Court dismisses suit challenging Bush’s wiretapping.
Court dismisses suit challenging Bush’s wiretapping.
AP reports:
A federal appeals court on Friday ordered the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging President Bush’s domestic spying program, saying the plaintiffs had no standing to sue.
The 2-1 ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel was not on the legality of the surveillance program. But it vacated an order by a lower court in Detroit last Augist that the post-911 warrantless surveillance aimed at uncovering terrorist activity was unconstitutional, violating rights to privacy and free speech and the separation of powers.
UPDATE: Scholars and Rogues has more.
UPDATE II: Reaction from Senate Judiciary chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT):
The Court’s decision is a disappointing one that was not made on the merits of the case, yet closed the courthouse doors to resolving it. I hope the Bush Administration will finally provide the information requested by Congress regarding the constitutional and legal questions about this program so that those of us who represent the American people can get to the bottom of what happened and why. There is a dark cloud over the White House’s warrantless wiretapping program, and a full response to the outstanding subpoena from the Senate Judiciary Committee by this Administration would be a good start to clearing the air and moving forward in ways that allow us to better protect against terrorists while honoring the rule of law and the liberties of law-abiding Americans.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
saying the plaintiffs had no standing to sue.
I’m a vegan. Should I get together with a Quaker and file the same suit? After all, we know that Bush’s Regime spies on us…
July 6th, 2007 at 11:10 amI’m more than a little confused: If American citizens have “no standing” to challenge illegal wiretapping of American citizens, who does?
Can this ruling be appealed?
July 6th, 2007 at 11:14 amDon’t worry! When a Democrat is voted into the White House, they can use the “warrantless domestic spying program” to spy on the Republicans to make sure they don’t get elected ever again!
I’m sure the Republicans will support this use of their plans!
July 6th, 2007 at 11:14 amCircular reasoning is so easy and neat; it’s how the few intend to rule the many in the 21st century. Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence–if it helps the Bush-Cheney crime family. Catch 22 continues to apply as the rule of law crumbles.
How can obstruction of justice be a crime if justice is impossible?
July 6th, 2007 at 11:15 amThe American Civil Liberties Union led the suit on behalf of other groups including lawyers, journalists and scholars it says “have been handicapped in doing their jobs by the government monitoring”
If they’re handicapped in doing their jobs due to the government monitoring…..well, that’s some right shoddy wiretapping!
July 6th, 2007 at 11:16 amIt’s not very ’secretive and covert’ if they know about it and it affects their job performance.
#2 – “Can this ruling be appealed?” Comment by S.D. — July 6, 2007 @ 11:14 am
The next level after the Apellate Court is the Supreme Court.
Can you guess how the Conserva-trolls on the Supreme Court will vote? Well, only as long as Pres. Bush is in office.
July 6th, 2007 at 11:18 am“If they’re handicapped in doing their jobs due to the government monitoring…..well, that’s some right shoddy wiretapping!
It’s not very ’secretive and covert’ if they know about it and it affects their job performance.
Comment by SGT Higgins — July 6, 2007 @ 11:16 am”
Their handicapped because a lot of their clients are OVERSEAS…..
So when they talk with their clients, the LAYWER CLIENT PRIVILEGE is DESTROYED……
I can tell your a Republican SGT!
July 6th, 2007 at 11:18 am#7 –
So when they talk with their clients, the LAYWER CLIENT PRIVILEGE is DESTROYED……—-And the scholars?
I can tell your a Republican SGT! — Yeah? Shows, does it?
July 6th, 2007 at 11:20 amMust be a variation on catch 22.5
July 6th, 2007 at 11:21 amYou wouldn’t know if you were being spied on, so what you can’t know can’t hurt you?
Thanks Roberts, Alito, and the rest of the mob.
We should all be worried about this.
When it comes to getting our country back on track, it’s going to take years. Our courts, over what will be 40 years, have been stacked by Republicans for 28 of those years. We cannot depend on the courts to help us keep the Constitution intact.
July 6th, 2007 at 11:25 amMust be a variation on catch 22.5
You wouldn’t know if you were being spied on, so what you can’t know can’t hurt you?
Thanks Roberts, Alito, and the rest of the mob.
Comment by RUCerious — July 6, 2007 @ 11:21 am
hmmmm….Roberts and Alito are not part of the 6th Circuit court. Moron.
don’t know the structure of the Federal courts, do you. No wonder you are a Liberal, opinionated, but quite ignorant.
July 6th, 2007 at 11:27 amWe should all be worried about this.
When it comes to getting our country back on track, it’s going to take years. Our courts, over what will be 40 years, have been stacked by Republicans for 28 of those years. We cannot depend on the courts to help us keep the Constitution intact.
Comment by Crump’s Brother — July 6, 2007 @ 11:25 am
Yeah Crump’s brother, take back what? your ideology has never had America, and I thank God for that every day.
Oh oops, like George Washington and the other founding fathers, I just thanked God. go figure, eh?
July 6th, 2007 at 11:28 am#2 – “Can this ruling be appealed?†Comment by S.D. — July 6, 2007 @ 11:14 am
The next level after the Apellate Court is the Supreme Court.
Can you guess how the Conserva-trolls on the Supreme Court will vote? Well, only as long as Pres. Bush is in office.
Comment by Democrat Soldier — July 6, 2007 @ 11:18 am
Poor Democrats, terrified that the courts will uphold the law, eh? I know, you Liberals hate the law. You guys want to make it up as you go. Sorry, it doesn’t work like that.
July 6th, 2007 at 11:29 amCon~ You don’t think this is going to wind up in front of the Supes?
July 6th, 2007 at 11:29 amSo much for getting rid of the noxious trolls…
Well, at least without the most obnoxious and loquitious two, it’s a lot better around here…
July 6th, 2007 at 11:31 amPS ~ rest of the mob referring to the 6th, but that subtlety would be lost on a conswervative.
July 6th, 2007 at 11:31 amJust more evidence that as far as the repugs are concerned, the Constitution is to be honored but ignored. Just like they wear the flag lapel pin and do as much harm to our rights as they can while “honoring” the flag and all that it stands for. The neocons and their predecessors have had a lot of years to spew their bile and stack the courts while the dem “leadership” stood by, and, at times, even helped (think roberts and alito). Even if the dems regain enough seats in both houses to be in controll, they will probably roll over if the repugs say “BOO,” or the neocon courts rule against them.
July 6th, 2007 at 11:34 amSo much for getting rid of the noxious trolls…
Well, at least without the most obnoxious and loquitious two, it’s a lot better around here…
Comment by unbelievable — July 6, 2007 @ 11:31 am
Yes, of course unbelievable, what you want is group think in here, so how dare anyone post anything that doesn’t agree with liberal ideology, right?
Liberals open minded—-NOT!!!
Liberals tolereant—NOT!!!
Liberals intelligent—NOT!!!
Liberals compassionate—NOT!!!!
Liberals care about America—-NOT!!!!
Liberals care about the rule of law—-NOT!!!
Liberals hypocrites—–YES!!!!
Liberals poorly educated—-YES!!!
July 6th, 2007 at 11:42 amPS ~ rest of the mob referring to the 6th, but that subtlety would be lost on a conswervative.
Comment by RUCerious — July 6, 2007 @ 11:31 am
hmmmm……don’t back track now, you have no idea that the 6th circuit has nothing to do with Alito and Roberts. just admit you are a Liberal because you are poorly educated.
your previous comment was ignorant. Stop being such a girly man and admit you are ignorant.
July 6th, 2007 at 11:44 am#7 – “I can tell your a Republican SGT!” Comment by RemoveBush — July 6, 2007 @ 11:18 am
Sgt. Higgins cannot be a Republican! He believes in taking responsibility for his actions, and Republicans REFUSE to do that!
Sgt. Higgins might be Conservative, but he’s recovering from Republican-ism. ;-)
July 6th, 2007 at 11:44 amAnother lib bites the dust.
