BREAKING: Federal District Court Rules NSA Wiretapping Program Unconstitutional
BREAKING: Federal District Court Rules NSA Wiretapping Program Unconstitutional
Fox News reports a federal district court in Detroit has ruled that the Bush administration’s NSA warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.
A separate federal district court in San Francisco had previously rejected the administration’s argument that the courts could not hear the case due to a “state secrets” privilege. The lawsuits have alleged that NSA program violated the First and Fourth Amendments, as well as a number of federal statutes, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The defendants included AT&T and the federal government.
Check back for more updates.
UPDATE: Judge Anna Diggs Taylor’s opinion HERE. She writes:
In this case, the President has acted, undisputedly, as FISA forbids. FISA is the expressed statutory policy of our Congress. The presidential power, therefore, was exercised at its lowest ebb and cannot be sustained.
UPDATE II: Kathryn Jean Lopez at The Corner blasts the decision as a “terrorist-friendly ruling.”
UPDATE III: A copy of the injunction HERE. It enjoins the administration from “directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program.”
UPDATE IV: White House Press Secretary Tony Snow: “We couldn’t disagree more with this ruling, and the Justice Department will seek an immediate stay of the opinion and appeal.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Not if Chimp say’s it’s constitutional.
August 17th, 2006 at 11:58 amThose damn liberal activist judges.
August 17th, 2006 at 11:58 amWhat a surprise.
August 17th, 2006 at 11:58 amAnother victory for the Constitution.
August 17th, 2006 at 11:59 amI knew if this got to an honest judge that it would be ruled unconstitutional.
All the phone companies that went along with this are in deep doo-doo now.
August 17th, 2006 at 11:59 amGonzo and Chimpie will take it to the Supremes. They own them and they will give it the thumbs up.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:01 pmYou know what this means… another terror alert is on the way!
August 17th, 2006 at 12:02 pmI predict a berating of the judiciary from the Republicans and assorted Bush cultists along the lines of: “You can always count on the judiciary to make stupid rulings.”
Yeah, dem darn liberal activist judges… why do they insist on upholding the law? Who do they think they are anyway?
August 17th, 2006 at 12:02 pmYa think!?
August 17th, 2006 at 12:03 pmI hope 300 Billion is enough punitive to teach these folks a lesson.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:03 pmI’m surprised at this ruling considering that after 9/11 all branches of your government seemed to acquiesce to the executive branch. Is it possible that the other branches of your government are beginning to wake up to the fact that George Bush has created a dictatorship all but its name
August 17th, 2006 at 12:04 pmwow, justice prevails.
now, how soon can we get the executive branch traitors of the constitution to make reparations for their actions?
August 17th, 2006 at 12:06 pmI bet blowhard Sean Hannity will be blowing a gasket on this one, today.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:07 pmSo… the Bush Cabal wasn’t able to influence all the judges they thought the could?
Hmmm… better get Darth Cheney and Alberto G. on the line and ask him to do some explaining…
August 17th, 2006 at 12:07 pm‘Bout Time!
August 17th, 2006 at 12:07 pmWonder what Rove and Cheney will pull outta their evil asses on this one.
(notice I didn’t even include chimpy since, well, he really doesn’t matter, never did)
Wake me up, I must be dreaming…
August 17th, 2006 at 12:07 pmNo. 6 said they will take it to the Supreme Court and will have this ruling overturned. I’m not so sure. Look at the way the SCOTUS ruled against the administration on the military tribunals thing. I’m not saying that it won’t be overturned, but I don’t think this is a slam dunk for the administration at the Supreme Court.
I agree with No. 7 that there will be another terror alert or something to pull the attention away from this. Count on it.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:08 pmI wonder how the Supremes will vote?
August 17th, 2006 at 12:09 pmOne more reason to conduct a legitimate investigation into the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program after the Dems win the House majority. The rubber stamp Republican controlled House is going to be exposed for the knowing co-conspirators they are.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:11 pm#8 Gregor,
I agree. I expect to hear Republicans denounce the ruling while claiming that this ruling would endanger more American lives. (No rational explanation, BTW, for just how that would happen.) Then I expect to hear some of them say, “So what? Even if the program was unconstitutional, the President should still be allowed to do this under his ‘inherent authority as Commander-in-Chief’.” This will eventually lead into, “We just all have to accept that ‘in time of war’, there are certain provisions of the Constitution that just can’t be upheld, and we’re just going to have to get used to it.” Those Republicans are the authoritarians, and they must all be removed from political office.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:11 pmI wonder how the Supremes will vote?
Comment by Mysterious Traveler
6-3. One Republican will vote with the two Democrats to make it look bipartisan.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:12 pmWaiting for a Bushie to say, “Oh, we knew THAT! How about some NEWS?”
August 17th, 2006 at 12:13 pmLegally speaking this wasn’t a close call. Unfortunately we have an executive branch that doesn’t care much for our legal system.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:14 pmNow THAT is something you would not see in a “islamofacist” state. And if the NeoCons had their way it would also be something you would never see in a “christofacist” state.
The spirit of America still stands.
However now the next move is the NeoCons. Will they stand up for American values or will they stand down with the likes of Al Qeada?
August 17th, 2006 at 12:15 pmIndeed #18, i wonder too if #17 is on the money with his conclusion.
I hope SCOTUS wakes up to this executive power grab, however with the court stacked against our favor, we shall see.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:16 pmHey guess what? Forget another terror alert. Jon Benet Ramsey possible killer is stealing away all the headlines now. Ten years later.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:16 pmWill this matter to the Bush administration? No. They’ll write this off as the work of traitorous activist judges. The erosion of our constitutional rights will continue.
http://www.harmoniousdissent.blogspot.com
Ken Lay to be cleared off his crimes? Yes, because he’s dead.
