So let me see if I have this right.
In 2002 the acting Attorney General refuses to re-authorize this program because he beleives it may be unconstitutional.
Various other officials in the Department of Justice also write memo's highly critical of the program becuase they question it's constitutionality.
In 2004 the Media approaches the President with the information they have about the program and he requests that they not publish it.
In 2005 the Media publishes the information and Bush comes out in front of the American Public and makes argument which any 3rd Year law student could easily dismantle about how "legal" the program is, and how even if "illegal" the President doesn't have to follow the law because he is the President. (Ironically The Constitution is the document which grants the President the authority not inherent to all citizens, as pointed out by the court)
The Administartion continues to play hardball with Congress and eventually get Arlen Specter to agree to introduce a bill which will declare that all hearings and other matters concerning this program must be held in secret, including trials to determine it's constitutionality.
This bill is not well received by the Senate, but the President refuses to make any consessions.
A Federal Court rules that the program is unconstitutional (which comes as a suprise to some on the right and clearly must be the result of some bias rather than solid legal reasoning). As a result the program is ordered stopped by the courts.
The Bush Administration does not even request a stay of enforcement immediately, but instead issues a press release to the ACLU claiming that they will be requesting one (so Technically the order is law, and right now various NSA agents are violating the law).
If anything happens as a result of the administrations refusal to draft legislation which would allow the types of activities they have been engaging with under this program to continue to occur, the administrations refusal to comply with current law in obtaining warrants through FISA, or the administrations refusal to allow the public to have a voice in the steps the government is taking in the War on Terror (through their Congress), you are already putting the "Democrats" (which I suppose includes all the Republicans who also warned that this program was not in compliance with current law when they first learned of it) on notice that they are to blame.
Wow..... That's some enabling at it's finest.
RWS's comment (hope?) that "So.... if there is an immediate halt to it and let's say... down the road a bit, we are attacked and it is revealed that it was because we couldn't follow up on information because of this, won't all hell break loose? And who would pay for all that hell breaking loose? That would be the Democrats..."
Is a lot like this question from a recent quiz:
13. How did Dick Cheney say that the September 11th attacks might have been prevented?
(a) If George W. Bush’s father had taken out Saddam Hussein in 1991.
(b) If the Bush Administration had been able to eavesdrop on the hijackers’ phone conversations without court orders.
(c) If the National Security Agency hadn’t waited until September 12th to translate two messages warning of the attacks which had been intercepted on September 10th.
(d) If even one of the F.B.I. agent Harry Samit’s more than seventy warnings that Zacarias Moussaoui was a terrorist had been heeded.
(scroll down for the answer)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(b)
I don't take anything Cheney says seriously anymore.
Word - but if you can't believe him in this administration, who's left?
Another victory for the Al Qaeda--they'll be getting their own bill of rights soon, I think. Let's see how all this plays out with the voting public. Another losing issue for the liberal loony left.
So.... if there is an immediate halt to it and let's say... down the road a bit, we are attacked and it is revealed that it was because we couldn't follow up on information because of this, won't all hell break loose?
Supose we had information to follow up on.......why wouldn't they just get a warrant? Most objections to this program aren't about wiretaps, they are about wiretaps without warrants. Can you see the difference?
Thanks Hostess! Your next to last little paragraph and nikkolai's comment are just what I needed.
Most on this site have failed to see the inherent illegallity of this program since it first became public knowledge.
They refuse to discuss methods under which this program could become legal.
They refuse to acknowledge that the President does not have the authority under the Constitution or any other document to ignore the Constitution or any other law.
They instead chose to go with "the media should not have released this information", "The President cleared it with his lawyers, therefore it must be legal" or my personal favorite "those who oppose requiring the government to comply with the Constituion want the Terrorists to win".
Now they are slapped in the face with what has been apparent to the vast majority of legal scholars and even many non-experts who are traditionally behind them, and they attack the judge who make the ruling (who's background as a proponent of Civil Rights for minorities in the U.S. is somehow is being used as a negative here, and the fact that she has been on the bench for over 25 without any previous outrage over her decisions is ignored)
After they finish attacking the judge, they will move on to comments about how the decision is "wrong" in some sense. I have yet to see anyone offer an actual argument as to the legal flaws in the argument. Some have pointed out areas where the legal reasoning should have been more fully stated, but this reasoning is not heavy lifting in any sense, and there are no blatently apparent flaws with the decision, simply disagreements as to interpretations of the Fourth and First Ammendments.
The rejection of the State Secrets doctrine was simply following a ruling made by a judge appointed by Bush I. So attacks on the judge on this front are falling flat.
It's interesting to see how this is playing out, but the thing I see the most is that it's as if they didn't see it coming. Doesn't this administration plan for anything??? Is their simply an assumption made that since they believe so strongly everything will go their way without much effort or hurdles??
