The Washington Times has an article titled “‘Warrantless’ searches not unprecedented.” It demonstrates a startling degree of ignorance about the issue.
The opening sentence reads “Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President Bush’s position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence.” That isn’t even the issue. The issue is whether the President can authorize electronic surveillance of U.S. persons without warrants. (No one disputes that it can do so abroad. That’s what it means to have an intelligence operation.)
It only gets worse from there. The article, written by Charles Hurt, claims that Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick testimony in 1994 supports administration’s legal position. But as I’ve explained in detail, Gorelick’s testimony was about the President’s authority to conduct physical searches, which weren’t covered by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act at the time of her testimony. The act was amended in 1995 to cover physical searches. Before and after the amendment, the Clinton administration complied with the law.
Hurt also steals a trick from the National Review’s Byron York and takes a sentence from a 2002 FISA court opinion out of context. (I explain how here.)
The article concludes with a long, and completely irrelevant, history of previous administration’s use of warrantless physical searches – all of which occur before the 1995 made warrantless physical searches illegal.
This is about following the law. Why is that so difficult to understand?
What do you expect from a bunch of Moonies!!!!
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:08 amKeep up the good work Judd. Continue to “Debunk the Junk”.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:09 amActually, they are not myths. Bush’s approval rating is at 48% in latest Rasmussen poll.
Don’t worry though - even though Bush is likely to win points over the left’s phony wiretapping charge, you can still pray for more death in Iraq.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:10 amThis is why the blogosphere is so important. The mainstream media, for lack of a better word, is so fearful of another attack that leads them to handwringing about torture, spying and the destruction of civil liberties. The Wall Street Journal’s work on the torture issue should send shivers down everyone’s spine.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:10 amLike anything the Wash Times isn’t straight from Rev. Moon’s ass. It’s only good to line birdcages with, and even then you’d better not have an educated bird.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:11 amOur trolls are changing names like crazy. what tools.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:12 amIf you support Bush, you stand for fear, corruption, secrecy, torture, abuse, Abu-Gharib, spying, theocracy, abuse of power and incompetence.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:12 amJudd just put a “hurtin’” on Hurt!
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:16 amAre there any credible news papers?
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:18 amBecause those involved in this scandal (makes oral sex from a pudgy intern seem even more comical than it originally was) will put any amount of spin on it to make it seem credible. Regardless of the evidence on the contrary, seemingly intelligent people like Dr. Rice (who isn’t THAT hot, by the way) will say startingly stupid statements that only further puts them in the hole of INcredibility, and will only be used against them in a court of law, which, if we don’t let up on calling their shots, shouldn’t be too far down the line. . .
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:19 amNo, the issue is why Judd wants to make things easier for al Qaeda.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:20 amBunch of kids…What a defence..”but Johnny did it too” Typical Bush, rag media, and GOP hypocrites…When in doubt.. blame Clinton.. Could you just imagine the uproar from all the talking bobbleheads, if any of this stuff went on under Clinton…Russert,Matthews,all of FAUX New, and all the rest of the “god squad” would be peeing themselves over who could lead the charge of Impeachment
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:23 amLocke, defending America from al Qaeda is not a “scandal.”
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:24 amSo I guess that the end justifies the means? And in what alternate universe is Bush at 48%?
You morons…we on the left don’t want the terrorists to “win”, but when you start BREAKING THE LAW you don’t have a moral leg to stand on.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:28 amIf the FISA courts are dissolved, then that would mean the Administration has actually gotten away with breaking the law of the land. How on earth can they be held accountable for their actions?
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:29 amKiki, despite the best efforts of the left, it is still legal for the president to defend America from terrorists.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:30 amKiki, seriously, pay them no mind. They’ve resorted to parroting rhetoric and talking points without bringing discourse to the conversation. It’s not worth your time. And, to answer your rhetorical question :), no, the ends do NOT justify the means. If this becomes a precedent, I shudder to think what will happen to our nation next. . .
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:31 amI was thinking about the brain-dead Yoo memos
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:31 amthat basically say commander codpiece can do whatever
he wants.
It is interesting how a lawyer can justify ANYTHING
when there is NO OPPOSING opinion.
Court cases are pretty easy when there is only one side.
That commander codpiece and “the sneer” decide they
have absolute power based on opinion of subordinates
who were told to justify absolute power should come
as no surprise. Circular arguments tend to work that way.
It amazes me to no end how, even with MONUMENTAL evidence of corruption by this idiot president, there are STILL jackasses that think bushy is not doing anything wrong. I think it’s a good time to call for ANARCHY! Let’s protest VIOLENTLY in the streets and take this country back. These idiot christian conservative douche nozzles need to be put on an island where we could test nukes.
Bush is a murdering asshole and needs to be removed from office immediately. IF you are for bush you too are guilty of murder.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:31 amTHE WASHINGTON TIMES IS TO THE PRINTED MEDIA WHAT FOX IS TO CABLE MEDIA .
It is a tool of the Bushies’s PROPAGANDA machine and have one trak mind . What ever this administration does or says is absolutly RIGHT . Tony Whatever is on most talk shows to defend the administration , and pushes his paper point of wiew.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:33 amIt’s number 20, plunger.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:33 amplunger, #42.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:33 amComment by plunger — December 22, 2005 @ 10:31 am
I get it at #20
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:33 amwwallace, explaint to me how it is that the president had to ingnore FISA and the US Constitution to defend America against al Qaeda???
When FISA allows for a wire tap to be made, but they must present information as to the nature for the wire tap in order to make it LEGAL within 72 hours (4 days).
How is he making us safer by breaking the LAW. Please tell me what makes his actions so important that he needs to disregard laws and the constitution in a so called defending America? Why can’t the president begin his wire taps and then present the information for a LEGAL approval through the courts? What makes the president so much better than our laws and Constitution?
Please explain to me how this is making us safer? Don’t tell me that because he is spying on al Qaeda. The issue is that he is breaking the law. So explain to me how it is that he cannot do this without breaking the law, unless he is doing illeagal things.
Enlighten us all wwallace. Tell, us how this 72 hour (4 days) time frame is not good enough for this criminal?
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:34 amLocke has resorted to parroting rhetoric and talking points without bringing discourse to the conversation.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:34 amRemoveBush, the president didn’t violate the law or the constitution.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:35 amI rest my case. . .
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:36 amKinda reminds of Pee-Wee Herman’s “I know you are, but what am I?”
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:36 amIt is not difficult to understand. The idea is to muddy the waters by suggesting Clinton did it too and trying to get us to defend Clinton and thus lose focus.
It is the same job as the job of the trolls on Liberal websites. You see it all the time: The trolls throw in an outrageous comment or a plain lie and the Liberals start responding to the trolls with counter insults or trying to teach the “facts” to the trolls. The subject of the thread is forgotten and a troll’s job is done and he/she can move to the next thread.
