolutely gushed over your liberal femininity and the sexual proclivities of same?
December 21st, 2005 at 12:16 pmanyone interested in a rational discussion–which seems to be hardly anyone– must read John Schmidt’s article in todays’ Chicago Tribune.He was deputy atty gen for Pres Clinton. I don’t think he can be labeled a wing nut, but I’m sure someone will try.Anyway, he says Bush’s action is clearly legal and consistent with the position of all his predecessors, demo and repub.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:44 pm“So what’s reasonable about spying on Greenpeace and the DNC? Because that’s the gist of who he was watching 18,000 times!
Really, your boy is just a Peeping Tom…”
Why is this board so eager to demonize bush, but so willing to ignore the substance of what they are claiming? I’m not familiar with what you’re alleging here, but it is undoubtedly unrelated to the warrantless wiretaps of international phone calls for individuals with known Al Qaida ties.
“No, there are a few other neocon trolls in here with the same lack of knowledge…”
Again, how about demonstrating where my knowledge is lacking, rather than just implying I’m a troll with a lack of knowledge. I thought this board would appreciate some substanitive debate. I’ve visited this website infrequently in the past, as well as dailykos, and have generally found some of the points on both interesting and substanitive, but I guess people are really more interested in echoing some talking points than actually discussing anything.
You’d probably be surprised how many “neocons” actually sympathize with many “progressive” causes. The problems that we usually have with the progressive platforms, however, are, like you’re calling Bush’s actions unconstitutional, really hollow, kneejerk platitudes. I live and study in Asia, at the moment, and have seen first hand the benefits and pitfalls of “universal healthcare,” prohibitive consumption taxes, high income taxes, and the like. I came here to better understand these sorts of systems, not because I’m rabidly against such “progressive” social interests, but because unfortunately the socially “progressive” party in my country has failed to actually propose anything resembling actual progress in these areas.
That said, how about, how is Bush’s action unconstitutional? Anyone?
December 21st, 2005 at 1:06 pmSorry, last sentence should read: “That said, how about it, how is Bush’s action unconstitutional?”
Also, I’d like to add that, though I’m obviously not a self identifying liberal (I did vote for Bush last time) you all shouldn’t be so defensive. I haven’t attacked anyone personally, and I’ve carefully read your arguments, so if you choose to take the low route, as Ryan Neat already has, and just make some pathetic assumption about my religion, then if demonstrates only that you aren’t able to defend your own position. Also, why do the intelligent progressives here denounce those sorts of posts from someone claiming to be of their own ilk? I certainly think many of the “shoot from the hip” style conservative posts are rude and needlessly offensive. I respect this website as the home of your movement, you should respect its guests.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:14 pmHaha, sorry. Edit: “Why don’t the intelligent progressives here denounce those sorts of posts…” It’s late here in Korea.
Cheers.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:16 pm#112
Pointing out the inherent evil of the Progressive system is an act of love. Besides, didn’t you see the post where I absolutely gushed over your liberal femininity and the sexual proclivities of same?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 21, 2005 @ 12:16 pm
Do smart women scare you? Because you seem to mention derogitory sex in NONE of your emails to men, yet in ALL of your emails to women. What’s the deal?
‘Fraid I missed the gushing… Not that I came here to get a date. I do just fine on my own.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:24 pm#114 Bill Z
Don’t take this the wrong way, but you’re not the first to come here and just jump in. You guys really should read several of the threads before you accuse us. There’s a Harvard Law Degree worth of information in the last two days’ worth of posts. Even we get tired of trying to explain the obvious and occasionally post comedic remarks. But that seems to be all you guys notice, and not the informational ones.
I don’t know, call me crazy, but this IS a liberal blog, surely you don’t expect us to be silent on this matter do you?
December 21st, 2005 at 1:30 pmI understand why you are all defensive, I just think that maybe it makes both you and those you mean to dig into look just as bad, and is thus self defeating.
I just went back and read all the main posts back until dec 17 in the intelligence section. I’m not surprised there was so interesting stuff in there, I particularly found Gonzales’ comments a bit troubling, but I didn’t see anything about the constitutionality argument that has been evoked with the same weight as the legality one.