If this program was so necessary to National Security, why would the Government not have had a request for a stay of execution prepared in advance of the ruling?? Are we not at greater risk right now due to the Dept. of Justices negligence?? Is the Administration plan simply to not comply with an order of the court??
Another victory for the Al Qaeda--they'll be getting their own bill of rights soon, I think.
Or, in a more realistic view of the world, they will remain covered by select portions of ours, as are all political opponents in the U.S. That is what makes us free.
Okay, they have appealed, and the ACLU has consented to allow the program to remain in place pending appeal.
Once again, we have evidence that this administration is not interested in doing anything other than ensuring it's demands are complied with.
This is not a difficult fix, and the American People would appreciate the efforts of the Adminstration to either bring the program within the confines of current law, or change the law to allow for the current program, but neither has been done for the last 5 years.
The only possible reason I can see for not fixing this problem at any point in the last 2 years is that someone advised the President he could score some political points with the voting public by mistating what the opposition to this progrm is and the President was desparate enough to accept that advice.
If this program is so vital, why have no efforts been made to reach a workable comprimise on it to keep it functional instead of wasting government resources and efforts fighting what is most likely a loosing battle in court.
Kind of reminds me of the Administration approach to the Abu Griabh photos. Spend a bunch of money trying to make the problem go away, then if that doesn't work simply solve the problem just before your last appeal is ruled on.
In the Hamdan case they transferred the detainee to criminal court (out of military jurisdiction) just before the Supreme Court was gearing up to hear the case (the Supreme Court ruled unfavorably to them anyway after further delays and expense caused by the Administrations actions)
Does anyone see a pattern here.
Large Corporations engage in this type of expensive and time wasting litigation to deplete the asssets of their competitors and those with valid claims against them. The Federal Government is doing it why?
jandrew's last comment is a clear example of why the Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not make a suicide pact. AQ is protected by our Constitution? Good luck selling that one. Maybe Lamont and Dean should try that one out as new slogans.
Despite jandrew's chest thumping and overall sanctimony, this is not such a cut and dried issue, and there apppear to be many unanswered questions in re. Executive power left unanswered, which the Appeals Courts have generally sided with the Executive.
jandrew - Care to offer any evidence that people in the NSA are breaking the law right now ?
Earlier in this thread, jandrew was practically apoplectic that they had not appealled. Now, when they do appeal, it is a sign of their nefarious motives, unwillingness to compromise, and overall litigiousness.
a liberal with Democratic roots
A liberal with treasonous roots...but wait, I repeat myself ;->
JD,
"AQ is protected by our Constitution?"
If AQ is the target of an investigation, get a warrant. What is so hard about that?
JD:
As to the people in the NSA breaking the law, they have been doing it since the program was instituted.
Did you catch the Attorney Genereal of the United States:
"We've had numerous statements by leaders of the intelligence community about the effectiveness of the program in protecting America"
Well damn, robbing banks is a good way of coming up with the money to feed the poor, but it isn't legal either. This man is the best lawyer Bush could find.
Either way, the argument that this program is legal has less merit than it did earlier in the day. And if their is a solution to the programs constitutionality which does not involve a confrontation between the civil liberties of the average american citizen and the powers of the executive branch in the supreme court, wouldn't it be a better thing for America to work towards that solution rather than working to further divide the populace on this issue?
That was me. (Computer must have ate all my cookies again)
Leave it to JD to come out with the Dumb Comment of the Day: AQ is protected by our Constitution? Good luck selling that one. This is how they do it, folks, how they sell their seditious dismantling of our Constitution - they market scrap words the way they sell Budweiser beer on commercials and rely on geniuses like JD to knit them altogether into an Irrelevant Nonsense Comment designed to sound meaningful.
Uh, NO, son, the Constitution doesn't protect Al Queda. It protects YOU. Not necessarily your relatively worthless hide, but your essence as an American. Without the Constitution, we are NOTHING. The Constitution is what makes us Americans. All of our success and all of our glory has come about from following the noble principles and the genius of our Constitution.
I'll speak slowly (sometimes that helps):
- NO ONE is against wiretapping the enemy. Repeat after me. No. One.
- Strictly international calls are not subject to ANY controls and are tapped without warrant at will.
- Before tapping any domestic phone, a warrant is required by the Fourth Amendment. We have a FISA Court that grants any warrant the feds request in total secret. The gov't can get start tapping without a warrant but must apply for the warrant within 72 hours.
Do you understand? We don't need this program unless Your President is unwilling to subject his domestic wiretap targets to judicial oversight.
Last night on Hardball, Tom Ridge answered a question about this by saying he was more disturbed by the people who say "I've done nothing wrong. They can tap my phones if they want."...Because that shows we are a nation of cowards with no respect for the Bill of Rights so many Americans died for.
Tom Ridge was the guy this admin forced to create phony terror alerts during the Presidential election, timed for political profit. Just saying.
Watch for the Repub Slime Machine to kick into high gear against this black female judge.