The Liberal politicians should stick to the matter on hand: The crimes of BushCo. The “fact” that Clinton did it too is irrelevant because that, even if true, does not make Bush’s crimes legal. Our job is to bury Bush, not defend Clinton.
Let us drag Bush to court and they can drag Clinton to court if they think they have the grounds to do that.
Focus people, focus! The water is pristine and beautiful and can only be muddied if we allow it to be muddied.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:37 amNot sure, plunger. Have you tried closing out the window and bringing up a new page?
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:38 amIn a sense the whole issues boils down to
one simple fact. We are a nation of laws not men.
The revolution was to rid America of monarchy.
This was specifically noted in the writings at the
time including (from Salon):
The original commentary on it appeared in a pamphlet published in 1776, “Common Sense,” written by Tom Paine:
“But where says some is the King of America? I’ll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve as monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is.”
Impeachment proceedings should commence at once, but
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:38 amGOP dishonestly will be hard to overcome.
wwallace, then show me where in the Constitution is says that the president can spy on Americans? SHOW ME WHERE.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:40 amPoint eloquently made, Patel. Now, where were we again?
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:41 amThe liberal trolls are posting lies, conservatives must respond by posting facts and truth. That’s what I’m here for.
The Liberal politicians should stick to the matter on hand: Defending America from terrorism. But they sadly have another agenda.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:41 amThe “president” is wiretapping AMERICANS without a search warrant. You must have one if you’re wiretapping. How is that not breaking the law? And the “president’s” job is to uphold the Constitution, including the 4th Amendment, which is against unreasonable search and seizure (as in searching your phone records). So he’s done a miserable job on both fronts. And while we’re talking polls, have you seen the one where 87% of people polled say the president broke the law and should be impeached? By any definition, this “president” is a criminal and should be removed from office. Those of us who love America can stand for nothing less.
PS. Since the ends justify the means, I’m all for anarchy at this point.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:41 amRemoveBush, show me in the constitution where it says the commander-in-chief cannot spy on enemy agents in America.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:43 amTalking points we have heard too much of.
“You want the terrorists to win”
“You must hate America”
“you are helping Al-Queda”
“You want troops to die’
“You want us to lose the war”
Problem is, these guys are too simple to see it any other way.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:44 amwwallace,
Despite the best apologetics from the Right, the Constitution still constrains what the President can and cannot do while prosecuting his ‘war on terror’. For instance, the President cannot ignore Federal codes requiring judicial oversight in cases of domestic surveillence.
Of course it is legal that the President defend America from terrorists. What you are willfully ignoring is the question at issue, which is the legality of how the President chose to do this.
Cheers,
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:44 am–
Alex
Kiki, since the president’s actions were reasonable, they did not violate the 4th amendment.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:45 amAlex, to the contrary, Congress cannot pass statutes that infringe on the constitutional powers of the executive.
If they do, the executive is free to ignore them.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:46 amI can’t fathom why Judd likes you wwallybaby. And why you choose to use this site as your sanbox just shows how socially inept you are.
Grow up & go away.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:46 amHow about remove Bush because he is mean, subversive, underhanded, does not care about 90% of American citizens, and is not sharp enough to have the job.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:47 amOops, my bad on the poll that says Bush should be impeached. That should read 88%.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:47 amkindness, your ad hominem attacks add nothing to the debate and violate the site Terms of Use.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:48 am#42 That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard all day!
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:48 amLocke:
We were discussing how most of the MSM is owned by bigger corporations who have everything to gain from mudding the waters and keeping a corporate-friendly government in power.
Say what you want about the show business, there is no business like the war business. Ant the beauty of a nonsense idea like the “War on Terror†is that that war started with Able and Cain and will last till the end of Man. This means people who profit from this war can continue to profit until Americans wake up and realize the stupidity and impossibility of an idea like the “War on Terrorâ€.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:50 amRight on Wallace, you are now becoming aware of how to follow rules, as you brought up the terms of use for this page. Good job, you are doing better than the rest of the Rightys are doing.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:51 amwwallace,
You’re #42 comment is…well, I’m not sure how to respond until you provide some sort of legal reasoning or precedent (rather than simply an assertion that the Cheif Executive ought to be unfettered by checks and balances) that attests to this.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:52 amI love this from Digby:
9/11 changed everything. Suddenly the he-men of WalMart and the NRA leaped into Big Brother’s arms and shrieked “save me, save me! Do what ever you have to do, they’re trying to kill us all!” They now look to Daddy Government not to discipline the children, but to check under the bed for them every night, reassure them that the boogeyman won’t hurt them and then read them a nice bedtime story about spreading freedom and democracy. It turns out that underneath all this swaggering bravado, the Republicans aren’t the Daddy party — they’re the baby party.
It rings so true. The wingers are scared to go outside and
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:53 amare willing to give up my rights to have a camera
under their beds.
Yes, I have always thought the Right is addicted to fear.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:55 amwwallace,
Here’s a hint: You’ll find nothing to support your #42 comment in Articles I,II.
Cheers, and happy hunting!
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:58 am–
Alex
Tony Blankley is Barney’s father.
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:04 amThe right-wing blogs and pundits first tried to say that eavesdropping on American citizens complied with FISA.
They quite obviouly cherry picked the parts of section 1802 to justify their argument. I’m not sure that they should be aplauded for their adatious obfuscation of the issues involved since copies of FISA are on the internet for anyone that cares to check.
Right-wong apologists then asserted that members of congress were fully informed. It turns out that yes a small group from the House and Senate was informed, but that is far from being the whole truth. Nancy Pelosi and Senator Jay Rockefeller were forbidden by the Whitehouse from revealing anything they were told in the White briefing after the fact.
Another argument by the Right is that its OK if Bush has warrantless surveillance because President Carter and President Clinton did it. Think Progress has already debunked this myth.
The far right extremists say that even discussing roving wiretaps and e-mail monitoring that is part of Bush’s surveillance program is unpatriotic, yet Bush himself has discussed it in detail and posted the information on the Whitehouse web site
1. http://www.whitehouse.gov/ news/ releases/ 2005/ 06/ 20050609-2.html
2. http://www.whitehouse.gov/ news/ releases/ 2005/ 06/ 20050609-2.html
The second link Bush discusses wiretaps, so I guess hes working to help Al-Quida too.
The newest argument is that the technology Bush and the NSA are using is so new and advanced that FISA doesn’t cover it and FISA has become an incumberance to protecting America. For one a Judge of the FISA thinks that Bush may have acted outside the law and undermined the Fourth Amendment safeguards buildt into FISA.-Judge Robertson Reported to Resign in Protest from FISA Court.