Only on Harmonious Dissent, the BRAND NEW blog from SSA
Plus, check out SSA’ new political blog Political Buzz
August 17th, 2006 at 12:16 pmhttp://www.polibuzz.blogspot.com
Perfect timing!! The Ramsy murder case will get all of the press. No one will ever now.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:17 pmSNOW: We think that there are judges in the Federal District Court who are members of Al Qaeda. You know? Everytime the constitution is upheld, we are helping terrorists.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:19 pmIt will be overruled by the end of the news (sic) cycle.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:19 pmBTW nice pic of Ops Bldgs 2A and 2B.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:20 pm[…] Some breaking news you may want to hear about… Fox News reports a federal district court in Detroit has ruled that the Bush administration’s NSA warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it. […]
August 17th, 2006 at 12:21 pmchimp decides what is and isn’t constitutional. if he decides to do it, it’s not illegal.
Send them all to jail!
August 17th, 2006 at 12:21 pmDuh.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:22 pmWhere have the Democrats been on this issue?
When it goes to the Supreme Court and Bush loses again, Bush and Tony Snowjob will tell us that the court basically agreed with them. Then they’ll get their faithful lapdogs in Congress to try to pass a law that makes it legal to violate, ignore, and/or shred the Constitution.
For the benefit of all the profoundly dense righties out there, we need to repeat this one word loudly and frequently:
“Warrantless”
Warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless
Did you get that Mehlman? WARRANTLESS!!!
August 17th, 2006 at 12:22 pmHere comes Scalito to save the day.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:22 pmIt’s not illegal if the President does it.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:23 pmIt’s not immoral if the USA does it.
Blah blah blah…
The Supremes are onholiday and the next term does not start until Sept 25th.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:23 pmThey could resolve this by election time if they really struggled.
Now if this congress was not crooked, they would be drawing up articles of impeachment as we are discussing this. But with the Rubberstamp Republicans in control, it will not happen
Vote the Rubberstampers out!!!!
August 17th, 2006 at 12:24 pmWhy does the Constitution hate our freedom?
August 17th, 2006 at 12:25 pmRegardless of what happens in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, regretably this decision will ultimately go down 5-4 at the SCOTUS.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:26 pmWhere have the Democrats been?
August 17th, 2006 at 12:27 pmWhere have the Democrats been?
Where have the Democrats been?
Where have the Democrats been?
Where have the Democrats been?
The Democrats have been waiting for someone else to tell them what’s right and what’s wrong.
Where have the Democrats been?
August 17th, 2006 at 12:28 pmTerrorists wrote the Constitution. Just ask the British.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:30 pm21: I’d go for 5-4 (or maybe 6-3) on the SCOTUS vote. Thing you have to keep in mind is that FISA is the bit of skin that the judicial branch has in the game. SCOTUS can de-value obeying and following due process of law at the peril of everything they’re supposed to be holding dear and sacred.
Scalia will probably dissent — he thinks people should trust the government. There’s an outside chance he might not, though, because he might have some respect for his post and be slightly irked that the White House doesn’t have enough legal council to know to change laws instead of breaking them.
Thomas will dissent — he lives in his own little freakish world.
Roberts will probably dissent — I suspect he also wants people to trust the government and will rule on that instead of anything related to common sense.
Alito may not dissent — he’s got a high bar for what it takes to break a law, but he’s most likely to be annoyed with the president for breaking a law instead of having it changed. His opinion will read something to the effect of “Dear Mr. Prez: I luvs u so very much, u is so cool, but wtf are you breaking laws? Just change them! Geez! Don’t you know any better?”
All others will be opposed, but they’re going to come back and in a second breath — probably 6-3 or 7-2 — absolve the corporations of blame for complying with the requests of the federal government. Allowing private corporations to share blame is bad for their stock price and bad for compliance with future federal government requests, legal or otherwise. Only a real due-process freak with SOX compliance crammed up their nether-regions would think that a private corporation really should’ve told the federal government to get stuffed.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:32 pmI will NEVER let the Democrats EVER FORGET that they stayed silent on this.
And I will never vote for another Democrat as long as I live.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:32 pm#43 - Where have the Democrats been?
Well, it appears that they have been pointing out that our Constitution is indeed in crisis. Where would you like them to be? Elsewhere, perhaps? Or maybe John Conyers isn’t a Dem any longer? What?
…Cafferty lays things out pretty well, describing my article on Bush Administration abuses, the failure of the GOP to perform its role as a check or balance on the executive, and the precarious situation these dangerous circumstances have left us in today.
[from: http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000518.htm ]
August 17th, 2006 at 12:34 pmLets say this slowly for all of our CON Friends who are going to have an F’IN conniption today about ACTIVIST JUDGES
WARRANTED WIRETAPPING OKAY
WARANTLESS WIRETAPPING NOT OKAY
GOT it CON morons !!!!!
IF you have a warrant which can be retoractive up to 72 hours prior, the President can wiretap potential terrorist suspects……
Fighting the war on terror does NOT mean we have to throw away the rule law that has existed in this country for ver 200 years……
We have faced threats before and followed the rule of law….
(And please, please dont give me the ‘faceless/nationless’ enemy arguement….b/c once you stop following certain aspects of our rule of law, any future suspects we capture will not be able to be properly and fully prosecuted under US law)
Got that Con Morons
August 17th, 2006 at 12:34 pmfrom #30 “BTW nice pic of Ops Bldgs 2A and 2B.”
Yeah, I was wondering about that picture. Shouldn’t there be a caption saying something like “This is a building which bears no resemblance to the NSA offices” or “Ample parking at Chuck E. Cheese.”
August 17th, 2006 at 12:36 pm#49 -
WARRANTED WIRETAPPING OKAY
WARANTLESS WIRETAPPING NOT OKAY
This is exactly the point!