July 6th, 2007 at 11:45 amConservatron,
Your lack of historical reference to anything, is obvious, and your knack for showing your lack of education never ends.
A day in the life of Joe Republican:
Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.
With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer’s medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance – now Joe gets it too.
He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.
Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air.
He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
Joe begins his workday. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards.
Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn’t think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
It’s noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.
Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards.
He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers’ Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification.
He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to.
Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show.
The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn’t mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: “We don’t need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I’m a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.”
-
July 6th, 2007 at 11:45 amConservatives open minded—-NOT!!!
Conservatives tolerant—NOT!!!
Conservatives intelligent—NOT!!!
Conservative compassionate—NOT!!!!
Conservatives care about America—-NOT!!!!
Conservatives care about the rule of law—-NOT!!!
Conservatives hypocrites—–YES!!!!
Conservatives poorly educated—-YES!!!
July 6th, 2007 at 11:46 amComment by Conservatron — July 6, 2007 @ 11:42 am
Scintillating argument, Consie…on the same high standard as the rest of your inane bleatings.
July 6th, 2007 at 11:46 amTP can we please get some form of blocking option on this site????
These trolls are out of controll…..
If we can simply BLOCK them when we are viewing the posts, we would not have to view their tripe!!!!!
PLEASE consider this option for the NEAR future…
July 6th, 2007 at 11:47 amConservatives open minded—-NOT!!!
Conservatives tolerant—NOT!!!
Conservatives intelligent—NOT!!!
Conservative compassionate—NOT!!!!
Conservatives care about America—-NOT!!!!
Conservatives care about the rule of law—-NOT!!!
Conservatives hypocrites—–YES!!!!
Conservatives poorly educated—-YES!!!
Comment by Democrat Soldier — July 6, 2007 @ 11:46 am
like every Liberal you lack originality or the ability to think on you own. You need others to tell you what to think and how to think it.
July 6th, 2007 at 11:49 amTP can we please get some form of blocking option on this site????
These trolls are out of controll…..
If we can simply BLOCK them when we are viewing the posts, we would not have to view their tripe!!!!!
PLEASE consider this option for the NEAR future…
Comment by RemoveBush — July 6, 2007 @ 11:47 am
Yes block those that Liberals disagree with. They can’t stand the sight of anyone that is NOT a Liberal. Liberals are tolerant and compassionate with people that tow the Liberal line.
So much for being open minded.
hypocrites.
July 6th, 2007 at 11:51 amconservation
July 6th, 2007 at 11:52 amstop transfering your many negative personality traits in your effort to seem smart. go talk to your mirror, your image needs fixin’.
“Yes block those that Liberals disagree with. They can’t stand the sight of anyone that is NOT a Liberal. Liberals are tolerant and compassionate with people that tow the Liberal line.
So much for being open minded.
hypocrites.
Comment by Conservatron — July 6, 2007 @ 11:51 am”
Progressives are plenty open minded……
I am just tired of having to read YOUR 6 year old garbage!!!!
GROW UP!
July 6th, 2007 at 11:53 amCrumps Bro,
I don’t think they will respond to your excellent post.
July 6th, 2007 at 11:58 amThe appellate court is where the “bushies” reside. The decisions are always 2 to 1 if anybody has been following. Of course this decision can be appealed if it goes all the way to the Supreme Court.
July 6th, 2007 at 12:00 pmThanks, Crumps Brother!
July 6th, 2007 at 12:03 pmGreat post.
“Yes block those that Liberals disagree with. They can’t stand the sight of anyone that is NOT a Liberal. Liberals are tolerant and compassionate with people that tow the Liberal line.
So much for being open minded.
hypocrites.
Comment by Conservatron — July 6, 2007 @ 11:51 amâ€
Progressives are plenty open minded……
I am just tired of having to read YOUR 6 year old garbage!!!!
GROW UP!
Comment by RemoveBush — July 6, 2007 @ 11:53 am
No you are not, Liberals are the most closed minded fools on planet earth.
and if you are tired of reading my so called 6th grade posts, you should be killing yourself over reading the pathetic tripe that Liberals post on TP.
you are the one that needs to do a lot of growing up, son.
July 6th, 2007 at 12:03 pmTo get back on theme, this country is in serious trouble. The Imperial, oh sorry, Executive branch is out of control. The Cheny, oh sorry, Legislative branch has been useless for the last six years. Hopefully they’re waking up and realising that its time to do something, but I’m not holding my breath. The Judicial branch will goose step along with the Executive. So much for checks and balances. Impeach Bush and Cheney and Save the Constitution.
July 6th, 2007 at 12:04 pm“No you are not, Liberals are the most closed minded fools on planet earth.
and if you are tired of reading my so called 6th grade posts, you should be killing yourself over reading the pathetic tripe that Liberals post on TP.
you are the one that needs to do a lot of growing up, son.
Comment by Conservatron — July 6, 2007 @ 12:03 pm”
Take your 1st grade mouth somewhere else……
By the way…..
I have been banned at RedState for simply dissagreeing with them and providing links to support my stance…..
I can only immagine how quickly I would have been banned if I even acted like you!!!! If they ban people for providing evidence and debating, just immagine what they would do with a whinney 6 year old like you!!!
Also….. It is the Progressives that put callers on from ALL political parties….. Try and find that on a Republican show…. YOU CAN’T!!
IDIOT!
July 6th, 2007 at 12:07 pm#22
July 6th, 2007 at 12:08 pmcrumps democratic utopia.
It does not get any better, being a good goverment employee living on the backs of tax paying Republicans who create wealth with their capitalist ideas and at the same time employing 500+ individuals with jobs so they can provide for their families….
“and at the same time employing 500+ individuals with jobs so they can provide for their families….
Comment by Flaco — July 6, 2007 @ 12:08 pm”
Yeah, but sweat shops are actually illegal……
July 6th, 2007 at 12:09 pm“No you are not, Liberals are the most closed minded fools on planet earth.
and if you are tired of reading my so called 6th grade posts, you should be killing yourself over reading the pathetic tripe that Liberals post on TP.
you are the one that needs to do a lot of growing up, son.
Comment by Conservatron — July 6, 2007 @ 12:03 pmâ€
Take your 1st grade mouth somewhere else……
By the way…..
I have been banned at RedState for simply dissagreeing with them and providing links to support my stance…..
I can only immagine how quickly I would have been banned if I even acted like you!!!! If they ban people for providing evidence and debating, just immagine what they would do with a whinney 6 year old like you!!!
Also….. It is the Progressives that put callers on from ALL political parties….. Try and find that on a Republican show…. YOU CAN’T!!
IDIOT!
Comment by RemoveBush — July 6, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
Actually, if you bothered to listen Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the plethera of conservative shows you would know that they put Liberals on all the time. As they say, they want the world to know how fcked up in the head you guys are, so they put you on so the American public can hear your retarded rants.
Obviously, you don’t listen to conservative radio shows, you just let others tell you what these say.
nice, now I know you are a perfect idiot.
July 6th, 2007 at 12:09 pmConservation:
July 6th, 2007 at 12:11 pmIs your world one of those which has only Liberal and conservative and in your “open mind” only nonliberals have a clue? If so you are more of a dolt then you seem and it hardly seems that an intelligent dialogue is possible. Maybe less insults, more comprehension of nuances, and less “I know I am but what are youisms”, might make people want to consider your words. You probably have a reasonable point once in awhile. It’s the delivery which sucks even more than the dumb us vs them mentality you harbor
People, Don’t feed the Trolls.
July 6th, 2007 at 12:12 pm“Obviously, you don’t listen to conservative radio shows, you just let others tell you what these say.
nice, now I know you are a perfect idiot.
Comment by Conservatron — July 6, 2007 @ 12:09 pm”
Why would I listen to a windbag continue to call me or any of my fellow Americans TRAITORS because we do not THINK like YOU!
The only thing the Republicans stand for is Intimidation and Namecalling….
July 6th, 2007 at 12:13 pmConservatron
You picked the right screen name, you robotic bobblehead. Why not use your other psedonym, “Limbaugh’s Cum Dumpster” next time? That’s a good Republican.