The argument that I ve heard as recently as today on C-span is that the President has nearly unlimited powers in time of war. One gentleman even said he read it in the constitution. Congress Explicitly Said War Resolution Did Not Expand Executive Power.
Even the loon from Alaska doesn’t think Bush is King yet,
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK):
Some people say that is a broad change in authorization to the Commander in Chief of this country. It is not. It is a very limited concept of giving him the authority to pursue those who have brought this terrible destruction to our country and to pursue those who have harbored them or assisted them and conspired with them in any way. [Congressional Record, 9/14/01]
This Jeffersonian liberal thinks that this administration and the next should continue to spy on foreign nations and groups that plan to do this great country harm, but our laws gave the Bush administration the power to instantly start surveillance on people suspected of communicating with terrorists. If something in the law prevents us from addressing the threat we should change the FISA law. But everyone, including the President and the Vice President, should follow the law.
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:14 amQuote: This is about following the law. Why is that so difficult to understand?
Well lets start with you Judd.
You make only two distinctions in what communications are intercepted - those of foreigners and those of US citizens. Since you’ve been quoting legal clauses you knew this was misleading when you did so.
You make no reference to the fact that this story started with the account that US citizens contacting foreign numbers were being montiored. Furthermore for all your reciting of FISA clauses you are yet to acknowledge that the distinction made in the law is isn’t between US citizens and foreigners it is a provision for the monitoring of agents of foreign enemies.
Again this pertains to the nature of the communications and communication with anyone involved with al Qaeda is going to pass that test unless you are working under the impression that following 9/11 anyone gives a shit about a dictionary definition of a enemy state or nation as a restrictive test.
Once your arguement progresses beyond splitting people (rather than communications) into two groups so you don’t have to confuse your talking points with anything other than black/white arguements then you can be taken seriously when you pretend to take other’s opinions to task. Right now though you are writing a lot of articles about signals intelligence which involves a computer parsing data while restricting yourself to referring to this as people targetting other people who are in a particular nation.
How are you deceiving your readers any less than the worst example from the right on this issue when the issue is communications originating from the US where the destination or person contacted is what is significant and you refuse to refer to it on this basis ?
In the meantime you can refrain from referring to things as “myths” purely on the basis that you’ve never heard of them and because you didn’t do 10 seconds research before declaring them fiction. That should have been your cue to STFU on the subject.
By your own standards which you have applied to others on this matter you are lying when you do this.
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:35 amseems like The Rightieson this Board along with the garbage they spew are straight out of a Witches dirty Rag. Phew!! Stench is getting worse!!!!
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:12 pmTank,
It is very unclear what your response to Judd is (that is, those sections of your post which don’t simply resort to name-calling).
However, it sounds like you’re saying that (i) the conversations of the relevant individuals were communications with foreign enemies and so (ii) the higher legal obstacles which FISA when it comes to wiretapping U.S. citizens therefore do not apply to these people.
But look, how could an NSA agent know that (i) is true? Well, obviously the NSA would know that a particular U.S. citizen (call him “Bob”) was communicating with a foreign enemy after eavesdropping on Bob’s conversations. But the legality of easedropping on Bob’s conversation without discharging the legal obstacle set out by FISA is precisely what is at issue. Tank, you can’t just presume that if the Bush Adminstration spies on Bob, then Bob must have been a terrorist. People make mistakes, which is precisely what FISA’s legal obstacles are meant to prevent.
Cheers,
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:17 pm–
Alex
Judd,
I know you’re not making the assumption that the rightwing movement does anything in good faith. Every enterprise be it tied to politics, business or religion that defends what this administration has done and continues to do, in light of so many damning truths cannot be trusted to act in support of interests that do not serve them directly. Power, greed and in the case of media and journalists, access. This administration, the GOP and the hacks and frauds that support them are so rancid and despicable, so unforgivable in the crimes that they’ve perpetrated against American democracy that they cannot be treated as anything less than enemies of the state.
Since these forces work so hard to destroy their opposition and general dissent, so we should stop at nothing to undermine and destroy them. No good faith and no surprises, this is all out war.
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:22 pmwwallace, you seem to be suffering the same MENTAL illness as your assclown president. You amuse me. Like a court jester.
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:42 pmDebtonator,
he suffers from the same rightwing fascism that osama does, it’s why he hates civil liberties and a society of oppressive religious dictators. wwallace = osama’s girlfriend :()
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:00 pmOops missed a word, typed too fast.
wwallace suffers from the same rightwing fascism that osama does, it’s why he hates civil liberties and why he wants a society of oppressive religious dictators. wwallace = osama’s girlfriend :()
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:01 pmwwallace implies the spying was on ‘enemy agents’, and therefore warranted.
1) If there are 18,000 spies, then wow, what a security problem for the country.
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:05 pm2) If bush knows there are 18,000 spies, and they aren’t arrested, then bush must be working for osama since they haven’t been arrested.
3) wwallace has just proven that the republicans are agents of osama, because they’re protecting 18,000 terrorists from prosecution!
4) wwallace has proven himself to be a terrorist and a traitor!
Before Judd posts on a specialized legal topic such as this, he ought to at least consult someone who knows what they’re talking about, and he ought to read the leading cases in this area. I’ll do him the favor of providing both the consultation and the legal authorities, via http://www.rfraley310.blogspot.com:
[BEGIN]
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Warrantless but Perfectly Reasonable Search
Many of the lefty news guys are trying their hand at playing a lawyer on TV, or on the radio (I just listened to Hugh Hewitt smack down Jonathan Alter from Newsweek for not reading the recent case on the issue, et al.) regarding warrantless interception of foreign phone calls by the NSA. Most of them go wrong from the beginning– from the mistaken starting point that a warrantless search is an illegal search. Wrong! Silly, School-Boy’s Book of the Fourth Amendment level wrong. The Fourth Amendment only protects us (in our persons, houses, papers and effects) from unreasonable searches and seizures. In a completely different clause it says that warrants shall issue only for probable cause. There is case law that says a warrant (if well supported) will make the search it allows reasonable, however, there are plenty of exceptions to what is called, merely for convenience, the warrant requirement. The most famous one, the one even the news guys might even know about, is exigent circumstances. No warrant is required where there is no practical way to get one in time. Another exception, according to In re: Sealed Case No. 02:001 is the ability of the President to act as a commander in chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. Money quote for Sealed Case:
The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. 26 It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.
When asked previously (in 1972) to comment on this, in the Supreme Court in the so-called Keith case, took a pass: “We have not addressed, and express no opinion as to, the issues which may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents.” United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. at 321- 22, but the Court then, in footnote 20 (much of the good stuff in a case is in the footnotes), said:
For the view that warrantless surveillance, though impermissible in domestic security cases, may be constitutional where foreign powers are involved, see United States v. Smith, 321 F. Supp. 424, 425-426 (CD Cal. 1971); and American Bar Association Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Electronic Surveillance 120, 121 (Approved Draft 1971, and Feb. 1971 Supp. 11). See also United States v. Clay. 430 F.2d 165 (CA5 1970).