Nice of the court to point this out. Again.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:37 pm#45 I am guessing that Alito, who worships executive power, will vote to reverse, and Roberts, who seems like the supreme legal technician, will vote to uphold.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:38 pmA proper well thought out ruling, but this Administration will just ignore it.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:38 pmEveryone knows the constitution is subversive and terrorist-friendly. Bush is just trying to save us from it.
To save the rest of the world too, apparently. At the tail end of a New York Times article we get:
August 17th, 2006 at 12:39 pmIt’s been 45 minutes and the trolls haven’t got thier talking points yet! Of course, we know what they will be.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:39 pm#46 - Yeah that will help. Good plan.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:40 pmA vote for candidates other than Democrats is a de facto vote for the Republican Nationalist Socialists.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:41 pmSad sad sad. This court in San Francisco, has had most of it’s cases overturned. This will be another.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:41 pmSpying on Americans without oversight is UNacceptable.
Spying on anyone in the world without oversight is only acceptable for national security.
Spying on Americans without oversight is ALWAYS UNacceptable.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:43 pmThis court in San Francisco, has had most of it’s cases overturned. This will be another.
Comment by Douglas G
San Francisco or Michigan?
August 17th, 2006 at 12:44 pmWayne Schneider,
I am afraid we’ve either been around neo-cons too long, or have become psychics.
The Republican excuses/non sequiturs you list, in that order, are what I’d expect too. They don’t seem to understand the concept of checks and balances.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:45 pm[…] –from Federal District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor’s ruling issued today declaring the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional and ordering an immediate halt to it. In a similar recent case, a federal court in San Francisco bought the administration’s “state secrets” argument that the program was too sensitive to even be examined by the court, and dismissed the case. Judge Taylor, a federal district court judge in Detriot, was unmoved by such arguments. […]
August 17th, 2006 at 12:46 pmI hate to be sinical but what happens if Bush flips off the courts? Bush has said F U to the Congress, F U to the Constitution… what’s to stop him from saying F U to the Courts?
It’s not like Congress has a police arm that could arrest him. Its not like the Courts can either.
My fear is that Bush has been above the law for so long, I don’t have much hope this will change anything at all.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:47 pmI’m sure George will try to attach a signing statement to the ruling…
August 17th, 2006 at 12:48 pmI’d love to see him fail to comply with this, can you say
“grounds for impeachment”?
Here is the NeoCon answer to this….
Remember Kaa the snake in Jungle Book?
Trust in me, just in me
Shut your eyes and trust in me
You can sleep safe and sound
Knowing I am around
Slip into silent slumber
Sail on a silver mist
Slowly and surely your senses
Will cease to resist
Trust in me, just in me
August 17th, 2006 at 12:49 pmShut your eyes and trust in me
#57
Sad sad sad. This court in San Francisco, has had most of it’s cases overturned. This will be another.
Wrong court. This is the one in Detroit.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:50 pmKathryn Jean Lopez at The Corner blasts the decision as a “terrorist-friendly ruling.â€
The only people who really know what terrorists want is the terrorists themselves. So, it makes sense that people like Cheney and the crackpots over at NRO seemed to be so well versed.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:50 pmSome might say that anyone who upholds the Constitution is a terrorist sympathizer.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:51 pmNo Shit Assholes
August 17th, 2006 at 12:51 pm#60 Thanks, Gregor,
I was afraid it was just me. Looks like Ms Lopez has started the process. (”terrorist-friendly” is about the same as saying it would endanger American lives.) Let’s see if they spew out the rest, too.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:51 pm#63 - I hate to be sinical but what happens if Bush flips off the courts? Bush has said F U to the Congress, F U to the Constitution… what’s to stop him from saying F U to the Courts?…
This is where Congress has the power to remove a sitting pResident.
If Dems win in November, look for several investigations into Bush Cabal wrong-doings. Followed by impeachment proceedings.
If ReichWingNuts retain power and control of Congress after November, then I seriously fear our country will never ever recover. Seriously. If we are this unfortunate, maybe Canada, France, or Italy might not be bad places to live afterall…
August 17th, 2006 at 12:52 pm#65 — That’s where that’s from? Siouxsie and the Banshees do a great version!
August 17th, 2006 at 12:54 pmThis is good news.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:54 pmLike there was EVER any doubt. The fascists live to obfuscate words and their meanings. If pretty obvious what the fourth Amendment says. But the neocons twist words to make it seem as if there is a contraversy where none exists, then rationalize their ILLEGAL behaviour based on their own made up contraversy. It’s nice to see the system work the way the founders intended.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:55 pmHere’s the injunction:
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants, its agents, employees, representatives, and any other persons or entities in active concert or participation with Defendants, are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program (hereinafter “TSPâ€) in any way, including, but not limited to, conducting warrantless wiretaps of telephone and internet communications, in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (hereinafter “FISAâ€) and Title III;
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DECLARED that the TSP violates the Separation of Powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III;
“IT IS ALSO ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs’ data-mining claim and is DENIED regarding Plaintiffs’ remaining claims;
“IT IS ALSO ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED in its entirety.
“IT IS SO ORDERED.”
August 17th, 2006 at 12:58 pm[…] What’s next? VP can’t shoot people in the face? link. […]
August 17th, 2006 at 1:00 pmWayne Schneider,
Ms Lopez’ piece is right on cue: Although the headline reads “terrorist-friendly ruling”, it is actually a “he said, she said” type of comment. She never explains why, in her opinion, this is a “terrorist-friendly ruling”. I guess she expects her readers to take her word for it, or she thinks it is self-evident.
Someone has yet to explain to me why abiding the law and complying with the constitution are “terrorist-friendly” activities.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:00 pm#73 The system will have worked when anyone who is responsible or complicit in criminal behavior (which includes any government employee — read “public servant” — who acts against the constitution) is properly punished. Until then, it is still just talk.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:00 pm#74 - HOLY SHIT! That’s one hell of a strong injunction. Wow!!!