July 6th, 2007 at 12:14 pmTrolls have ruined the conversation here – now they are moving to my other favorite sites. Please, please, please people, just ignore them we can converse with each other and they can tug on our sleeves like spoiled children who need all mommy’s attention.
IGNORE THE TROLLS – they will soon be out of power for a long, long time
July 6th, 2007 at 12:15 pmand at the same time employing 500+ individuals with jobs so they can provide for their families….
Comment by Flaco — July 6, 2007 @ 12:08 pmâ€
I left a warehouse at 4:30 am this morning after a 13 hour shift. My circumsatnce is unique and I make a reasonable wage at this second job. The rest of these guys make 8.10 an hour. One guy has worked 2 weeks with a broken foot becuase he doesn’t want to risk the 30 day accident free raffle for the gas card for a memeber of his crew. You’re insane or intentionally naive if you really belive this drivel
July 6th, 2007 at 12:16 pmFlaco,
“It does not get any better, being a good goverment employee living on the backs of tax paying Republicans who create wealth with their capitalist ideas and at the same time employing 500+ individuals with jobs so they can provide for their families….”
Ah yes, again no concept of the history of the matter. When we let capitalist have there way, what do we get. Slave wages, child labort, unsafe working conditions, 80 hour plus work weeks, no benefits, dirty water and air, no inspection of food or drugs, etc., etc..
Captialism is fine economic system, as long as it’s checked so that it serves we the people to the maximum benefit of all the country. We the people should not be forced to serve that system.
July 6th, 2007 at 12:17 pmBased on the court’s decision that non-proof of existence is proof of non-existence, Congress should immediately revoke tax exemption status for all church property.
July 6th, 2007 at 12:28 pmExcellent!
July 6th, 2007 at 12:29 pmDM,
“Based on the court’s decision that non-proof of existence is proof of non-existence, Congress should immediately revoke tax exemption status for all church property.”
PERFECT!!!
July 6th, 2007 at 12:35 pmIt comes down to this, when all legal means for taking our democracy back have been removed, people will resort to means that are not legal.
July 6th, 2007 at 12:45 pmI’m a vegan. Should I get together with a Quaker and file the same suit? After all, we know that Bush’s Regime spies on us…
Comment by unbelievable — July 6, 2007 @ 11:10 am
Do you have any evidence of a single citizen being illegally spied upon?
If so, we’d all love to hear about it.
July 6th, 2007 at 12:46 pmIf you didn’t do anything wrong, you have noting to fear from wiretaps.
July 6th, 2007 at 12:47 pmBOTTOM LINE!
Captialism is fine economic system, as long as it’s checked so that it serves we the people to the maximum benefit of all the country. We the people should not be forced to serve that system.
Comment by Crump’s Brother — July 6, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
Must’ve missed that Constitutional Amendment. Maybe it’s somewhere in my book.
July 6th, 2007 at 12:48 pmSarge,
Do you serve to uphold this?:
Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
If not, why do you serve?
July 6th, 2007 at 12:50 pm#51
If you didn’t do anything wrong, you have noting to fear from wiretaps.
BOTTOM LINE!
Comment by Schmucky Chucky — July 6, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
Then why won’t Cheny testify?!
July 6th, 2007 at 12:50 pmAll that hard work is starting to pay off for the WH. Stacking the courts is going to make getting away with all their criminal activity a whole lot easier to do. Definitely looking a lot more like the mafia crime family.
July 6th, 2007 at 12:53 pm#54
July 6th, 2007 at 12:54 pmI love how you Libs drag something irrelevant into a conversation when you have nothing to say.
My point was, if the govt. just happened to cut in on a conversation my wife was having with her mother or sisters, they would soon be lulled to sleep.
If you have nothing to hide, you have no worries.
“If you have nothing to hide, you have no worries.
Comment by Schmucky Chucky — July 6, 2007 @ 12:54 pm”
It does not matter whether you THINK you have nothing to hide or not…..
The POINT is that this goes against the CONSTITUTION!!!!
Typical Repub, they hate the Constitution as it gets in the way of their crimes.
July 6th, 2007 at 12:58 pmKarl Marx,
“Must’ve missed that Constitutional Amendment. Maybe it’s somewhere in my book.”
It’s not in the Constitution. However it has been the decision of We the People through our legislative process, that the economic system we chose, will do things the right way, or those who choose not to do it the right way, will be duly punished.
Do you dispute this?
July 6th, 2007 at 12:59 pmIf you have nothing to hide, you have no worries.
Comment by Schmucky Chucky
Not the point, moron. Run along to your little dream world, where the people can trust their government to do what’s best for them….they have unicorns!!
July 6th, 2007 at 1:00 pm#59
Hey Zooey!
That sounds more like Libland to me.
Don’t forget to contribute to Al Gore’s folly tomorrow, Vegas is melting…again….like it has every July since it was built.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:05 pmIt does not matter whether you THINK you have nothing to hide or not…..
The POINT is that this goes against the CONSTITUTION!!!!
Says who?
July 6th, 2007 at 1:06 pmFourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Of course. A wiretap is neither a search nor seizure.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:07 pmIf you have nothing to hide, you have no worries.
Comment by Schmucky Chucky — July 6, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
Again, if Cheney has nothing to hide, why won’t he take the stand? Why all his secrecy?
July 6th, 2007 at 1:09 pmComment by Crump’s Brother — July 6, 2007 @ 11:45 am
A day in the life of Joe Democrat:
Joe wakes up in his taxpayer-funded apartment at noon, as usual, and opens up his fridge to check out all the food stamp goodies he purchased the day before. Eschewing food, he takes a swig of JD.
After putting on his taxpayer-funded clothes, he heads to his local welfare office to pick up his check, financed by hardworking conservative taxpayers. He then takes his taxpayer-funded metro card to the subway, hops on a train and heads out to get his welfare check cashed.
On the way, he runs into two of his 16 illegitimate children and tells them he’ll pay them the support he owes them when he gets his EITC “refund” from the government.
He cashes his welfare check and heads to the local saloon. After knocking a few back, he starts to feel a bit queasy, so heads over to the hospital with his Medicaid card and gets the medical attention he so desperately needs.
On the way out of the hospital, he happens to run into an ex-girlfriend, who’s in labor, about to have his child. He expresses surprise and happiness that he’s about to become a father for the 17 time, wishes her good luck, and leaves.
Later that day, he goes to his local midnight basketball court and shoots a few with the fellas. Tired, he heads back home, to his taxpayer-funded apartment, and retires after a long, hard day.
As he lay in bed, he turns on Air America and hears the radio host bellyaching about greedy, selfish conservatives who never do anything for the poor, hardworking little guy.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:10 pmm12,
“Of course. A wiretap is neither a search nor seizure.”
Court precedent vehemently disagrees with your appraisal.
Plus:
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/bush-caught-on-tape/
July 6th, 2007 at 1:11 pm“Says who?
Comment by m12 — July 6, 2007 @ 1:06 pm”
Says the Constitution you TWIT!
Amendment 4 – Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:12 pm“Of course. A wiretap is neither a search nor seizure.
Comment by m12 — July 6, 2007 @ 1:07 pm”
Maybe you should tell that to NIXON!!!!
Of course a wiretap is a search and seizure!
What does a wiretap do????? It CAPTURES (SEIZES) data and SEARCHES through it.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:14 pmCrump’s Illegitimate Son,
Nice fallacy. Myth of the Welfare Queen eh? She never was found. But you can keep living in a world where you think the worse people are those on the bottom trying to get by.
I will continue to believe that the Welfare corporations get, is way worse, than that given to those who would otherwise be destitute.
But it was a nice attempt at skewing the point.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:15 pmMyth of the Welfare Queen,
Reagan’s story of a Welfare Queen driving a Welfare Cadillac was apocryphal. Even so, there is no evidence that welfare cheating is a significant problem; besides, individual welfare payments are too small for recipients to live well.