The reason I wasn’t originally tempted to “troll” into this conversation in the first place was because I’ve been studying constitutional law and found it interesting that everyone claimed the actions unconstitutional. Unless the argument is buried in the comments under another topic, I don’t think it is specifically addressed. If you can point me in the right direction, I’d appreciate it. It just seems like that part of the argument is a sloppy assumption and an easy draconian platitude to attach to the typical anti-Bush list. I’m not going to convince anyone here to like Bush, but I think by debating this point he will probably have to be exonerated on one account, haha.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:07 pmOK, its too late. Last one for the night. EDIT: “The reason I was originally…”
December 21st, 2005 at 2:09 pmAlso, I’d like to add that, though I’m obviously not a self identifying liberal (I did vote for Bush last time) you all shouldn’t be so defensive. I haven’t attacked anyone personally, and I’ve carefully read your arguments,(…)
Comment by Bill Z — December 21, 2005 @ 1:14 pm
We have too many trolls and it is difficult to tell someone who tries to debate from someone who is here to annoy and disrupt the threads.
My two cents: If you are serious in wanting to exchange ideas and opinions, read the subjects of the threads, as well as the posts and keep asking questions in a respectful manner -someone will engage you without name-calling as Unbelievable did.
Also, why do the intelligent progressives here denounce those sorts of posts from someone claiming to be of their own ilk?
If you had read past threads you would have noticed some comments were deleted due to offensive language.
I respect this website as the home of your movement, you should respect its guests.
Refrain from name-calling, don’t insult our intelligence, and very good chances are most people will respond in kind.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:25 pmThat said, how about, how is Bush’s action unconstitutional? Anyone?
Comment by Bill Z — December 21, 2005 @ 1:06 pm
Personally, I don’t necessarily call Bush’s wiretapping unconstitutional but I can see why some bloggers would say so: Pres Bush has said he would continue to personally approve the eavesdropping without consulting the other branches in the government.
At any rate, the whole issue does not look good for this administration. A president declaring he is above the checks and balances? Hhmmmmm…
December 21st, 2005 at 2:31 pmDo smart women scare you?
Comment by unbelievable
Only the evil ones.
Because you seem to mention derogitory sex in NONE of your emails to men,
In all fairness I rag Ryan about being a Hindu Homo all the time.
yet in ALL of your emails to women. What’s the deal?
I simply don’t know how to respond to that accusation but I’m sure there’s at least one comment I’ve made to you that didn’t mention your boobs. What can I say? You brought it up first and I like a moth am singed by your flame.
‘Fraid I missed the gushing… Not that I came here to get a date. I do just fine on my own.
Of course you do Sugar.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:00 pmRefrain from name-calling, don’t insult our intelligence, and very good chances are most people will respond in kind.
Comment by Gregor Samsa
That’s good. Condescending and pure bullshit, but good.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:03 pmThat’s good. Condescending and pure bullshit, but good.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 21, 2005 @ 3:03 pm
I don’t call anyone names -not even you. Even though you constantly try to bait me with you racist rants.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:06 pmDon’t take this the wrong way, but you’re not the first to come here and just jump in. You guys really should read several of the threads before you accuse us. There’s a Harvard Law Degree worth of information in the last two days’ worth of posts. Even we get tired of trying to explain the obvious and occasionally post comedic remarks. But that seems to be all you guys notice, and not the informational ones.
I don’t know, call me crazy, but this IS a liberal blog, surely you don’t expect us to be silent on this matter do you?
Comment by unbelievable —
All I can say is Harvard isn’t near what it used to be. The answer to your last question is an emphatic NO. We’re counting on you to raise maximum hell on your usual minimum facts. We’re counting on y’all to help install a 3/4 Republican senate next time around and helping us to get rid of the RHINOs. You have no real idea how much you’re contributing to the cause with that wealth of Harvard style information that gets posted here.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:10 pmBill Z
It’s in here… I’ve read it, and will have to go look. It starts with the Constitution itself, obviously.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Section. 1.[2]
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Article II
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Bush said that he had authority bsaed on the Contitution. The Constitution does not give him this authority.
Somewhere else in here Ryan Neat posted the FISA documents that apply and contrasted these. I don’t recall them. There was an argument that ensued about section 1208 that was debunked. If you can find that, it addresses the matter in detail that I cannot (am not an attorney but some these guys/gals are). I just read through everything and knowing that the Executive branch does not trumph the Legislative or Judicial branches, nor the President the Consitution from Political Science 101, found the FISA sections compelling.
Though I think Bush’s admission was probably the most damaging now. All kinds of legal experts are saying that he violated the law and overstepped the Constitution.