So, based on cases (cited and quoted from above) by the Supreme Court of the United States and by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (which reviews the FISA court) there is nothing unreasonable about warrantless listening in on the phone calls from known al Qaeda operatives to persons in the United States especially after al Qaeda declared war on us in 1998. I’m sorry if one half of the conversation is by someone in America who may well be an American. If we could stop listening when the American is speaking without doing damage to our understanding of the conversation, perhaps we could try; but we all know that wouldn’t work because then we wouldn’t know what the al Qaeda guy was talking about if all we heard was half the conversation. That there is an American on the line of a foreign call doesn’t make listening in unreasonable, especially when the person he or she is talking to is with al Qaeda. I believe it would be unreasonable to say the President can’t try to discover what our self-declared enemy is planning. But of course I would say that, I’m a Republican. Here’s the short version of what the President is doing at the NSA: Not unreasonable, not illegal, but in fact perfectly legal, reasonable, necessary and prudent. No warrant is required for reasonable searches.
On the other hand, I have heard some other people, news types again, talking about a civil suit against our President by the Americans who had their telephone conversation with Uncle Ali in Karachi , for example, listened in on. Well, if precedent is any guide, these Americans, if any are ever identified, would get their case bounced out well before trial. As Diomedes pointed out in one of his first posts here, being surveiled by the government whose agents then create a file on you (and only that–there is no case brought against you) gives you no standing to sue the government. See Laird v. Tatum, 408 U. S. 1 (1972) whose money quote follows:
The decisions in these [previously cited First Amendment] cases fully recognize that governmental action may be subject to constitutional challenge even though it has only an indirect effect on the exercise of First Amendment rights. At the same time, however, these decisions have in no way eroded the
“established principle that to entitle a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of executive or legislative action he must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury as the result of that action . . . .” Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937).
The [war protestors bringing the suit] do not meet this test; their claim, simply stated, is that they disagree with the judgments made by the Executive Branch with respect to the type and amount of information the Army needs and that the very existence of the Army’s data-gathering system produces a constitutionally impermissible chilling effect upon the exercise of their First Amendment rights. That alleged “chilling” effect may perhaps be seen as arising from respondents’ very perception of the system as inappropriate to the Army’s role under our form of government, or as arising from respondents’ beliefs that it is inherently dangerous for the military to be concerned with activities in the civilian sector, or as arising from respondents’ less generalized yet speculative apprehensiveness that the Army may at some future date misuse the information in some way that would cause direct harm to respondents. Allegations of a subjective “chill” are not an adequate substitute for a claim of specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm; “the federal courts established pursuant to Article III of the Constitution do not render advisory opinions.” United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 89 (1947).
So, no crime, no impeachment, no lawsuits. Bush’s second term is turning out to be very different from his predecessor after all.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 6:39 PM
[END]
There. Now I’ve done Judd’s job for him. No need to thank me . . . just call it my good deed of the day. All I ask is that someone tell Judd I won’t always be around to bail him out on stuff like this. Sooner or later he’s going to have to figure out how to do his job without my help.
Merry Christmas to All - and God Bless Us, Every One!
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:17 pmBSR,
I guess you missed the thread yesterday that debunked this
‘mythology’ of yours.
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2005/ 12/ 21/ appeals-court-myth/
Not only did Judd do the job that you’re clearly incapable and inept (in the mike brown sort of way) of doing, but you look like an ignorant fool for posting a debunked and disproven myth.
Republicans are the dullest tool in the drawer, and you sure do prove that indisputably!
Republican = Retarded = BSR
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:22 pmI can do anything I want if I lay down my Terra or God trump cards. The foolish lazy right will look no deeper and concede.
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:35 pmThe Wash. Times was spewing this tripe on Fox News Live (noon hour EST) today. A Times rep was on Hemmer’s (?) Because You Asked segment avowing that Clinton/Carter also did warrantless intelligence gathering for forign intelligence. They conveniently omitted the phrase on each’s EO that the AG could do so “if the required certs were obtained” and that Bush has no such requirement. Also, no distinction was drawn between gathering foreign intelligence and spying on US citizens at home. The Wash. Times and Fox deserve each other!
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:01 pm#65 You know that we are in some serious trouble if there are thousands of terrorists in this country that the president has to wire tap without a warrant. Let’s see here…. We have not just 10 or 50, but thousands of terrorists in this country now that require warrantless wire taps.
YEAH RIGHT!
Get a Freeking clue.
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:01 pmI just finished reading that 2002 Appeal that BSR and TP referred to. Very interesting.
The basic question, as I understand it, was that the FISA court denied a warrant because they believed that the primary reason for that particular warrant was a criminal case. If, in the FISA court’s opinion, the primary reason was a criminal case, than the Justice Department should have applied for a standard Title III criminal warrant instead.
The Appeals Court ruled that, especially since the Patriot Act, the Justice Department does not have to prove that it does not intend to ever bring a criminal case to obtain a FISA warrant. Indeed, according to the Court, FISA was never really intended to exclude a criminal prosecution of any target of FISA-approved surveillance.
Their point to bringing up the Truong case, even though they emphasized that the case was “pre-FISA”, was that FISA neither limited or expanded any powers constitutionally granted to the President (spying on foreign governments and/or agents). They ruled that although FISA has differing requirements than a Title III warrant, based on its differing application, it was close enough to Title III to constitute a “reasonable search”.
In the Court’s conclusion, they state:
The Court did not consider FISA a roadblock to the President’s constitutional powers. So why would the President try to get around FISA?
The only answer I can come up with is he doesn’t want the oversight for some reason. Hmmmmm……
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:34 pmwwallace is always posting multiple times on “Think Progress,” so he must be a PAID Karl Rove internet blogger!
He purposely tries to disrupt other posters ideas, and to get the subject off to far tangents!
At first I thought he was just goofy person, but he is a professional disinformation mole!
Everyone would be wise to not respond to wwallace in any way and just ignore him!
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:36 pmI’m new and undecided, yet desperately trying to learn and I appreciate both Judd and Blue State Red, and the others, for posting their respective positions. I don’t care for the demonizing and name calling as this is too important an issue.
The fact that Judge Robertson, who, unlike Judd or BSR, we all KNOW is an informed attorney, resigned says alot to me. (Please don’t scream he’s just a liberal Clinton appointee) And the fact that the chief FISA judge and other FISA judges have demanded a meeting with NSA and Justice Dept officials over this revelation is also very revealing to me.
If you are correct BSR, and Judd is so wrong, why are so many of these Judges apparently so upset? Again, I’m not taking a political position here, I really want to know.