Conservative politicians have a talent for telling memorable anecdotes that capture the essence of their beliefs on any particular issue. One of the most enduring of these came from Ronald Reagan on the subject of welfare. He cited a Chicago “Welfare Queen” who had ripped off $150,000 from the government, using 80 aliases, 30 addresses, a dozen social security cards, and four fictional dead husbands. The country was outraged; Reagan dutifully promised to roll back welfare; and ever since, the “Welfare Queen” driving her “Welfare Cadillac” has become permanently lodged in American political folklore.
Unfortunately, like most great conservative anecdotes, it wasn’t really true. The media searched for this welfare cheat in the hopes of interviewing her, and discovered that she didn’t even exist.
As a bit of class warfare, however, it was brilliant. It diverted public attention from insider traders in their limousines to Welfare Queens in their Cadillacs, even though the former were stealing thousands of times more from the American people than the latter. Just one example of the cost of white collar crime would become apparent a few years later, when President Bush bailed out the Savings & Loans industry with $500 billion of the taxpayer’s money — enough to fund 20 years of federal AFDC.
Questions of class warfare aside, there is no evidence that there is a significant problem with welfare cheating. In 1991 less than 5 percent of all welfare benefits went to persons who were not entitled to them, and this figure includes errors committed by the welfare agency.
Nor are people getting rich off welfare. The two largest welfare programs are Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and food stamps. In 1992, the average yearly AFDC family payment was $4,572, and food stamps for a family of three averaged $2,469, for a total of $7,041. In that year, the poverty level for a mother with two children was $11,186. Thus, these two programs paid only 63 percent of the poverty level, and 74 percent of a minimum wage job. There are other welfare programs, of course, but they either pay a minuscule fraction of these two programs, or, if larger, are collected by only a small percentage of welfare recipients. The typical welfare recipient remains among the poorest members of society.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:17 pmWhat does a wiretap do????? It CAPTURES (SEIZES) data and SEARCHES through it.
That data is not yours. Vocal effects are free to be heard by anyone in the vicinity!
July 6th, 2007 at 1:17 pmSays the Constitution you TWIT!
Amendment 4 – Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Comment by RemoveBush — July 6, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
Since when have you ever cared about the Constitution? When you’re not trampling all over the Bill of Rights, you constantly attempt to circumvent it, ignore it, or use corrupt judges to re-define it by judicial fiat.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:18 pmSays the Constitution you TWIT!
Not according to the courts, the Congress, the President, or any branch of government…
July 6th, 2007 at 1:19 pmIf you have nothing to hide, you have no worries.
Comment by Schmucky Chucky — July 6, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
Oh yeah, how about all those Whitehouse emails and Rove’s RNC emails they won’t turn over?
July 6th, 2007 at 1:20 pm“Not according to the courts, the Congress, the President, or any branch of government…
Comment by m12 — July 6, 2007 @ 1:19 pm”
Wrong ONCE AGAIN!!!!
The courts have held up the fact that DATA is protected under the 4th Amendment!
The Congress has upheld that DATA is protected under the 4th Amendment.
The President is the ONLY one that says it does not!
Please go to school and learn something rather than showing your ignorance….. I am starting to feel very sorry for you!
July 6th, 2007 at 1:23 pmm12,
“Not according to the courts, the Congress, the President, or any branch of government…”
What are you talking about? The President did say that wiretaps require court order…
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2005/ 12/ 20/ bush-caught-on-tape/
Plus the FISA court was set up by legislative action. So they too have said that a court order is required.
Come on. Don’t be dumb. You are wrong a lot, but you usually aren’t this dense.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:23 pmNot the point, moron. Run along to your little dream world, where the people can trust their government to do what’s best for them….they have unicorns!!
Comment by Zooey — July 6, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
Unless it’s a liberal welfare program, of course. That we should trust implicitly.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:23 pmJanet Reno,
“Unless it’s a liberal welfare program, of course. That we should trust implicitly.”
Better than those conservative big business welfare programs.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:29 pm#75
He was referring to older methods of intelligence, not modern methods enacted by his own executive order which bypass the courts.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:29 pmComment by Crump’s Brother — July 6, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Getting “rich” off of welfare? Who said that? We only ask that they pull their own weight and start behaving responsibly.
It ain’t no myth that there are generations of families living cradle-to-grave off of the taxpayer, having scores of illegitimate children, and doing little to nothing to support them.
And rather than try to discourage that behavior, you whine that not ENOUGH is being done for them.
So you have a situation where you have one family, lead by at least one working parent, paying his own way his entire life, putting his children through college, paying his bills, paying his taxes, contributing to the social security system, and with maybe a little bit put aside for retirement.
And you have the guy who acted irresponsibly his entire life, had multiple children, to multiple mothers, never contributed to the lives of any of them and did little to pull his own weight.
And both of these people head into retirement with pretty much the same thing to show for it, and will each be getting roughly equal treatment in their golden years from the government.
And you “progressives” call that “fairness.”
July 6th, 2007 at 1:34 pmm12,
“He was referring to older methods of intelligence, not modern methods enacted by his own executive order which bypass the courts.”
I was unaware that he could make up the law as he went along. Obviously you support this?
The President does not have the power to subvert the courts. Of course this President thinks so, and you do as well. I find it sad that you think Congress has no role to play anymore in the crafting of law. What is there purpose if the President can simply sign his name and ignore them?
July 6th, 2007 at 1:34 pmThe courts have held up the fact that DATA is protected under the 4th Amendment!
The Congress has upheld that DATA is protected under the 4th Amendment.
The President is the ONLY one that says it does not!
Please go to school and learn something rather than showing your ignorance….. I am starting to feel very sorry for you!
The Congress, just recently, in fact, passed the Patriot Act which provides the necessary protocols for our national defense.
And the wiretaps of international terrorists, like Guantanemo, are outside the jurisdiction of the courts.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:35 pmBetter than those conservative big business welfare programs.
Comment by Crump’s Brother — July 6, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
At least corporations produce jobs, products and tax revenue that make the country run.
What do we get from bloodsucking welfare programs, besides more bloodsuckers?
July 6th, 2007 at 1:37 pm#80
He is not making up the law as he goes along. Fully domestic conversations go through the court process. The wiretaps covered by the 2002 executive order include an international party, who is not protected by our Constitution, the FISA act, or the courts.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:40 pm“He was referring to older methods of intelligence, not modern methods enacted by his own executive order which bypass the courts.
Comment by m12 — July 6, 2007 @ 1:29 pm”
And you have laid out why this is ILLEGAL!!!!
ONLY the CONGRESS can make laws….. So if Bush must bypass the courts, then it is not legal is it?
Now take the advice I gave above and return to school for an education.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:41 pm#64 sooo true!
A day in the life of Joe Democrat:
Joe wakes up in his taxpayer-funded apartment at noon, as usual, and opens up his fridge to check out all the food stamp goodies he purchased the day before. Eschewing food, he takes a swig of JD.
After putting on his taxpayer-funded clothes, he heads to his local welfare office to pick up his check, financed by hardworking conservative taxpayers. He then takes his taxpayer-funded metro card to the subway, hops on a train and heads out to get his welfare check cashed.
On the way, he runs into two of his 16 illegitimate children and tells them he’ll pay them the support he owes them when he gets his EITC “refund†from the government.
He cashes his welfare check and heads to the local saloon. After knocking a few back, he starts to feel a bit queasy, so heads over to the hospital with his Medicaid card and gets the medical attention he so desperately needs.
On the way out of the hospital, he happens to run into an ex-girlfriend, who’s in labor, about to have his child. He expresses surprise and happiness that he’s about to become a father for the 17 time, wishes her good luck, and leaves.
Later that day, he goes to his local midnight basketball court and shoots a few with the fellas. Tired, he heads back home, to his taxpayer-funded apartment, and retires after a long, hard day.
As he lay in bed, he turns on Air America and hears the radio host bellyaching about greedy, selfish conservatives who never do anything for the poor, hardworking little guy.