August 17th, 2006 at 1:01 pmIt’s curious….reading the comments, the only person trying to threadjack is DLC are frauds.
I figured this one would bring them out of the woodwork. Good job people.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:02 pmIt enjoins the administration from “directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program.â€
Jesus I hope there isn’t another attack. If so, this judge appointed by Jimmy Carter is going to have blood on her hands, no? Liberals would weaken the tools needed to go after the terrorists. This NSA program in part prevented the bombing of the Brooklyn Bridge.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:02 pmI got ten bucks sez Tony Snow uses the phrase “activist judges” within the next twenty-four hours. Any takers?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:02 pmThe Free Republic has a thread on this for those of you with strong stomachs and a desire to hear the other side ranting.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1685330/posts
Its hard to read the free republic very long, there are some posters I never want to meet in person.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:03 pmIf Dems win in November, look for several investigations into Bush Cabal wrong-doings. Followed by impeachment proceedings.
Of course, because the Dems hate Bush. That is their agenda if they win back the congress. There are going to be 2 years of non stop investigations. That’s all they got.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:04 pmIts hard to read the free republic very long
Don’t like to have your views challenged?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:05 pmJoementum:
In the lastest poll among likely voters in CT, Lieberman’s lead is 13 points.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:07 pmCall it a short-lived legal battle in the war against the U.S. being waged by the Civil Liberties Mafia. I think they should drop the “A” and all pretext of being “American”. They no longer represent anything resembling America but instead seek out the fringe elements to strike down, muzzle, or curtail anything that might represent an American culture. They did the yeoman’s work in the 60s and 70s but since there aren’t that many civil liberties being violated they have invented new ones to protect. Imagine someone being offended by a cross at a military cemetery? How about Santa Claus (closet pedophile) showing up at a elementary school? Or a court house displaying what could be termed the first social laws ever? You know those horrible Ten Commandments? Don’t steal, lie, murder, or honor your parents! Oh the horror if people lived by those rules!
August 17th, 2006 at 1:08 pmJesus I hope there isn’t another attack. If so, this judge appointed by Jimmy Carter is going to have blood on her hands, no? Liberals would weaken the tools needed to go after the terrorists. This NSA program in part prevented the bombing of the Brooklyn Bridge.
Comment by Mr. Big
Wrong…
This means that FISA must be allowed into the INNER CIRCLE of trust so that we can “trust” BUT VERIFY the COEQUAL branches of government!
As the LEFT has been saying ALL ALONG … spy on the terrorists, but enforce “seperation of powers” which means sharing the power… and spying on Americans is GREAT power and it is never to be “entrusted” to a small circle of partisans.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:08 pm#82 - Its hard to read the free republic very long, there are some posters I never want to meet in person.
There are sooooo many folks on the Rabid Right who are in serious need of treatment.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:08 pm“This NSA program in part prevented the bombing of the Brooklyn Bridge.”
there was no plot to bomb the bridge. some idiot “terrorist”/patsy was going to try to cut the bridge down with a blowtorch.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:08 pmUmmm.. would that be the Brooklyn Bridge “plot” that had no plan, no weapons, and no means? What proof is there that thie warrantless spying halted it (there is no such proof as the entire thing is so secret that only those personally “o.k.ayed” by Mr. Bush can know any details… tis true)), AND that the spying COULD NOT have been done by the legal means available? And “in part”? So, other (legal?) means were used? Were THOS means sufficient?
Mr. Big (troll), do you suggest, then, that whoever is prez has utter and unquestionable authority to do as he or she pleases in the name of “National Security”? Will you sing the exact same tune regardless of who is prez (say, Clinton? Lamont?), or are you just a Bush-loving partisan whose loyalty is not to the country, not to the constitution, but rather to a political party with an extremist theological ideology? Where is your loyalty? If the Prez has this authority, then you will defend it regardless WHO is prez, right?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:10 pmThis means that FISA must be allowed into the INNER CIRCLE of trust so that we can “trust†BUT VERIFY the COEQUAL branches of government!
There isn’t enough time to fill out a 52 page warrant. These internatinal calls need to be tracked immediatly.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:10 pm#87 - …As the LEFT has been saying ALL ALONG … spy on the terrorists, but enforce “seperation of powers†which means sharing the power… and spying on Americans is GREAT power and it is never to be “entrusted†to a small circle of partisans.
Exactly!
Which leads to an interesting point: Dems are the ONLY ones in this case who are trying to protect US citizens and their rights as granted by US law and the US Constitution.
Why do ReichWingNuts hate America?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:11 pm#84
LOL
HAving your views challenged?? Good one. Here’s a summary to my last two visits to the FREE republic:
ME: I disagree
Them: if you don’t like it go to DU, you’re banned.
Freeperville is a joke.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:11 pmOf course, because the Dems hate Bush. That is their agenda if they win back the congress. There are going to be 2 years of non stop investigations. That’s all they got.
Comment by Mr. Big
Works for me. Of course, I don’t like the prick myself. Just like the Repugs hate Clinton. Same shit, pal, and its sauce for the goose, huh?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:11 pmThe beauty of this ruling is you know Bush and Cheney won’t stop. The Dems take the House in November, the NSA and FBI whistleblowers who have been persecuted by the Neocons will be all too happy to turn on the Bush Crime family and testify Bush/Cheney continued the program despite the court order. Perfect impeachment.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:11 pmLiberals would weaken the tools needed to go after the terrorists.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
Why would following the law lead to the deaths of Americans? How does abiding the law weaken the hunt for terrorists?
It is a bad thing to allow the powers-that-be to break the law at will. You do realise that Republicans won’t be in the White House forever, don’t you?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:12 pmin any case, this is great news for the rule of law and to show everyone how blatantly illegally the administration has been acting!