I’ll see if I can find the place it’s located and let you know. If not, find Ryan Neat, he knows the specific sections.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:19 pmJudd has not debunked anything. “The Center’s position appears contradicted not only by Gorelick’s testimony but by a statement she made to Legal Times in November 1994, several months after her testimony, in which she said, “Our seeking legislation in no way should suggest that we do not believe we have inherent authority.”" NRO
Gorelick states “inherent”. Where does this inherent authority derive from? God? In this case it is pretty clear she meant the Constitution. Notice she does not state they have the authority just because there is no law against it. Which is what Judd is trying to imply. Then once the law is passed now it is prohibited, regulated or authorized. If this authority comes from the Constitution then no law can deny that authority. Just as no law can deny the freedom of speech authorized by the Constitution. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution can be ignored at will at least that is what the Supremes say. Therefore Gorelick’s position is exactly the same as President Bush. The Clinton administration first conducted physical searches then allowed the law to be modified to authorize them afterwards.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:30 pmAlso, intelligence gathering is a necessary part of war. It helps us get the right people not the wrong ones.
Remember what is legal is not always lawful and what is lawful is not always legal.
Only the evil ones.
Evil? Get real… Though, I am curious as to who you think those are. Besides me for being an atheist and a liberal despite my humane lie style.
In all fairness I rag Ryan about being a Hindu Homo all the time.
All the time? I haven’t seen that. But will take you at face value.
I simply don’t know how to respond to that accusation but I’m sure there’s at least one comment I’ve made to you that didn’t mention your boobs. What can I say? You brought it up first and I like a moth am singed by your flame.
Nope, not yet. And, uh, no, you brought it up. Go re-read the thread. I was just debunking your myth that all feminists are ugly lesbians. Some of us just had mothers (and fathers) who didn’t want us to be dependent upon men. Too many women of their generation and the ones prior tolerated abuse because they had little choice. I’m not a product of thinking women are better than men (I grew up with brothers and actually prefer the company of most men to most women), I’m a product of being independent and smart. And I prefer it. Just curious as to why you insult that. Thought maybe you had an issue with a woman who are smart.
Of course you do Sugar.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 21, 2005 @ 3:00 pm
This is my point exactly… Condescention.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:32 pmmake that “life” style in #129 above
December 21st, 2005 at 3:32 pm#126
All I can say is Harvard isn’t near what it used to be. The answer to your last question is an emphatic NO. We’re counting on you to raise maximum hell on your usual minimum facts. We’re counting on y’all to help install a 3/4 Republican senate next time around and helping us to get rid of the RHINOs. You have no real idea how much you’re contributing to the cause with that wealth of Harvard style information that gets posted here.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 21, 2005 @ 3:10 pm
Why, did YOU go to Harvard to know? My ex did. He doesn’t agree with you. Who should I believe more you or someone who went there??? Hmmm, tough decision, but I think I’ll go with him.
IRI, I hope that when you are proven wrong in 2006, you will understand why. But I doubt it.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:38 pm#128
Remember what is legal is not always lawful and what is lawful is not always legal.
Comment by Scott — December 21, 2005 @ 3:30 pm
Go read the Constitution. Stop trying to spin this. The law is clear, no matter how much you find it ‘not always lawful’… neither you nor Peeping George gets to decide. Fortunately for the country.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:44 pmRemember what is legal is not always lawful and what is lawful is not always legal.
Comment by Scott — December 21, 2005 @ 3:30 pm
What in the world is this supposed to mean? What is the difference Scott? Did you just come up with new definitions for leagl and lawful? Last time I checked, they were synonyms and interchangeable.
Main Entry: law·ful
Pronunciation: ‘lo-f&l
Function: adjective
1 a : being in harmony with the law (a lawful judgment) b : constituted, authorized, or established by law : RIGHTFUL (lawful institutions)
Main Entry: 1le·gal
December 21st, 2005 at 3:55 pmPronunciation: ‘lE-g&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin legalis, from leg-, lex law
1 : of or relating to law
2 a : deriving authority from or founded on law : DE JURE b : having a formal status derived from law often without a basis in actual fact : TITULAR (a corporation is a legal but not a real person) c : established by law; especially : STATUTORY
3 : conforming to or permitted by law or established rules
4 : recognized or made effective by a court of law as distinguished from a court of equity
5 : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the profession of law or of one of its members
6 : created by the constructions of the law (a legal fiction)
synonym see LAWFUL
For present purposes, here is the most important part of the Gorelick statement:
“That being said, the Department of Justice believes that Congress can legislate in the area of physical searches as it has done with respect to electronic surveillances, and we are prepared to support appropriate legislation. A bill that strikes the proper balance between adequate intelligence to guarantee our nation’s security, on one hand, and the preservation of basic civil rights on the other will be an important addition to our commitment to democratic control of intelligence functions.”