Comment by Crump’s Illegitimate Son
——————————————————-
July 6th, 2007 at 1:41 pmCrump’s Illegitimate Son
“And you “progressives†call that “fairness.—
Again you are skirting the issue that originally brought up.
“So you have a situation where you have one family, lead by at least one working parent, paying his own way his entire life, putting his children through college, paying his bills, paying his taxes, contributing to the social security system, and with maybe a little bit put aside for retirement. ”
And why do you think they are able to do that? Without progressive movements, we would still have child labor, low wages, shoddy safety conditions, no inspection of food supply.
Do you disagree? These are the rules that We the People demand you must follow in order to be in the game of business. These rules help that one guy raise his children. Without progressive policies, his kids would have been working as soon as they could walk. They would be sick from spoiled food or lack of vaccinations. He would have no medical insurance, and if you had your way, there would probably be no public education for those kids to take part in.
You can cry all you want about ‘welfare’ programs, but the buyout of the savings and loan scandal, cost way more than all the combined fraud that you will find in the ‘welfare system’.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:41 pmONLY the CONGRESS can make laws….. So if Bush must bypass the courts, then it is not legal is it?
When did Congress make a law barring wiretapping of international communications?
July 6th, 2007 at 1:42 pm“And the wiretaps of international terrorists, like Guantanemo, are outside the jurisdiction of the courts.
Comment by m12 — July 6, 2007 @ 1:35 pm”
Are you really that stupid, or are you just playing one here????
The courts have proved YOU and Bush wrong in every turn!!!!
This is like shooting fish in a barrel!
July 6th, 2007 at 1:42 pm#81, m12, Does the Constitution mention “except for people the President” Declares as “bad men” anywhere in it?
Even if they are guilty as sin, the people in Guantanemo deserve due process. You might not get this but;Simply saying they are “International Terrorists” doesn’t automatically make it so.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:44 pm#64
Classic!
July 6th, 2007 at 1:44 pm“He is not making up the law as he goes along. Fully domestic conversations go through the court process. The wiretaps covered by the 2002 executive order include an international party, who is not protected by our Constitution, the FISA act, or the courts.
Comment by m12 — July 6, 2007 @ 1:40 pm”
And YOU know this HOW????
Provide the PROOF that Bush is going to the FISA courts to obtain DOMESTIC warrants for Americans….
Show me where the PROOF is!!!!
I’m not taking this lying, criminal administrations word on anything….. They need to PROVE they are doing it legally!!!!!
Now show me the proof you have that NO Americans are being monitored without a warrant!!!!!
YOU CAN’T!!!!!
July 6th, 2007 at 1:46 pmSure, # 64 is classically false.
Wait. I may be feeding the Trolls here…
July 6th, 2007 at 1:47 pm“When did Congress make a law barring wiretapping of international communications?
Comment by m12 — July 6, 2007 @ 1:42 pm”
Its called FISA!!!!!
“the “exclusive” means for wiretapping”!!!!!
Do you need an air pump????? It seems like the air in your head is seaping out, and you need a refill…..
July 6th, 2007 at 1:49 pmDoes the Constitution mention “except for people the President†Declares as “bad men†anywhere in it?
Even if they are guilty as sin, the people in Guantanemo deserve due process. You might not get this but;Simply saying they are “International Terrorists†doesn’t automatically make it so.
The Consitution specifically empowers Congress to establish all lower courts and determine jurisdiction to all Courts.
Through the Military Commissions Act, they have been stripped of this jurisdiction.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:49 pmI suggest you read this article, RemoveBush.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?ei=5088&en=e32070df8d623ac1&ex=1292389200&pagewanted=all
WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 – Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.
Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible “dirty numbers” linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.
The FISA statute only extends to US persons, defined as citizens, permanent residents, and corporations. It does not cover wiretapping of terrorists in Afghanistan!
July 6th, 2007 at 1:51 pm#86
Crump you’ve lost it buddy
July 6th, 2007 at 1:57 pmCrump’s utopia anyone care to join him?
Flaco,
“Crump you’ve lost it buddy”
Why am I not shocked that you have no argument to offer?
What points of my post do you disagree with and why?
July 6th, 2007 at 2:01 pmProgressive Ted (Chappaquiddick) Kennedy sure helped Mary Jo raise her family.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:02 pm“Through the Military Commissions Act, they have been stripped of this jurisdiction.
Comment by m12 — July 6, 2007 @ 1:49 pm”
WRONG!!!!
The Congress CANNOT over ride the Constitution!!!!
Section 9 – Limits on Congress
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Attainder
July 6th, 2007 at 2:02 pmattainder n. The loss of all civil rights by a person sentenced for a serious crime. [is meant to mean a bill that has an negative effect on a single person or group (for example, a fine or term of imprisonment). Originally, a Bill of Attainder sentenced an individual to death, though this detail is no longer required to have an enactment be ruled a Bill of Attainder.
“The FISA statute only extends to US persons, defined as citizens, permanent residents, and corporations. It does not cover wiretapping of terrorists in Afghanistan!
Comment by m12 — July 6, 2007 @ 1:51 pm”
I’m still waiting for your PROOF that Bush is ONLY wiretapping Foreign people…..
Bush refuses to prove it because HE CAN’T!!!!
NOW PROVIDE THE PROOF HE IS NOT WIRETAPPING AMERICANS without a warrant!
July 6th, 2007 at 2:04 pmCrumpster let’s not make saints out of progressives and devils out of conservatives agreed?
July 6th, 2007 at 2:07 pm#100
You are asking to prove a negative…good luck with that.
All I can do is point you to the executive order. Calls between 2 Americans go through the Courts. Calls between an American and a foreigner can be wiretapped on the foreigners side as they are not covered by the FISA statute.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:09 pm“President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.
Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible “dirty numbers†linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.
The FISA statute only extends to US persons, defined as citizens, permanent residents, and corporations. It does not cover wiretapping of terrorists in Afghanistan!
Comment by m12 — July 6, 2007 @ 1:51 pm”
Do you NOT READ what you post?????
If they are wiretapping ANYONE in the US without a warrant, that is ILLEGAL!!!! Why is this so damn hard for you to understand????
If I rob a bank, that is illegal….. If I rob a convienent store, that is illegal….. If I peak into my neighbors windows, that is illegal…..
Listening to anyones phone calls or capturing ANY of their data over the phone lines is ILLEGAL!!!!
Man you are dense!
July 6th, 2007 at 2:09 pm#99
I don’t know why you quoted this passage, as none of it is relevant to the MCA.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:09 pmIf they are wiretapping ANYONE in the US without a warrant, that is ILLEGAL!!!! Why is this so damn hard for you to understand????
The American is not being wiretapped. The member of Al Qaeda is.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:10 pm“I don’t know why you quoted this passage, as none of it is relevant to the MCA.
Comment by m12 — July 6, 2007 @ 2:09 pm”
It is relevant!!!
Congress cannot provide a law for something that negates anything in the Constitution…..
Once again you show that the Constitution MEANS NOTHING TO YOU!!!!
July 6th, 2007 at 2:11 pm“I don’t know why you quoted this passage, as none of it is relevant to the MCA.
Comment by m12 — July 6, 2007 @ 2:09 pmâ€
July 6th, 2007 at 2:12 pmSee the 4th Amendment!
Comment by Crump’s Brother — July 6, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
“So you have a situation where you have one family, lead by at least one working parent, paying his own way his entire life, putting his children through college, paying his bills, paying his taxes, contributing to the social security system, and with maybe a little bit put aside for retirement. â€
And why do you think they are able to do that?
Maybe you missed it, but I view that as patently unfair. The guy who spent his entire life working should be getting a much better shake from the government than the guy who did nothing. And I blame the left’s “progressiveness” for their being treated as if they made equal contributions to society.