August 17th, 2006 at 1:13 pmWhat proof is there that thie warrantless spying halted it
This is from the New York Times: Several officials said the eavesdropping program had helped uncover a plot by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker and naturalized citizen who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches. What appeared to be another Qaeda plot, involving fertilizer bomb attacks on British pubs and train stations, was exposed last year in part through the program, the officials said.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:13 pmThere isn’t enough time to fill out a 52 page warrant. These internatinal calls need to be tracked immediatly.
Comment by Mr. Big
This isnt the 1800s… we have these things called computers now… that excuse is a complete and embarressing joke. No reasonable business owner would accept that one… and the government works for us. So they DO have to explain themselves.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:13 pmLiberals would weaken the tools needed to go after the terrorists.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
Seems like following the law didn’t hinder the British from stopping terrorist plots one iota.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:13 pmAll the repulicans had was 6 years of non-stop investigations, so I don’t really see what your point is Mr. Big.
On topic, I think the real test will be, what decision the supreme court hands down. It maybe be closer then the white house would like. The SCOTUS, is not nearly as packed as the rapid right would like it to be.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:13 pm#46
So you are blaming the Democrats for this? Dude, the Rupugs control both houses and the blocking votes on all commities. The democrats have held their own hearings, that the MSM has ignored.
So what are ya gonna do, vote Repug? lol
August 17th, 2006 at 1:13 pmIt’s going to be overturned. The bottom line is, when the President ends up saying “National Security”, that’s where everything is going to come to a halt.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:13 pmThese internatinal calls need to be tracked immediatly.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 1:10 pm
I see you don’t know they have up to 72 hours to ask for a warrant after the wiretapping has started.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:14 pmhonor your parents
Comment by Retired Republican Soldier
Show me in any law book where that is written into the laws of the US and you have my permission to put the commandments up in court. Oh also include the one about not worshipping other gods. I am sure that will be easy to find.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:15 pmWorks for me. Of course, I don’t like the prick myself. Just like the Repugs hate Clinton. Same shit, pal, and its sauce for the goose, huh?
Go for it. It’s just that voters are not going to like the Dem agenda of hating Bush and wanting to impeach him.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:15 pm#105… it didn’t stop the court today, and in November I’m sure Conress won’t agree with Mr Bush and he and Dickie will be appropriately disenfranchised.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:15 pm“big” - Taking a piss on the consitution out of hysterical ninny-fear was never a hallmark of Conservatives - what are you, exactly?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:15 pmThanks to the ACLU who brought the case against ATT and george’s co-conspirators.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:15 pmDems are the ONLY ones in this case who are trying to protect US citizens and their rights as granted by US law and the US Constitution.
Dems are upholding the rights of cizitens who are plotting and planning with al qaeda. This is what these international calls track.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:16 pmThe recent terrorist plot uncovered by the British demonstrates that 1) The terrorists are actively trying to kill Americans and (2) The British legal system is effective in detecting them. The NSA surveillance program has kept us attack-free for five years. If it is foolishly suspended by the ACLU action, the blood of the next attack, which will probably be nuclear, will be on the hands of the ACLU’s leadership, or what’s left of it, as NY and DC will be smoldering holes in the ground. ACLU will probably hold this second holocaust up a as “victory for the constitution”, as their wish for civil liberties martyrdom seems to match the terrorist death wish.
Those of you who see this as a victory are lambs headed for the slaughter. You have displaced your fear and hate from Al Qaeda, your real enemy, to your protecters, the Bush Administration and your own government. You are pathetic fools. Let’s hope you don’t get what you deserve, as fallout doesn’t differentiate red states from blue.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:16 pm101: What “officials”? Who are they? Unless identified, this is hearsay. If they speak FOR rhe administration, and in defense of the program, they CAN have a name and a face to verify their credibility. Do they just happen to be NSA officials, who have a desire or political need to support unconstitutional activity?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:17 pmThe stupid part of this whole thing is all this NSA activity, remember the FBI said that they are getting THOUSANDS of referrals to investigate and turned up NOTHING doesn’t help keep Americans safer. It does however allow the republofascists to blackmail their political opponents and that’s why they are SO desperate to continue.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:17 pmFreeperville is a joke.
I don’t care for it either. I like to have my views challenged. Agreeing with each other really doesn’t go anywhere.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:17 pm#113
I’m glad Mr. Big isn’t one of them who believes innocent before proven guilty.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:18 pm#96 - The beauty of this ruling is you know Bush and Cheney won’t stop. The Dems take the House in November, the NSA and FBI whistleblowers who have been persecuted by the Neocons will be all too happy to turn on the Bush Crime family and testify Bush/Cheney continued the program despite the court order. Perfect impeachment.
Precisely!
And EVERYONE knows that an impeachment of the Bush Cabal would be done for ALL the RIGHT REASONS!!! They have committed incredible crimes on, oh, so so many levels! Which is what impeachment must be used for!!!
None of this silly “… oh, he got a blowjob and defiled the sanctity of the WhiteHouse…” That’s NO reason for impeachment. It took small Republican balls to push that one through Congress.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:18 pmI wonder why the injunction didn’t include the phrase
August 17th, 2006 at 1:19 pm“Stop that Shit”??
Now you don’t care for it?
Make up your mind, either your ‘having your views challenged’ or you’re being banned for not being a sheep.