Once Congress exercised its constitutional authority via FISA (in 1978 for electronic searches and in 1995 for physical searches) FISA was THE LAW and it had to be followed. So President Bush broke the law. Period. Game. Set. Match.
December 21st, 2005 at 5:03 pm#133
Thanks Gregor… He was just pulling it out of his rear end. Smoke and mirrors… That’s ALL they have left anymore.
December 21st, 2005 at 5:08 pmTry telling that to the families of the victoms of 9/11.
2004 Election Results
Manhattan County
Kerry 81%
December 21st, 2005 at 5:38 pmBush 17%
Why, did YOU go to Harvard to know? My ex did. He doesn’t agree with you. Who should I believe more you or someone who went there??? Hmmm, tough decision, but I think I’ll go with him.
IRI, I hope that when you are proven wrong in 2006, you will understand why. But I doubt it.
Comment by unbelievable
Nope, I didn’t go to Harvard. I do know that twenty years ago the Prof’s weren’t giving out A’s like candy. It’s a scandal and it’s been reported, look it up.
If the Donks win big in 06 I will personally kiss your butt on Main St. at noon. (Provided you come up with the proper medical certificates)
December 21st, 2005 at 6:39 pmIt’s funny, but sad. Judd pointed out that Byron York was wrong when he claimed that the Clinton administration did not back down after the FISA law was amended in 1995. York responds today that Judd is the one who is wrong, but York bases his argument on what Gorelick said in her testimony (in 1994) and to Legal Times (in 1994).
December 21st, 2005 at 7:08 pmI know these guys want to turn back the clock, but I didn’t know it ran backwards too…
Nope, I didn’t go to Harvard. I do know that twenty years ago the Prof’s weren’t giving out A’s like candy. It’s a scandal and it’s been reported, look it up.
Do you think that a school that only excepts excellent straight A students is going to have anything but excellent straight A students? Big deal Harvard students get A’s. You would expect otherwise? These are some of the smartest people in the country after all.
If the Donks win big in 06 I will personally kiss your butt on Main St. at noon. (Provided you come up with the proper medical certificates)
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 21, 2005 @ 6:39 pm
What makes you think I’d want that? Pervert
December 21st, 2005 at 7:16 pmWaPo says physical search AND wiretaps were done to Amnes in 1993. Is this accruate?
WASH POST, July 15, 1994, “Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches”: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also — in the delicate words of a Justice Department official — to “places where you wouldn’t find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen… would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order.”
Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president “has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes.”
Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames’s office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.
Government officials decided in the Ames case that no warrant was required because the searches were conducted for “foreign intelligence purposes.”
Government lawyers have used this principle to justify other secret searches by U.S. authorities.
“The number of such secret searches conducted each year is classified…”
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:36 amDo you think that a school that only excepts excellent straight A students is going to have anything but excellent straight A students? Big deal Harvard students get A’s. You would expect otherwise? These are some of the smartest people in the country after all.
Comment by unbelievable
It’s pretty clear you didn’t look it up. It’s also pretty clear you’ve never been academically challenged. My advice to you is talk less and listen more, especially to me. Your students will someday thank you for it.
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:48 am#141
It’s pretty clear you didn’t look it up. It’s also pretty clear you’ve never been academically challenged. My advice to you is talk less and listen more, especially to me. Your students will someday thank you for it.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 22, 2005 @ 11:48 am
Actually I did. I am disagreeing with it, and you. Besides, I have my own inside source. I know people from Harvard – past and present. They are all brilliant and I would be shocked if they didn’t get A’s.
Academically challenged? Not sure what you mean, but I didn’t go to Harvard either. I’mjust not jealous of those who have.
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:55 pmWhy hasn’t Ms. Gorelick come out and told the people or the press about this? She should be out on the shows shedding some light on this subject.
December 22nd, 2005 at 7:54 pm[...] The right is desperate to defend Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance program with the argument “Clinton did it too.” They’ve tried to make this case before and have failed repeatedly. [...]
February 4th, 2006 at 7:14 pmMay I say calmly that Presidents of both parties have approved surveillance without warrants (for example, see executive orders 12139 and 12949 – clickable URL given below for each). If the practice should now be denied, would related convictions from the past be sustained?
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm
February 9th, 2006 at 7:27 pm[...] I’m basically just linking this here because if I don’t, I’ll forget about it. Here is what York obscures: at the time of Gorelick’s testimony, physical searches weren’t covered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). It’s not surprising that, in 1994, Gorelick argued that physical searches weren’t covered by FISA. They weren’t. With Clinton’s backing, the law was amended in 1995 to include physical searches. [...]
November 10th, 2006 at 9:29 pm