Your problem is, you’re living in the past. While the so-called “progressive” movement can claim credit for many workplace improvements, we no longer have any of those awful conditions you listed. What we DO have are movements that, after having achieved great victories for the working person, didn’t know when to stop. And now they’re all going way overboard in their zeal to justify their continuing existence, by bankrupting companies and cities in the case of unions, by destroying companies out of greed in the case of trial laywer termites, and by taxing and regulating them to a degree that is too often beyond reasonable–mostly because the government views them solely as a source of revenue for their wasteful boondoggles.
You wanna claim credit for workplace improvements, fine. But then, you also have to take the blame for the carnage being perpetrated by present-day unions, trial lawyers and–in the name of environmentalism–the high price of gasoline, because of a refusal to allow more drilling and more refineries and gas taxes that claim far more than the oil companies claim for themselves.
As for the the S&L scandal, interestingly enough, Bill Clinton and his Arkansas cronies had their piggish hands in that mess. But the bailout was for the benefit of the taxpayer, not the banks.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:14 pm“The American is not being wiretapped. The member of Al Qaeda is.
Comment by m12 — July 6, 2007 @ 2:10 pm”
Prove it!!!!
So we have MILLIONS of AQ here????
RIGHT!!!!
Hey I have some ocean in the Gulf of Mexico I would like to sell you!
July 6th, 2007 at 2:16 pmFlaco
“Crumpster let’s not make saints out of progressives and devils out of conservatives agreed?”
When did I make devils out of conservatives?
July 6th, 2007 at 2:16 pmMan TP has some of the best trolls and hobbits!
Right on Crump’s other brother
July 6th, 2007 at 2:21 pmCrump’s Illegitimate Son,
“But then, you also have to take the blame for the carnage being perpetrated by present-day unions, trial lawyers and–in the name of environmentalism–the high price of gasoline, because of a refusal to allow more drilling and more refineries and gas taxes that claim far more than the oil companies claim for themselves.”
So I suppose you think that if unions went away now, that everything would be just fine. This is absolutely false. The goal of a company is to maximize proftis. What would stop companies from slashing worker benefits and pay in light of the extinction of unions. Oh that’s right, they already do that.
Funny how no one wants a trial lawyer around until their family is hurt severly by the gross neglingence of another. You want us to curb our access to court remedies? Asbestos, faulty prescriptions, or pool equipment so powerful it rips out girls intestines. http://www.nbc11.com/health/13626625/detail.html
you think these people should not have recourse? If they do, they can only retrieve so much right. What is your daughters intestinal track worth to you?
Forgove me if I don’t feel sorry for oil industry. The most profitable industry in the history of the world. No sympathy here.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:28 pmSo we have MILLIONS of AQ here????
RIGHT!!!!
Hey I have some ocean in the Gulf of Mexico I would like to sell you!
Not at all. If an American is talking to a suspected member of Al Qaeda overseas, the member of Al Qaeda can be wiretapped without violating any rights of the American.
Since they are not being wiretapped, they certainly have no grounds to sue, as the court decided.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:30 pmCongress cannot provide a law for something that negates anything in the Constitution…..
Once again you show that the Constitution MEANS NOTHING TO YOU!!!!
They have not.
1. Alien enemy combatants are not citizens or Americans under our Constitution, nor soldiers by the Geneva convenctions.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:33 pm2. Even if you believe they are, Congress can clearly designate where their trial will take place, and they have historically done so with mililtary tribunals rather than federal courts.
3. Even if you believe that is insufficient, the American homeland was clearly invaded by our enemies on September 11, 2001, which certainly qualifies under one of the exception clauses.
“Not at all. If an American is talking to a suspected member of Al Qaeda overseas, the member of Al Qaeda can be wiretapped without violating any rights of the American.
Since they are not being wiretapped, they certainly have no grounds to sue, as the court decided.
Comment by m12 — July 6, 2007 @ 2:30 pm”
And that WOULD BE ILLEGAL!!!!
Please READ the Damn Constitution sometime!!!! Specifically the 4th Amendment!!!!
July 6th, 2007 at 2:36 pm“They have not.
1. Alien enemy combatants are not citizens or Americans under our Constitution, nor soldiers by the Geneva convenctions.”
Then tell that to Jose Padillia (A US CITIZEN)! Please PROVIDE THE LINE in the Constitution that states that American Citizens can be stripped of their Constitutional rights in the Constitution……
“2. Even if you believe they are, Congress can clearly designate where their trial will take place, and they have historically done so with mililtary tribunals rather than federal courts.”
Right, but the enemies captured were wearing a UNIFORM!!!! You cannot just go around picking up people and claim they are the enemy just to suit your needs.
“3. Even if you believe that is insufficient, the American homeland was clearly invaded by our enemies on September 11, 2001, which certainly qualifies under one of the exception clauses.
Comment by m12 — July 6, 2007 @ 2:33 pm”
WRONG!!!!!!
There is now more evidence to prove that 19 Arabs did not perform 9/11….. You may wish to keep your head burried in the sand and simply believe what your god Bush tells you, but I prefer to evaluate the evidence……
The evidence states that someone OTHER than 19 Arabs attacked us on 9/11……
July 6th, 2007 at 2:41 pm“Not at all. If an American is talking to a suspected member of Al Qaeda overseas, the member of Al Qaeda can be wiretapped without violating any rights of the American.
Since they are not being wiretapped, they certainly have no grounds to sue, as the court decided.
Comment by m12 — July 6, 2007 @ 2:30 pmâ€
That is NOT what the court decided……
They decided that since the plaintifs could not prove they were being wiretapped they had no case…. Despite the fact that the govt. cannot prove that they are only wiretapping “international” calls/data.
Nice try in twisting the verdict though!!!!!
July 6th, 2007 at 2:43 pm#113, m12 said:
In all due respect, you seem to be taking the Administrations word for it. One of the great thing our system of gov’t has is oversight, a responsibility that last congress did not excercise. Since the administration claims the wiretapping is not being covered by FISA, your simply making an assumption.
Remember, this is the same administration that, among other things, claimed Iraq had a connection to 9/11, outed a covert agent, commuted the sentence of someone who was convicted of lying to a Grand Jury, etc.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:53 pm#115
It is most certainly not illegal, by any stretch of the law, unless you want to assert that Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq have 4th Amendment rights.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:57 pmRight, but the enemies captured were wearing a UNIFORM!!!! You cannot just go around picking up people and claim they are the enemy just to suit your needs.
What nations’ uniform does Al Qaeda wear?
July 6th, 2007 at 2:58 pm“It is most certainly not illegal, by any stretch of the law, unless you want to assert that Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq have 4th Amendment rights.
Comment by m12 — July 6, 2007 @ 2:57 pm”
I could care less about Bush wiretapping Iraq!!!!!
HE IS WIRETAPPING IN THE US WITHOUT WARRANTS!!!!!
Pull your head out and take a breath…… Maybe you will start to think properly after that, but I doubt it.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:59 pmThere is now more evidence to prove that 19 Arabs did not perform 9/11….. You may wish to keep your head burried in the sand and simply believe what your god Bush tells you, but I prefer to evaluate the evidence……
The evidence states that someone OTHER than 19 Arabs attacked us on 9/11……
What evidence is this? The pentagon missle conspiracy nutcase theory?
It doesn’t really matter if they were even Arabs or not. They were enemies of America on US soil.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:00 pm“What nations’ uniform does Al Qaeda wear?
Comment by m12 — July 6, 2007 @ 2:58 pm”
None!!!!
But that is why Bush, or anyone, cannot just go gathering up people and “claiming” they are enemies without evidence…..
Since they don’t want to show their evidence in a court of law, it proves their claims are extremely weak…..
By the way!!!! EVERY attack in Iraq now is being blamed on AQ……
So EVERY Iraqi is an AQ agent?????
See how rediculous this becomes if you go down that path…… (I doubt you would, your glued to Bush’s arse)
July 6th, 2007 at 3:01 pmI could care less about Bush wiretapping Iraq!!!!!
HE IS WIRETAPPING IN THE US WITHOUT WARRANTS!!!!!