It doesn’t work both ways there.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:19 pm#80? Prevented the bombing of the brooklyn bridge? Not hardly, the warrentless search program had ntohing to do with the brooklyn bridge plot, and it was guys who wanted to take the bridge apart withg blow torches, not bombs. Ultimately if they succeded it would have been because the thousands who cross the bridge hourly would have missed the guys with blow torches disassembling the bridge for a period od months or even years. Get a better example.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:19 pmWhat these bushies fail to understand is this court ruling does not mean that the US government has to stop wire tapping for national security. It means they have to start doing lawfully. That’s why the terrorists hate us remember. We have laws that we follow. Oh I see the bushies are so chicken shit anti-american that they would rather get rid of our laws and appease the terrorists than be the great nation we could be.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:19 pm#80
Jesus I hope there isn’t another attack. If so, this judge appointed by Jimmy Carter is going to have blood on her hands, no? Liberals would weaken the tools needed to go after the terrorists. This NSA program in part prevented the bombing of the Brooklyn Bridge.
Awright! Way to step up to the plate, Mr. Big!
Would it have made a difference if the judge had been one of the many judges appointed by a Republican president who have ruled against Bush in the past few years? Of course not. It makes no difference to righties. You’d throw them over the side anyway.
Do you know what “warrantless” means? “Liberals” are against warrantless wiretapping. Warrantless wiretapping is the same as warranted, except that the administration can keep it a secret from the FISA judges who they’re wiretapping. No oversight. Do you follow what I’m saying? Warranted wiretapping, NSA program = good. Warrantless wiretapping, Bush version of NSA program = bad.
“Bombing of Brooklyn Bridge”? I think you mean that nefarious plot by a mentally ill trucker to try to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch. That’s the best they can point to as a success of the NSA surveillance? And did the NSA submit warrants to FISA for that, or not?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:19 pmThis isnt the 1800s… we have these things called computers now… that excuse is a complete and embarressing joke.
Filling out a 52 page warrant is a painstaking and time consuming process. These calls are being made fast, on different phones internatially. By the time the warrant is filled out, there would be no lead there.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:19 pm#114 - the lack of the NSA program kept us safe since WW II until 9-11, so I guess we don’t need the NSA program. The fact that we haven’t been attacked again is NOT PROOF the NSA program works as illustrated above. It is a logical fallacy to make that arguement.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:20 pmDems are upholding the rights of cizitens who are plotting and planning with al qaeda. This is what these international calls track.
Comment by Mr. Big
Says who?
Trust in me, just in me
Shut your eyes and trust in me
You can sleep safe and sound
Knowing I am around
Slip into silent slumber
Sail on a silver mist
Slowly and surely your senses
Will cease to resist
Trust in me, just in me
August 17th, 2006 at 1:20 pmShut your eyes and trust in me
I see you don’t know they have up to 72 hours to ask for a warrant after the wiretapping has started.
That’s meaningless. There are thousands of calls being tracked by people associated with al qaeda. It would take a century to fill out all of those warrants.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:21 pmHere’s how freepers challenge your views:
To: neverdem
Send her to Iraq and leave her in the street. See how they respect her “right to privacy” and even more her right to life! What a doofus!
60 posted on 08/17/2006 10:19:46 AM PDT by pepperdog
and here I was, thinking Iraq was safe.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:22 pmYeah, terrorist-friendly, in the way that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry and James Madison were terrorist-friendly.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:22 pmFilling out a 52 page warrant is a painstaking and time consuming process. These calls are being made fast, on different phones internatially. By the time the warrant is filled out, there would be no lead there.
Comment by Mr. Big
And I write software for a living … and there is this thing called logging you can do that records all your actions… and that can be submited to the FISA up to 3 days after the logging of the actions occured… and I am sure (since congress said it was true) that all the “unitary executive” had to do was come to congress to get the FISA law adjusted to accomidate the war on terror… BUT the NeoCons did NOT… which means they have something to hide…. that is NOT “trust but verify” ….
August 17th, 2006 at 1:23 pm#114 Terry, Your cowering like a bushpig. Stand up and defend your Constitution, weakling.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:23 pmI see the trolls are raining down. Took longer than I figured.
Why don’t you IGNORE them? trying to discuss or argue with them is like fighting the wind. They don’t acknowledge when they are plainly wrong or lying, so where does it get you. Pass over them & just reat the next post.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:23 pmThat’s meaningless. There are thousands of calls being tracked by people associated with al qaeda. It would take a century to fill out all of those warrants.
Biggest load of hooey I’ve ever heard. If there are “thousnads of terrorists” it’s too late. And you can start recording anythin and send a computer request to the court within 2 weeks. FISA approves almost everything. Load of crap.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:23 pmThere are thousands of calls being tracked by people associated with al qaeda.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 1:21 pm
How do you know how many there are?
Fact, links, evidence?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:24 pm#113 - Dems are upholding the rights of cizitens who are plotting and planning with al qaeda. This is what these international calls track.
I call BullShit!
Show your evidence. Fool.
We’re NOT talking international calls. We’re talking domestic communications. Dude. That IS INDEED illegal.
And the reason it is illegal is that some Replublican pResident took it upon himself to do seriously unreasonable things by our Civil Liberties.
Besides, your argument is a non-argument. Nothing prevents the CIA, NSA, FBI or any other US agency from doing it’s job.
Got Osama? I thought not. Fool.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:24 pmThe fascists want to record political opponents and blackmail them, and the salient point is YOU CAN’T BREAK THE LAW because YOU think it’s a good idea.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:25 pmJoementum:
In the lastest poll among likely voters in CT, Lieberman’s lead is 13 points.
Comment by Mr. Big
Lets hope you are right, Big. The polls also note that over 2/3′rds of voters voted AGAINST Lieberman in protest, and only about 35 percent voted FOR Lamont. Of course they would vote for Lieberman and put an independant in office instead of crossing over to vote for the Repugnican candidate.
I hope your moniker refers to your penis size and not your brain size, because history notes Joe would still vote with the Democrats 90 (NINTY) percent of the time so don’t start celebrating just yet.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:25 pmSeems like following the law didn’t hinder the British from stopping terrorist plots one iota.