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:42 pmThanks.
If you are correct BSR, and Judd is so wrong, why are so many of these Judges apparently so upset? Again, I’m not taking a political position here, I really want to know.
Thanks.
Comment by elmoron
Because if they weren’t they couldn’t get a date in their current social circle, that’s why. Oh, and many of them are Democrat appointed ratbastardcommiemofos. There, that just about explains it, hope it helps.
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:47 pmI think it’s a good time to call for ANARCHY! Let’s protest VIOLENTLY in the streets and take this country back.
Comment by The Debtonator
Good idea! I’ve been looking for an opportunity to try out my new 20mm sniper rifle.
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:49 pmI-Right,
Actually, it’s my understanding the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court picks the 11 FISA Court members for staggered 7 year terms. That would have been Chief Justice Rhenquist, although I doubt he would have ever selected somebody based on political affiliation, much less their social status, or even what they looked like.
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:03 pmIRI shows why psychotic tendencies, republicanism and terrorism are such natural companions. In light of the lunacy of IRI AKA MizzWrong and BSR, it’s easy to see how republicans would be insane enough to have created, trained equiped and allied with both Al Qaeda and Saddam for so long. They cry foul now, but only because those guys aren’t just killing the ‘ratbastardcommiemofos’, which is what they and all other fascists believe is their duty. Hitler felt the same way with them, that’s why he attacked russia.
Fascist fools are the plague of the world, but IRI is too retarded to be personally contageous.
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:04 pmI found a very interesting blog on the whole issue. It’s a long read, but a good one.
http://www.schneier.com/ blog/ archives/ 2005/ 12/ the_security_th_1.html
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:05 pmJay Randall,
There are a ‘handful’ of paid moles that use a variety of IDs. IRI, BSR, wwallace, NED and MightyHermaphrodite are clearly either the same person or the same ’small group’ of Free Republic/HindRocket/NeoCon mental retards. They’re probably paid through the pentagon propaganda funds, considering how inept they are…
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:06 pmI still believe that IRI is really a liberal Democrat, and posts such extreme right-wing comments as a satarical means of poking fun at the Republicans.
That’s the only justification I can find for some of the things he/she posts.
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:08 pmGood idea! I’ve been looking for an opportunity to try out my new 20mm sniper rifle.
How ironic. It’s my understanding that Chief Justice Rhenquist was an avid hunter too!
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:08 pmIN JUNE of 1863, Abraham Lincoln wrote a letter to Erasmus Corning, who had sent him the resolutions of the Albany Democratic convention censuring the Lincoln administration for what it called unconstitutional acts, such as military arrests of civilians in the North. This letter remains the best articulation of the problems that a democratic republic faces when confronted by a crisis that threatens the very existence of that republic.
The essence of Lincoln’s argument was that certain actions that are unconstitutional in the absence of rebellion or invasion become constitutional when those conditions exists–in other words, “that the Constitution is not in its application in all respects the same in cases of rebellion or invasion involving the public safety, as it is in times of profound peace and public security.”
This past Saturday, President Bush issued his equivalent of the Corning letter. […]
THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY of the American republic, there has been a tension between two virtues necessary to sustain republican government: vigilance and responsibility. Vigilance is the jealousy on the part of the people that constitutes a necessary check on those who hold power, lest they abuse it. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “[I]t is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind those whom we are obliged to trust with power.”
But while vigilance is a necessary virtue, it may, if unchecked, lead to an extremism that incapacitates a government, preventing it from carrying out even its most necessary and legitimate purposes, e.g. providing for the common defense. “Jealousy,” wrote Alexander Hamilton, often infects the “noble enthusiasm for liberty” with “a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust.”
Responsibility, on the other hand, is the prudential judgment necessary to moderate the excesses of political jealousy, thereby permitting limited government to fulfill its purposes. Thus in Federalist 23, Alexander Hamilton wrote that those responsible for the nation’s defense must be granted all of the powers necessary to achieve that end. Responsibility is the virtue necessary to govern and to preserve the republic from harm, both external and internal. The dangers of foreign and civil war taught Alexander Hamilton that liberty and power are not always adversaries, that indeed, the “vigor” of government is essential to the security of liberty.
President Bush, like Lincoln before him, has taken actions that reflect his agreement with this principle.
Mackubin Thomas Owens is professor of national security at the Naval War College.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/ Utilities/ printer_preview.asp?idArticle=6528&R=C8161621C
Something that the Progressives are loath to comment on regarding this debate is that FISA grew out of the Democrats effort to protect anti-war/anti-American groups, many of them funded by Moscow, during the Cold War. But there was never any public support for safeguarding the secrets of the radical Left then, anymore than anyone much cared about the Clinton administration going after militia groups following Oklahoma City.
How well I remember the illegal wire taps, confiscation of private property, the mass slaughter at Waco as well as the murders at Ruby Ridge all accomplished via extra-constitutional measures such as our President is using now. The difference of course is our President is doing it to radical Muslim extremists and their kin as apposed to harmless nut jobs and honest citizens that Clinton’s Murder, Inc. went after with something like a religious zeal. I remember, and the majority of Americans remember too and are reminded daily by the Democrats who seek to aid and give quarter to avowed enemies of America.
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:09 pmA question for “learned leftists” (I know how you think of yourselves, so I’ll indulge you…) You tout the FISA court’s retroactive abilitites. What do you intellectual giants suggest if a suspected co-conspirator is monitored, so-so info is obtained and the FISA court turns down the warrant?
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:09 pmBy the way, IRI, before using any sniper rifle, you must perform a very important test with it to make sure it works, according to the NRA. You have to load it and chamber a round, turn it around and look down the barrel, reach up and pull the trigger.
According to NRA documentation, that’s the only way to make sure your sniper rifle works as advertised.
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:12 pmIRI is in trouble, so here comes his transvestite alter ego MightyHermaphrodite to the rescue.
And the ‘legal giant’ that she is, she argues the president has the right to break the law in a hypothetical situation that never occurred! Wow, now you say you actually passed the bar in california? Are you sure that wasn’t just a ’salad bar’ you passed on your way to becoming a stupid fata$$?
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:15 pmIf it’s “so-so info”, why would it matter if the warrant is turned down?
Pretty much the only information needed for a FISA court to approve a warrant is for a national security officer, usually the Director of the FBI, to certify that a foreign government or a foreign agent is involved in the communications to be monitored. The information to be gathered is not an issue.
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:16 pmI still believe that IRI is really a liberal Democrat, and posts such extreme right-wing comments as a satarical means of poking fun at the Republicans.
That’s the only justification I can find for some of the things he/she posts.
Comment by MarcWW
They seem extreme to you only because you are so far gone the other way. Get a job and scoot over to the right. Someday you’ll thank me.