He is not wiretapping Americans in the US. A conversation has 2 parties; the fact that the Al Qaeda operatives are being wiretapped and some Americans happen to be talking to them does not mean the Americans are being wiretapped!
July 6th, 2007 at 3:01 pm“What evidence is this? The pentagon missle conspiracy nutcase theory?
It doesn’t really matter if they were even Arabs or not. They were enemies of America on US soil.
Comment by m12 — July 6, 2007 @ 3:00 pm”
It does not matter what it is, because your so closed minded that you will just call it a “conspiracy theory” despite the fact that the laws of physics makes it impossible and science proves it could not of happened the way the govt. says it did.
YES IT DOES!!!! We are attacking Arabs because Bush tied 9/11 to them…..
Yes we have enemies here now, but you refuse to do anything about that! You want to attack INNOCENT PEOPLE to make you feel like a big man!!!!
How about you prove me wrong on this “theory”…… Gravity!!!!!
Please find the tallest building around you and go to the roof…… Now just step off the roof…. Prove my “theory” wrong!!!!
Some theories are not WRONG!!! Despite how much you WANT them to be.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:05 pm“He is not wiretapping Americans in the US. A conversation has 2 parties; the fact that the Al Qaeda operatives are being wiretapped and some Americans happen to be talking to them does not mean the Americans are being wiretapped!
Comment by m12 — July 6, 2007 @ 3:01 pm”
OK so by your LOGIC!!!!
I can just go around my neighborhood trying doors to see if they open???? If they do, then I can go inside and look around all I want.
This is your logic!!!!!
If they CAPTURE an American call/data, that is ILLEGAL!!!!!
PERIOD!!!! READ the damn 4th Amendment!!!!!
July 6th, 2007 at 3:07 pmIt does not matter what it is, because your so closed minded that you will just call it a “conspiracy theory†despite the fact that the laws of physics makes it impossible and science proves it could not of happened the way the govt. says it did.
YES IT DOES!!!! We are attacking Arabs because Bush tied 9/11 to them…..
Are you saying that a plane never hit the twin towers and the eyewitnesses in New York are lying?
Are you saying that the flight that (according to you) did not hit the Pentagon disappeared into thin air?
Are you saying that the eyewitnesses on flight 93 who described their attackers as Arabs were lying?
Are you saying that Arabs never attacked the WTC in 1993? The embassies in 1998? Did Clinton fabricate those?
But thank you for admitting we have enemies in the United States. That clearly qualifies as an invasion!
July 6th, 2007 at 3:09 pmI can just go around my neighborhood trying doors to see if they open???? If they do, then I can go inside and look around all I want.
This is your logic!!!!!
If they CAPTURE an American call/data, that is ILLEGAL!!!!!
There are no grounds for it to be considered American data. The data is overseas, in the hands of an overseas party, on overseas equipment.
A better analogy is blasting rock music through my apartment building, then trying to charge my neighbors for listening to ‘my’ music! It certainly cannot be yours when its in Iraq!
July 6th, 2007 at 3:12 pmI have a question about your line of thinking, though, Mr. RemoveBush.
If party A owns the telephone data he transmits even if it is in party B’s phone, why can party B record the conversation (and A’s data) without notifying A?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:18 pm“Are you saying that a plane never hit the twin towers and the eyewitnesses in New York are lying?”
No!!! Of course plans hit the towers….. It has YET to be proven that it was the planes the govt. claims….. Also, there is more proof that the towers were Controlled Demolition, especially WTC7.
“Are you saying that the flight that (according to you) did not hit the Pentagon disappeared into thin air?”
I am saying that the plan could not have hit the pentagon….. Pilots for 911 truth have the data from the NTSB and it PROVES the plan was 400+ ft above the freeway……. It could have NEVER hit the Pentagon!
“Are you saying that the eyewitnesses on flight 93 who described their attackers as Arabs were lying?”
You mean those PHONE CALLS that COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE from cell phones??????
“Are you saying that Arabs never attacked the WTC in 1993? The embassies in 1998? Did Clinton fabricate those?”
If you would do some research, you would find that the 1993 WTC attack was performed by the FBI!!!!! They used an informant and provided him with the material and information for the bombing!!!! It is Public record since this was in a court of law!!!!!
“But thank you for admitting we have enemies in the United States. That clearly qualifies as an invasion!
Comment by m12 — July 6, 2007 @ 3:09 pm”
You IDIOT!!!!! The enemies are sitting at 1600 Pensylvania AVE in Washington DC!!!!!! The so called “invasion” is your stupidity at work.
Enemies can be foreign or DOMESTIC!!!!! I see you have never taken any oath of service for your country, or you would have known that!
July 6th, 2007 at 3:22 pm“I have a question about your line of thinking, though, Mr. RemoveBush.
If party A owns the telephone data he transmits even if it is in party B’s phone, why can party B record the conversation (and A’s data) without notifying A?
Comment by m12 — July 6, 2007 @ 3:18 pm”
First……. The govt. does not own party B’s phone!!!!!!
Party B owns the phone!!!!
Your analogy is completly flawd and silly!!!!
If the phone junction box is sitting in my back yard, it does not give me the right to go out and connect my phone to various lines to listen in on…… Even though the box is in my back yard, which is my property, I still am not legally allowed to listen to those other lines.
This analogy is what is being discussed….. The box is in the US and Bush is trying to probe around until HE thinks he finds something….. THAT IS CALLED FISHING!!!!
I-T—I-S—I-L-L-E-G-A-L—!!!!!
July 6th, 2007 at 3:28 pmCrump’s Illegitimate Son,
So I suppose you think that if unions went away now, that everything would be just fine. This is absolutely false. The goal of a company is to maximize proftis. What would stop companies from slashing worker benefits and pay in light of the extinction of unions. Oh that’s right, they already do that.
Funny how no one wants a trial lawyer around until their family is hurt severly by the gross neglingence of another. You want us to curb our access to court remedies? Asbestos, faulty prescriptions, or pool equipment so powerful it rips out girls intestines. http://www.nbc11.com/health/13626625/detail.html
you think these people should not have recourse? If they do, they can only retrieve so much right. What is your daughters intestinal track worth to you?
Forgove me if I don’t feel sorry for oil industry. The most profitable industry in the history of the world. No sympathy here.
Comment by Crump’s Brother — July 6, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
Crump,
There’s a difference between stating the unions have gone way overboard and hoping that they disappear altogether. I don’t wish them to disappear; do you not agree that they have gone too far in many cases?
Similarly, only a liar, a dimwit or a Democrat can’t see that the grotesque, greedy trial lawyers are nothing short of a legalized mafia. It’s one thing to undertake legitimate lawsuits for real damage caused by true negligence–like the the girl in the pool. But let’s be honest: That’s not REALLY what the ATLA is all about now, is it?
The greedy trial lawyers have taken to using bogus junk science to destroy legitimate, innocent companies, shaking down businesses with phony legal threats designed to force settlements out of fear of being bankrupted by legal bills, and attacking the deepest pockets regardless of culpability. And never mind class action suits, where the greedy pigs get rich while the “aggrieved party” gets 20 cents. They are in the “business” of concocting phony grievances, all designed to shakedown companies and/or the taxpayer. It’s a grotesque racket and they’re no better than the mafia.
And the whole racket is protected by a political party that gets a huge chunk of its funding from these pigs. And while primarily a Democrat-protected racket, there are frankly too many Republicans taking trial lawyer protection money as well.
As for the oil companies, I’m not asking you to feel sorry for them–I’m only suggesting you oughta stop whining about high prices when those prices are merely a reflection of: (1) the market; aggravated by (2) the policies of the Democrat party.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:34 pmNo!!! Of course plans hit the towers….. It has YET to be proven that it was the planes the govt. claims….. Also, there is more proof that the towers were Controlled Demolition, especially WTC7.
So what planes hit the towers, and who flew them? Where did flight 175 and 11 go if they did not hit the towers?
I am saying that the plan could not have hit the pentagon….. Pilots for 911 truth have the data from the NTSB and it PROVES the plan was 400+ ft above the freeway……. It could have NEVER hit the Pentagon!