The NSA assisted the British in foiling that plot.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:25 pmThe emergency authorization provision of title III wiretaps, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518(7), sets a deadline of 48-hours, and starts the 48-hour clock not at the time of authorization, but only once the interception `has occurred, or begins to occur.’
http://thomas.loc.gov/ cgi-bin/ cpquery/ ?&dbname=cp107&sid=cp107a7blf&refer=&r_n=hr328.107&item=&sel=TOC_64493&
If you can’t fill out a request for wiretap (warrant) within 48 hours of intercepting the designated call, YOU SHOULD NOT BE WORKING FOR THE NSA. YOU’RE FIRED.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:26 pm#146 that’s a bigger load of crap. The British are really pissed geogie boy took any credit for something he had nothing to do with. See the deputy PM of Britian’s recent assessment of Mr Chimpboy.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:26 pm#146
August 17th, 2006 at 1:27 pmThey had a warrant, shitless, dope.
Sorry tom #114, Terry nugent “red type” #117, back to your hole fella!
August 17th, 2006 at 1:27 pmThese calls are being made fast, on different phones internatially. By the time the warrant is filled out, there would be no lead there.
Comment by Mr. Big
Yeah, they move fast now. I heard that phone conversations moved slower a decade ago. Heeeeeellllllllllloooooooooo, hhhhhooooowwwwwww aaaarrreeeeee yyyooooouuuu.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:28 pm“The NSA surveillance program has kept us attack-free for five years.”
Opinion, not fact. They have so much information that they are WAY behind in just sorting through it… and this is because IT DOES NOT JUST TARGET INTERNATIONAL CALLS WITH KNOWN OR SUSPECTED TERRORISTS. There has been no proof that this program halted ANY attack of any kind: there is only the hearsay of GOP paid media and people like you who disseminate disinformation who claim, vaguely, that somehow the program is useful, necessary, is not used for other purposes (like partisan political profiling), is not abused, and only involves known or suspected terrorists, and yet cannot supply any proof (the Brooklyn Bridge scare? PUULEEEZE! Got any others?). Why do you and your ilk fear oversight? Explain WHY oversight of ANY government program of any kind is a bad thing. Unless, of course, you feel that you are a servant to the government and not the other way around.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:29 pmnothing but lame excuses from “big” and the trolls, and their heroes. excuse-making is a sure sign of weakness and failure - always has been - just ask a real conservative
August 17th, 2006 at 1:31 pmHow do you know how many there are?
Fact, links, evidence?
I believe the New York Times reported that there have been 5000 calls tracked between associates of al qaeda internatially. It would take forever to fill out all of those warrants.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:32 pmSeems like Bill Clinton was able to stop the Millenium Bomb plot and arrest, try, and convict the people involved with the first WTC attack without the NSA getting into my personal phone calls. Oh how could we possibly stop terrorism with the NSA breaking the law? ROTFL.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:32 pmThese calls are being made fast, on different phones internatially. By the time the warrant is filled out, there would be no lead there.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 1:19 pm
It doesn’t matter if the calls are made from different devices: FISA authorises “roaming” wiretaps, so it is the person who is tapped, not a specific phone.
And they still ahve 72 hours after the wiretapping has started to file for a warrant. They really have no excuse to not follow the law.
If the law is obsolete, a new one needs to be crafted. Nobody should be allowed to do as they please simply because the law is “too old”.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:33 pmWe’re NOT talking international calls. We’re talking domestic communications. Dude. That IS INDEED illegal.
These are not domestic calls. One part of the conversation has to be outside the country, which these are.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:33 pmThe NSA assisted the British in foiling that plot.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 1:25 pm
The Bush administration already admitted they participation was minimal.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:34 pmLets hope you are right, Big. The polls also note that over 2/3′rds of voters voted AGAINST Lieberman in protest, and only about 35 percent voted FOR Lamont.
The libs said that polls would show Lamont with the lead after his primary win. Bob Shrum said it on MSNBC. The opposite has happened. Lieberman’s lead has only been growing.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:36 pm“big” can you ever stop with the equivocating and prevaricating?? do you drive your car diagonally down the street? is one leg shorter than the other, such that you stand at a pronounced slant, because i’ve yet to see you take anything straight-on - you’re as pathetic as Clinon with his “meaning of “is”" answer - are you proud of that?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:37 pm#140 kindness
But it is amusing, in a sick way, to torment the trolls.
Really, though, it has been my observation that even the worst of the trolls can stimulate useful, insightful, and interesting (and sometimes amusing) conversation by their comments. There are a couple who seem to actually have brain cells that haven’t been killed by the alcohol, cocaine, and whatever pain pills they happen to be on.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:39 pmI believe the New York Times reported that there have been 5000 calls tracked between associates of al qaeda internatially. It would take forever to fill out all of those warrants.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 1:32 pm
Because as we all know, all 5000 of those calls came in on the same day, and the US Government only has one employee that knows how to fill out a warrant. /sarcasm
What happened to the strong conservatives? I wish these right wing bed-wetters would stop using the Constitution as their diaper.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:41 pmI believe the New York Times reported that there have been 5000 calls tracked between associates of al qaeda internatially. It would take forever to fill out all of those warrants.
Comment by Mr. Big
Just as I thought. Mr. Big has a small brain and an even smaller winkie. They can cut orders for thousands of National Guardsmen to be mobilized, deploy a division of 35,000 troops and all their equipment overnight toward a combat zone, and allow the oil companies to skim billions out of the taxpayers pockets, and yet can’t fill out the paperwork for a few thousand warrents?
You have a very small arguement there, Mr. Big.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:42 pm#156
I believe the New York Times reported that there have been 5000 calls tracked between associates of al qaeda internatially. It would take forever to fill out all of those warrants.