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:17 pmI guess IRI missed the story last week about how the government was using all of the ‘gun shows’ and ‘gun licenses’ to keep databases on anyone who owns a gun in the country - supposedly this is also ‘illegal’ and a violation of the ’second amendment’, and yet the republicans are doing it again…
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:17 pmI have a job. Scooting over to the right really chaffs my ass.
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:18 pmIRI talks about others getting a job, but clearly he either doesn’t have one, or cheats his employer by being on this site so much. Just goes to show you that hypocrisy is the only true prerequisite to being a republican! LOL!!!
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:19 pmHow ironic. It’s my understanding that Chief Justice Rhenquist was an avid hunter too!
Comment by elmoron
More of a forced coincidence than an irony I’d say. Don’t forget, you’re supposed to be on the fence around here.
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:20 pmI’ll help out IRI/MightyHermaphrodite since clearly mental retardation has set in…
“You tout the FISA court’s retroactive abilitites. ”
Yes, up to 15 days actually.
“What do you intellectual giants suggest if a suspected co-conspirator is monitored, so-so info is obtained and the FISA court turns down the warrant?”
At the point Bush had decided to break the law, and violate the constitution, not a single warrant had been turned down while thousands had been issued, and he would have no reason to believe they would be unless he planned on breaking the law in some manner.
Now I pose the question back to you oh mental midget. Considering that thousands of warrants had been issued, that during a ‘time of war’, the president had 15 days to establish a warrant, and that a warrant had never been refused - why would the president feel compelled to violate the constitution and break the law?
Maybe his quote to his staff will lend us some understand.
“Violate the Constitution? Who cares, it’s just a piece of paper!”
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:23 pmIRI, Benjamin Franklin was thinking of the ‘aristocrats’, but it also fits the DumbMinionists and Fascists that you belong to as well when he wrote this:
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:25 pma little security will deserve neither and lose both. ”
Benjamin Franklin
Mighty,
Good point. And based on todays meeting between the FISA Judges and the Justice Department, we may find out the answer soon.
I-Right,
Nice post regarding Prof. Owens position. But wasn’t wiretapping Civil Rights leaders by Hoover’s FBI also a contributing factor in the creation of FISA? I don’t know how much “responsibility” was shown by J Edgar & LBJ then.
I guess I’m just not comfortable with the current Administrations explanations, nor can I bring myself to fully trust, in light of recent war revelations, their protestations that it was ONLY overseas calls being monitored by the NSA.
Regardless of why FISA was established, it appears to have been the law of the land since 1978, was modified in 1995 after OK City, and expanded again with the Patriot Act in 2001. There seems to have been ample time and opportunity for the Republican controlled Congress to change it or remove it completely.
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:33 pmIndulge me for feeding the troll - at my age shooting fish in a barrel is too much like hard work and so I need another hobby to help me relax.
Spaketh mighty pile o’shitey:
A question for “learned leftists†(I know how you think of yourselves, so I’ll indulge you…) You tout the FISA court’s retroactive abilitites. What do you intellectual giants suggest if a suspected co-conspirator is monitored, so-so info is obtained and the FISA court turns down the warrant?
The reason we are “learned” is because we put in the time and effort to research these matters. The FISA statutes are quite clear upon this, as you would have found out had you bothered to look (or had the wit to comprehend if you did look).
In case of emergency, the Attorney General may authorize a wiretap and must provide details to the FISA court within 72 hours. If the FISA court declines to authorize that wiretap then all evidence gathered from it must be destroyed.
There, that was easy, wasn’t it? And if you had only the wit to read the details of that which you expound upon, you could have found the answer for yourself.
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:40 pmelmoron,
Did you catch the story today, where the administration ‘admitted’ that ‘domestic only’ calls were also intercepted? You shouldn’t trust them, they lie too conveniently, too willingly and with too little remorse.
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:48 pmBrian,
That goes from 72 hours to 15 days during a ‘time of war’, so there’s no excuse whatsoever.
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:48 pmGot a message from Santa for Georgie:
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:49 pmHey, listen, Georgie, I’m the one who
says who’s been bad and who’s been good.
No presents for you this year, Georgie!
The fact is we are at war. We can disagree on how it is or is not being prosecuted correctly, its origins, whether Iraq should have been included, etc., but the fact remains there are serious people out there with access to very serious weapons who are very serious about hurting any and all of us currently posting on this board. And they don’t distinguish or care if it’s Republicans, Democrats, Hawks, or Doves. Were they to succeed again, I have a feeling that the FISA discussion we are currently enjoying won’t matter much. And that’s very sad.
I want our leaders to protect us. That’s their job and the fact is, we haven’t been attacked like 9/11 again…thus far anyway. However, from what I’ve been learning about Plame and other self serving half truths, I also can’t bring myself to trust them with this NSA stuff. I do want judicial oversight, regardless of a judge’s political persuasion.
December 22nd, 2005 at 4:13 pmI want our leaders to protect us. That’s their job and the fact is, we haven’t been attacked like 9/11 again…thus far anyway. However, from what I’ve been learning about Plame and other self serving half truths, I also can’t bring myself to trust them with this NSA stuff. I do want judicial oversight, regardless of a judge’s political persuasion.
Comment by elmoron
You can’t win a war with liberal judges providing oversight and you can’t trust liberal judges with military secrets. The fact is you have a choice. You can trust George Bush or you can trust to the people who say he is Hitler and arranged for 9-11 so he could steal Iraq’s oil. Pick a horse and ride him.
December 22nd, 2005 at 4:20 pmWwalace keeps parroting the “SPYING ON AL-QUEDA!!!” broken rhetoric over and over again. Wwallass, I hate to break it to you, but just because you repeat something over and over again doesnt make it true. If bush was legitimately spying on Alqueda, there would have been NO good reason why he couldnt have gone to the court and gotten a RETROACTIVE (big word for you, I know) warrant AFTER he spied on them. But lets face it, the likely reason he never went to the court is because who he was really wiretapping was some of those godless vegetarians and maybe some liberals.
December 22nd, 2005 at 4:30 pmC’mon I-Right, you’re an intellegent guy. The Lincoln quote you provided earlier has impact on someone like me. But the stark and ugly choice you lay out in #98 doesn’t become you. While I understand there’s deep anger on both sides here, this demonizing of people and their positions during a war which we are all living in together has to stop.
The horse I guess I pick is the rule of law. Whether they’re conservative or liberal judges is not an issue with me now. As long as they’re American.
December 22nd, 2005 at 4:36 pm“You can trust George Bush or you can trust to the people who say he is Hitler and arranged for 9-11 so he could steal Iraq’s oil. Pick a horse and ride him.”-
quoth the highly intellectual IReichI.
yes, thats right. We only have two choices in this world. When you go to your family reunion, you probably only see two choices… having sex with your female relatives, or having sex your your male relatives.. there are only two options, after all.
