http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

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.

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.

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…”

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

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)

2004 Election Results

Manhattan County

Kerry 81%
Bush 17%

Thanks Gregor… He was just pulling it out of his rear end. Smoke and mirrors… That’s ALL they have left anymore.

“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.

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
Pronunciation: ‘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

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.

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.

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.

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.
Also, 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.

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.

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.