How many people are working on it? How many leads per hour are they trying to follow? How many warrants per day would they have to write and have approved? If it takes that long to write warrants because there are so many lines to tap, how could they possibly have time to actually monitor all those calls? Do you have any idea or you just blowing smoke, as usual?
I mean, how many al Qaeda members are they trying to monitor? Thousands? Holy crap, al Qaeda’s really grown in the past few years. Recruiting must be going great for them.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:42 pmPoor trollies! The best they can do is wave around a dodgy Q-poll. I didn’t believe the Q-poll when it had Lamont up by a bajillion before the primary election, and I don’t believe it now. The internal polls are much more accurate, and none have been done (or been publicly released) yet.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:42 pmAnd they still ahve 72 hours after the wiretapping has started to file for a warrant.
This is what Powerline had to say on it:
If it takes “days, sometimes weeks” to assemble a FISA application, then 72 hours is not long enough to be confident the process can be completed. Anyone who thinks that it is easy for multiple lawyers and officials to collaborate on a set of documents, present them to a federal judge and have the judge sign the order within 72 hours has, I’m afraid, no experience whatever at obtaining orders from federal judges.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:46 pmNot hardly, the warrentless search program had ntohing to do with the brooklyn bridge plot
Oh, really? What is your source for that, Mary Poppins?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:47 pm#176, as I recall it says you have to submit the forms, it doesn’t say they have to be approved within 72 hours, another lie?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:47 pmSeems like Bill Clinton was able to stop the Millenium Bomb plot and arrest
Clinton ordered a warrantless search of Aldrich Ames’ home. Because there wasn’t enough time. He was about to flee the country, Clinton thought.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:49 pm“This is what Powerline had to say on it: ”
LOL
Yeah, powerline, they’d never lie.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:50 pmrepublican agents of misinformation and propaganda will be working overtime in the leadup to elections.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:51 pmBecause as we all know, all 5000 of those calls came in on the same day, and the US Government only has one employee that knows how to fill out a warrant.
Still, if warrants were filled out for all of those 5000 international calls, there would be as many warrants filled out since 2002. It would be a whopping amount of warrants needed.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:51 pmMr. Big:
1) You do realize that the NSA assistance provided to the Brits in the recent terrorist plot did involve the granting of warrants…something that the Bush administration claimed up to that point couldn’t be accomplished. “Not enough time.”
2) I do believe the NSA wiretapping program does involve domestic-to-domestic calls as well as domestic-to-international calls. Here’s the catch:
Bush says that we don’t have time to get warrants for calls that involve an international aspect. Hence his order that the NSA bypass the FISA court.
However, for purely domestic calls, Bush has said he will go to the FISA court and get a warrant.
Question: why is speed so important on a call coming into the U.S., but apparently a purely domestic call from one terrorist to another is not?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:51 pmAnyone who thinks that it is easy for multiple lawyers and officials to collaborate on a set of documents, present them to a federal judge and have the judge sign the order within 72 hours has, I’m afraid, no experience whatever at obtaining orders from federal judges.
Comment by Mr. Big
I take it, you are saying the Administration needs to get its shit together and start trying to streamline the system instead of trying to bend or break it. Their party does, afterall, control all three branches of government and has no excuse for not doing so, don’t you agree?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:52 pmThis is my fav quote from freerepub:
“Yeah. Sure. Some pissant lib judge is gonna tell the NSA…….THE National Security Agency…..to just ’stop’ and by golly, by gosh they’ll just do that pronto, eh?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Monkeys might fly out of my butt, too.”
This enlightened poster is obviously very well versed in the Constitution and how our goverement works.
Of course they are also touting about how she’s a Carter appointee and are trying to dig up dirt on her in preparation for the full frontal Swiftboating, probably starting now but will begin in earnest with the late afternoon Faux shows.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:52 pmClinton ordered a warrantless search of Aldrich Ames’ home. Because there wasn’t enough time. He was about to flee the country, Clinton thought.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
What Clinton actually signed:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
And the section he quotes is the FISA standard. So you’re lying.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:52 pmComment by Mr. Big
Logging… computers… the lawyers can argue amongst themselves all the want… but as long as the logs are sitting safely locked away from human touch then they can go about their normal busissness as they always have…. a few nips and tucks here and there in FISA and it would be clean and verified…. this is NOT the 1800s…
August 17th, 2006 at 1:53 pmYeah, powerline, they’d never lie.
They are three experienced trial attorneys.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:53 pmIf it takes “days, sometimes weeks†to assemble a FISA application[…]
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 1:46 pm
And yet, nobody complained about it before. It worked well before the “war on terror” was unleashed on the world.
Again -if laws have not kept up with the times, the reasonable approach is to update them, not to ignore them and give the Executive a blank check to do whatever they see fit.
What you are arguing is that Americans should allow the president to uphold or ignore whatever laws he decides. Fact is, the president cannot make that determination.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:54 pmClinton ordered a warrantless search of Aldrich Ames’ home. Because there wasn’t enough time. He was about to flee the country, Clinton thought.
Comment by Mr. Big
Yep he sure did. And now because of his working with congress it is now illegal to do so without following specific guidelines that are part of the FISA law.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:55 pm#192
Yeah, powerline, they’d never lie.
They are three experienced trial attorneys.
Comment by Mr. Big
——————————————–
Thanks for agreeing with me.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:55 pmYou do realize that the NSA assistance provided to the Brits in the recent terrorist plot did involve the granting of warrants
NSA supplied intel to the Brits.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:56 pmSeems like Bill Clinton was able to stop the Millenium Bomb plot and arrest
Clinton ordered a warrantless search of Aldrich Ames’ home. Because there wasn’t enough time. He was about to flee the country, Clinton thought.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
Again, this shows you are just plain lying and spouting bullcrap republican talking points.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:56 pm