I Reich I, I know you lust longingly for a big strong man who will protect you by blindly lashing out at anyone who doesnt like america, and making legions of new enemies in the process. the fact is, the holocaust happened because of people very similar to you, people who blindly follow thier leaders no matter where they go.
Does george bush have the malice of hitler? No. George bush is a pawn. THe poor fool actually thinks hes doing right. THe people behind him, pulling his strings.. they are using very hitler-esque tactics to control people… and despite what poor, uneducated, naive saps like you think, there was much more to hitler’s tactics than blatant genocide..His were the politics of fear. He launched wars of agression, allegedly in self defense. “tell the people they are being attacked, and question the patriotism of those who disagree”…sound familiar? The fact is, WMD are much harder to obtain, store, deploy, and effectively use than our leaders would have us think. In truth, the chance of any of us being killed by a foreigner are EXPONENTIALLY lower than the chances of being killed by one of our fellow americans.
Its macho, flaghumping douchebags like you that make the world such a dangerous place. You are apparently unable to understand the concept that we can still be powerful without making legions of new enemies. Its funny that such a “patriotic” nutball such as yourself wants to help the Mullahs of Iran by handing Iraq over to them. Or are you so naive to think that there is absolutely NO WAY that a democracy could turn into an islamic theocracy? Democracy is a human concept, and like any human concept it can easily be corrupted under certain circumstances.
December 22nd, 2005 at 4:45 pmIRI,
Spoken like a true DumbMinionist moron who’d sell his freedoms to the highest bidder. You aren’t an american or even a civil human being for that matter.
Lets pick apart your ‘idiotic’, ‘retarded’ and ‘hysterical’ claims for a second.
“You can’t win a war with liberal judges providing oversight and you can’t trust liberal judges with military secrets. ”
Actually the FISA judge was a ‘republican’ appointee - so this ‘claim’ is hysterical, irrational, and insane, just like you.
“The fact is you have a choice. ”
True, you can be an american who believes in the constitution, or a terrorist who wants to destroy america and what it stands for. You’ve clearly chosen the path of the terrorist.
“You can trust George Bush or you can trust to the people who say he is Hitler and arranged for 9-11 so he could steal Iraq’s oil. Pick a horse and ride him.”
Why trust anyone? Isn’t the point of government ‘of the people’, that these aholes work for us? We don’t have to trust them, we don’t have to believe them, and we can vote them out of office when they betray our trust. That’s what you do in a DEMOCRACY.
That kind of ‘trust’ nonsense is exactly the claptrap that communist russia used to tell its people. It’s funny how you always criticize ‘commies’, yet your tactics, and your willigness to simply accept the acts of ‘authority’ are perfectly aligned with stalinist russia. You’d have made a ‘good’ little red soldier…
Grow up you idiot.
December 22nd, 2005 at 4:48 pmRemeber if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it as the truth.
December 22nd, 2005 at 5:29 pmconservatives must respond by posting facts and truth.
Man, I’ve been waiting for you to post an honest statement or fact for some time. You are a bullshitter, if you are actually a human being, which I highly doubt.
December 22nd, 2005 at 6:06 pmGee. I’ve smoked pot every day since 9/11, and we haven’t had an attack. IT”S CONNECTED! It’s PROOF! I’m doing my part for national security! I’ll smoke a doobie to keep you guys safe!
December 22nd, 2005 at 6:20 pmTrusting a liberal (judge or otherwise) is easily demonstrated to be a fool-hardy endeavor (i.e. the quintessential limo lib, Jay Rockefeller. An aside, I’ve ALWAYS wondered what that upper crust stiff had in common with the down-home folks in West Virginia….)
December 22nd, 2005 at 6:46 pm#93 - Brian, you intellectual snob, you!!! thanks for the info - but your pettiness demonstrates what I’ve suspected about “libintels” - too much time on their hands!!!
wanna talk about too much time on their hands, just look at wwallace. I-wrong-I comes in a close second. No facts, just time to call people names.
I wouldn’t mind reading their posts, if they weren’t so violently fascist. You’re either with them, or you should be tortured in Gitmo. I mean, here, read some quotes from the queen of mean. http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220006
Again, no facts, just anger and violent tendencies.
December 22nd, 2005 at 6:51 pmAnd you rely on Media Matters, because?????? I think the “Queen of Mean” went to the open enrollment at the Queen Hillary School of Lamp Throwing - and you’ve never seen her in action until she locates “missing” files or curses Secret Sevice agents - I’ve heard that’s a REAL treat.
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:31 pmGetting back to John Schmidt’s misdirections [from his ChiTr article]:
No. Completely wrong. What Keith said explicitly (and they wanted the readers to know this) is:
IOW, they refused to say any such thing as Schmidt says they said. Don’t know what part of “express no opinion” Schmidt is having difficulty with….
There’s also this:
And the Keith court also said:
IOW, they noted that it was Title III standards that might not apply to “domestic security” surveillances, but that even any such different standards for “domestic security” purposes would have to comport with the Fourth Amendment.
Dishonesty all around. And spinning…..
Cheers,
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:02 pmThis, from BlueStateRed:
Yep, you’re right. Clinton’s approval was around 68% while republicans were trying to witch-hunt him right out of the oval office. Bush won’t see the good side of 50% while most everyone, including real conservatives, will conclude he’s broken the law. Bush’s second term is turning out to be very similar to another predecessor of his — namely Richard Nixon!
also, funny how wwallace has such loyalty to the terms of use on this site, yet (s)he’s willing to disregard the constitution entirely.
and… yes, that’s right mighty ass-pro-dikely. mount that final defense for herr glorious leader. maybe you’ll be spared from the upcoming “purge of the enemies of the state”. that’s the next logical step for this self-declared dictatorship.
and… bi-right-bi, sheesh. not even gonna waste my time. why is your autographed picture of gwb so sticky?
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:02 pmBozo BlueStateRed went and quoted somebody:
Yep, you RW “spinners”, the Keith court did take a pass on this issue. Noting that varying sources (including such lowly “persuasuve authority” as ABA drafts) might have espoused certain views — in a footnote, no less(!) — doesn’t even rise to the level of dicta. It is hardly the court’s thinking, much less the opinion of the court. But even folks that are supposedly lawyer on the RW, busy “spinning” Dubya’s transgressions, seem to hold this crud up as Pronouncements From The Mount! They’d be laughed out of court in a millisecond if they tried the same stuff in a legal brief.
More blather: “That there is an American on the line of a foreign call doesn’t make listening in unreasonable, especially when the person he or she is talking to is with al Qaeda.”