So where did it go?
Even if you believed something about ‘controlled demolishions’ was what caused the towers to collapse, Arabs still invaded our homeland, hijacked the planes, and killed hundreds of our citizens on impact!
July 6th, 2007 at 3:34 pmIf you would do some research, you would find that the 1993 WTC attack was performed by the FBI!!!!! They used an informant and provided him with the material and information for the bombing!!!! It is Public record since this was in a court of law!!!!!
You talking about Clinton’s FBI here? Or did Bush Sr. somehow know his son would become President 8 years later?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:35 pmComment by RemoveBush — July 6, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
Cue ‘Twighlight Zone’ music.
Let them keep talking, so that the world may know them.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:38 pm“You talking about Clinton’s FBI here? Or did Bush Sr. somehow know his son would become President 8 years later?
Comment by m12 — July 6, 2007 @ 3:35 pm”
Yeah that would be the FBI working under Clinton…….
The FBI and CIA have been working on covert programs for a long time….
That is why I said there is more proof that someone OTHER than 19 Arabs performed 9/11.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/wtcbomb.html
Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast.
The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad Salem, should be used, the informer said.
The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of hours of tape recordings that Mr. Salem secretly made of his talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as being in a far better position than previously known to foil the February 26th bombing of New York City’s tallest towers.
The explosion left six people dead, more than a thousand people injured, and damages in excess of half-a-billion dollars. Four men are now on trial in Manhattan Federal Court [on charges of involvement] in that attack.
Mr. Salem, a 43-year-old former Egyptian Army officer, was used by the Government [of the United States] to penetrate a circle of Muslim extremists who are now charged in two bombing cases: the World Trade Center attack, and a foiled plot to destroy the United Nations, the Hudson River tunnels, and other New York City landmarks. He is the crucial witness in the second bombing case, but his work for the Government was erratic, and for months before the World Trade Center blast, he was feuding with the F.B.I.
Supervisor `Messed It Up’
After the bombing, he resumed his undercover work. In an undated transcript of a conversation from that period, Mr. Salem recounts a talk he had had earlier with an agent about an unnamed F.B.I. supervisor who, he said, “came and messed it up.”
“He requested to meet me in the hotel,” Mr. Salem says of the supervisor.
“He requested to make me to testify, and if he didn’t push for that, we’ll be going building the bomb with a phony powder, and grabbing the people who was involved in it. But since you, we didn’t do that.”
The transcript quotes Mr. Salem as saying that he wanted to complain to F.B.I. Headquarters in Washington about the Bureau’s failure to stop the bombing, but was dissuaded by an agent identified as John Anticev.
Mr. Salem said Mr. Anticev had told him,
“He said, I don’t think that the New York people would like the things out of the New York Office to go to Washington, D.C.”
Another agent, identified as Nancy Floyd, does not dispute Mr. Salem’s account, but rather, appears to agree with it, saying of the `New York people’:
July 6th, 2007 at 3:42 pm“Cue ‘Twighlight Zone’ music.
Let them keep talking, so that the world may know them.
Comment by Rod Serling — July 6, 2007 @ 3:38 pm”
I have the physics and evidence to support what I say….. DO YOU???
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/AA757AMM.html
The passenger phone system was DEACTIVATED on 1/28/2001!!!!! No calls from these systems could have been made! Cell phones would NOT work at that altitude or speed.
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Provide your evidence……
While your at it…. Please explain how cars can be burned, but only the metal, several blocks away from the WTC collapse????? What would cause that for a “natural” collapse??????
July 6th, 2007 at 3:49 pmComment by RemoveBush — July 6, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
I have the physics and evidence to support what I say…
No, what you have is a mental condition.
But it’s amusing listening to you lose your sh-t. By all means, keep on blathering!
July 6th, 2007 at 4:19 pm“No, what you have is a mental condition.
But it’s amusing listening to you lose your sh-t. By all means, keep on blathering!
Comment by Rod Serling — July 6, 2007 @ 4:19 pm”
I guess to the UNEDUCATED it would be a “mental condition”…….
When you learn to stop dragging your knuckles, let me know!
I see you FAILED to dispute the PROOF I provided…..
You are definately a Repub…… Facts are lies, and lies are facts in your world….
July 6th, 2007 at 4:32 pmI see you FAILED to dispute the PROOF I provided…..
Comment by RemoveBush — July 6, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
First I wanna see your “proof” of UFOs from other galaxies.
BWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
July 6th, 2007 at 4:45 pm“First I wanna see your “proof†of UFOs from other galaxies.
BWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Comment by Rod Serling — July 6, 2007 @ 4:45 pm”
STAWMAN!!!!
When they have NOTHING they try to deflect!!!!!
July 6th, 2007 at 4:49 pm“First I wanna see your “proof†of UFOs from other galaxies.
BWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Comment by Rod Serling — July 6, 2007 @ 4:45 pmâ€
I’ll make it extremely easy for you…….
Explain how Barbara Olson used a AIR PHONE to make a collect call when they were DEACTIVATED on 1/28/2001????? Don’t say she used her cell phone because 1) they don’t work going that fast or that high 2) Ted Olson said she called collect….. Why would she call collect from a cell phone?????
I’ll wait for your NON answer!!!
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/AA757AMM.html
July 6th, 2007 at 4:52 pmThe passenger phone system was DEACTIVATED on 1/28/2001!!!!! No calls from these systems could have been made! Cell phones would NOT work at that altitude or speed.
Can you say Judicial tyrany. I think you can. This is what we get for allowing the courts so much power.
Government is the enemy.
July 6th, 2007 at 5:28 pmComment by RemoveBush — July 6, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
You are travelling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind; a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. Your next stop the Twilight Zone…
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!!!
July 6th, 2007 at 6:15 pmCrumps Illegitimate Son…
You’re a “Great American†and mega ditto’s to you for showing us liberals a thing or two! (Your rhetoric gives you away ditto head.)
Now please stay the eff outta here. (Looks like he’s gone for now.) I’m not the only one sick of the trolls derailing every topic.
Just love how folks like CIS lump us “libtards†into an imagined group. If you’re still monitoring this thread CIS…this “liberal†is a union Steamfitter whom probably works harder in one day than you do in a month under conditions that would make most men $hit. (180’ in the air at times with danger everywhere all the time.) Be careful with your stereotypes ditto head…us liberals are everywhere.
About your welfare rant…stop it. Corporate welfare as 20 times the problem as “human†welfare. Wanna debate costs? Look, I grew up in the lower east-side of Detroit. Not easy for a “white boyâ€. Many in my old neighborhood barely get by with the help of welfare. Most are old or otherwise truly unable to work. (If a decent job can be found that is). Contrary to your twisted idea of welfare CIS…there is no pride in being on welfare- even in the ghetto. Have you ever actually known anyone on welfare?
Back on topic…?
July 6th, 2007 at 6:18 pmDon’t worry! When a Democrat is voted into the White House, they can use the “warrantless domestic spying program†to spy on the Republicans to make sure they don’t get elected ever again!
I’m sure the Republicans will support this use of their plans!
Comment by Democrat Soldier — July 6, 2007 @ 11:14 am
Bill Clinton already tried a form of that–the stolen FBI files on Republican opponents.
July 6th, 2007 at 6:23 pmBill Clinton already tried a form of that–the stolen FBI files on Republican opponents.
Comment by Craig Livingstone — July 6, 2007 @ 6:23 pm
Could you post a link to that one?
July 6th, 2007 at 6:28 pmBill Clinton already tried a form of that–the stolen FBI files on Republican opponents.
Comment by Craig Livingstone
Prove it.
July 6th, 2007 at 8:36 pmOnce the American people realize what “unalienable rights” are, and that they have them, they won’t be happy about what this court has ruled.
It may take time, but the people will figure it out…right after the criminals in power do their inevitable “overreach.” Happens to tyrants every time…
July 6th, 2007 at 9:13 pm