I think that part of the problem was that the alleged or suspected) contacts of foreign targets were then in turn made into targets themselves; that is, the “U.S. persons” were then surveilled, even in their conversations with others!. This is similar to a person under a Title III wiretap: If that person makes a call, both sides of the conversation are recorded (I know that the equipment has to make sure that both “channels”, both directions of conversation, are delivered to the LEA). The “associate” (a person not named in the warrant) is in fact “wiretapped” … but only WRT his conversations with the “target”. And that’s legal. What the Dubya maladministration did, AFAIK, though, is to take the associate, the called party, and then put wiretaps on that person in their conversations with other people without a warrant. And that is something that is illegal under Title III (with your “six degrees of separation”, you’d be able to wiretap the whole world without a warrant, I guess, if you could do that).
Cheers,
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:31 pmI-Right-I quotes another RW nutcase while complaining about Clinton:
How well I remember the illegal wire taps, confiscation of private property, the mass slaughter at Waco as well as the murders at Ruby Ridge all accomplished via extra-constitutional measures…
Ummmm, Ruby Ridge happened while Bush I was prez….
I know, I-Right-I, I hate to burst your bubble of the tyranny of Clinton (even while your buddies all hold him up now as an exemplar of all that is good, noral, and legal), but couldn’t you at least attribute the right supposed “crimes” to the right party?
Cheers,
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:39 pmIMPEACHED THE IDIOT
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:15 pmIMPEACHED THE IDIOT
But he will not give up without a fight. He said he wants to be DICK-tator-BUSH.
Gorelick gave an interview yesterday, and she acknowledged her testimony before Congress in 1994 that we’ve all quoted this week, but she said it pertained to presidential authority prior to 1994, when Congress expanded FISA laws. Left unanswered, she said, is whether that congressional action trumped the president’s inherent authority. The Clinton administration did not take a position on that, she said. This is patently outrageous. This woman cannot tell the truth to save her life. She goes before this House committee, Select Committee on Intelligence, ‘94, “president has inherent authority,” means onstitutional, “president has inherent.” He inherets it. That means it’s constitutional. That means you in Congress can’t trump it, you can’t stop it. Yesterday she said, “Well, this was pre-1994, and it was undecided whether congressional action would trump that inherent authority.” No, it’s not, Ms. Gorelick, as you well know. The Constitution doesn’t give Congress the trump the inherent constitutional authority of the executive. It’s all there. You just have to read it.
So is she saying here as a big-time lawyer that the Constitution means nothing, that the president only has power if Congress gives it to him? Yes, that’s what she said yesterday, because she wants to join the forces of those who say Clinton didn’t break the law, but Bush did. She’s trying to protect her sugar daddy, Bill Clinton, and trying to join the forces that want to get Bush in deep trouble over this. But as the Newsweek story mentioned, it isn’t working, the mainstream media pulling their hair out. “Why is there no outrage, why aren’t people mad?” Because maybe the people appreciate what the president is trying to do. And Ms. Gorelick, answer this. How is it that your boy, Bill Clinton, had inherent power, but George Bush does not? How is it that your boy, Bill Clinton, has inherent power coming from the Constitution, but when it comes to George W. Bush, a bunch of hick, hayseed liberals in the House and the Senate can trump his inherent authority? Care to try to explain this?
December 23rd, 2005 at 4:09 amI would like to point you towards a plain talk and interesting article found on this blog,
http://niquel757.blogspot.com
called “You are losing your privacy fast”
There are also other articles you may find interesting, together with pictures, paitings and other things
Best regards
December 23rd, 2005 at 2:08 pmLibs List [sic] get over it:
Ummm, so “inherent” = “inherit” [or perhaps the new addition to the English language: “inheret”]? No wonder you have such serious difficulties understanding this stuff….
Cheers,
December 23rd, 2005 at 2:48 pmYou can trust George Bush or you can trust to the people who say he is Hitler and arranged for 9-11 so he could steal Iraq’s oil.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I
I-Trite-I #99
Sieg heil! You naziracistratbastardfacistmofo
December 23rd, 2005 at 3:03 pmIRI is in trouble, so here comes his transvestite alter ego MightyHermaphrodite to the rescue.
Comment by Ryan Neat
Ryan Neat #84,
Be gentle, crossdressing is a “conflicted” lifestyle.
December 23rd, 2005 at 3:08 pmI know, I-Right-I, I hate to burst your bubble of the tyranny of Clinton (even while your buddies all hold him up now as an exemplar of all that is good, noral, and legal), but couldn’t you at least attribute the right supposed “crimes†to the right party?
Cheers,
Comment by Arne Langsetmo
Ooops. You are right about that. My bad. It’s an understandable mistake though considering how well Clinton took to persecuting anyone not firmly established on the Filthy Left and considering his list of other crimes not the least of which was sicking that psychotic lesbo bitch on those poor people in Texas.
December 23rd, 2005 at 5:28 pmI-Right-I:
Ooops. You are right about that. My bad. It’s an understandable mistake though considering how well Clinton took to persecuting anyone not firmly established on the Filthy Left and considering his list of other crimes not the least of which was sicking that psychotic lesbo bitch on those poor people in Texas.
Nope. It’s an unsurprising (note I didn’t say “understandable”) mistake considering you’re a far RW parrynoyd freakaziod kind of guy that prolly thinks that KKKlinton (as your type likes to term him unless he’s being trotted out as the excuse for Dubya or as an example of all that is good and moral so that Dubya doens’t look like the crook he is) is responsible for the 57 or so murders that folks like the Western Media Center claimed. You guys are just nutz, in a word, and thought that Clinton’s the one into “persecution”, and not your Bubble Boy who wants all the questions pre-screened, and gets people booted from his vicinity because Dubya just can’t take the heat. Clinton was far from the persecutorial vindictiveness of your present maladministration. Here’s a question fer ya: How many times did Clinton or any Dems call DeLay a “traitor”, “al Qaeda lover” or whatever, for syaing things like “he’s not my president” and for attacking Clinton’s military campaigns in the Balkans? Simple answer: Just tell me how many times that happened.
Cheers,
December 23rd, 2005 at 8:10 pmI-Wrong-I Ruby Ridge?? August 1992!! Just who do you think was the Presnit then??? Your an A—Hole.
December 23rd, 2005 at 11:14 pmI-Wrong-I Ruby Ridge?? August 1992!! Just who do you think was the Presnit then??? Your an A—Hole.
Comment by JoefriED
Don’t know Joe. What’s a Presnit?
December 24th, 2005 at 2:05 pmJust letting you know - your site is fantastic! Beautiful Opponents becomes Central Pair in final: http://www.thecorporation.com/ , Round will Player unconditionally Curious Chair Expect or not , Universal Slot Kill or not to Kill Player you should be very Big
January 18th, 2006 at 7:06 pmTransexual Free Transexual Images Transexual Clubs
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 6:34 pm