My guess? We won't be hearing any lectures against "personalized politics" until around Thanksgiving time. The slime merchants will be kicking into high corporate-media gear.
You mean like the slime machine used against Joe? (blackface, etc.)
Ask Lanny about the democrat slime machine. It's working overtime.
LOU! - Try reading often? jandrew brought up AQ being covered by the Constitution, not I.
The rest of your post, projection, inane ramblings, self important, seld indulgent prose is pure, unadulterated caca de torro.
LOU! - Your convenient definitions of "purely international" and any "domestic phone" belie your argument, if I would be so generous as to call your daily diatribe an arguement. Your selective definitions place calls from purely international phone numbers to domestic numbers squarely in the domestic camp, something that is clearly not as cut and dried as you would portray it, and certainly there is legitimate debate about the nature of same.
Isn't it freaking ironic that the left likes to claim their nuance as a virtue, yet views matters like this in such black and white terms, to the extent that they cannot even comprehend that there could be a legitimate principled opposing viewpoint ?
I also find it sweetly ironic that LOU! finds her gender or race relevant to the discussion. Is this some kind of proactive defense of her ruling, so you can then call anyone that disagrees with her a sexist or racist ?
She could be a white woman, a black man, or a puple goat, and still be wrong.
jandrew - LOU! says the Constitution does not protect AQ. Your response?
Finally, LOU!, I am not your son, hijo, ibn, buddy, pal, amigo, sadeeq, etc ... Never have been, never will be.
Lou is still lickin his wounds from his butt kicking the other day on facts of the British bomb plot. He's a little distracted. 
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.
I wonder what kind of liberal, commie lovin' pinko, muslim extremist wrote that crap?
Some people are hopeless at debate.
That's not fair BigDog, I still have a bit of hope for you. Your comments would be clearer if you indicate who you referring to and why. Go ahead, give it a try!
Does anyone else find it *interesting* that the left wants to treat the war against the terrorists as a "police" matter instead of a military matter, and then the left wants to take away all of the tools that police would use, like wiretaps.
One would think by casual observation that the left wasn't serious about fighting maniacs who want to kill us. One would be right in that observation.
Garry K,
It's been said before but it seems that it needs saying again. No one wants to take away the tools that police use, especially wiretaps hoewever, we would like these tools used in accordance with the Constitution. Get a warrant. Very simple.
Astute observation, Garry.
Paul - How about this ... rather than quoting the 4th Amendment, try showing how it is applicable to intelligence gathering vis a vis foreign/international telephone communications.
I have no problem with addressing terrorism with law enforcement, in theory. Putting that into practice is where I run into problems with it. If law enforcement is the paradigm, then it requires a terrorist act, and more dead and injured innocents before we take action. Agter the fact reaction simply is not sufficient.
Libs like to tell us the Constitution is a living, breathing document, that you know, changes with the times. Well, how about these times? They are a changin.
Jill - What I always find ironic is that some Amendments are given more weight than others. The 1st Amendment is written in stone, and will encompass whatever they classify as speech. Howver, the 2nd Amendment is not afforded anywhere near the same protection, and they are willing, with the Courts help, to whittle away at same without hesitation.
I see a screetchyass pattern here.
RWS, your trolls want to bury you.
jandrew, cory, LOU, boogereater, leaflicker and the rest of them,
they want to regurgitate leftist talking points, no meaningful new articulation, not even the drunk legal worker,
and shut you up.
I didn't think I'd say this, I hate agreeing with that agreeable geoff,
but I think you're going to have to consider the context and make some choices.
I really think this is the same reason most of your friends (me) don't bother with your HouPo blog.
We run into idiots like JoeTX or whatever and we are so bored with that shit, scuse me stuff it's like "he's not worth me wasting a thought on, he's an f'n' moron.
That's where we're at. Or that's where I'm at.
The fans only have so many hours in a day. I'm not saying kill every asshole that posts here. Give em a few weeks.
but if they just continue to be dumb ass trolls, drop them like a used rubber you'll pardon the expression.
They aren't worth your time. They sure as hell aren't worth mine.
my two cents. You know I love you.
Dave
JD and Jill, you two never fail to entertain.
Thanks, really.
(pssss Hostess, you know I didn't need you to cut and paste. Thanks for the show
doritos - Do you even understand your own posts ?
I am still waiting on your apology for your gob-smackingly vile lies you wrote about myself and Darleen.
Dave in Texas
Don't call them trolls, their right to dissent, make fools out of themselves, post misfacts and misquote after misquote has been paid in blood
Let them talk, let Jill JD Et al to hand their hats to them after they spar, its highlighting the differences that reinforces the conservative principles.
However see your pharmacist for nausea, high blood pressure when you read their "opinions"
JD -- apology? I'm leaning toward giving you one, but as for Darleen, that's another matter. At this time, I haven't decided.
And yes, I understand what I say. Shall I give you an overview of the points I have been trying to make with the Hostess?
Actually, I could not care less about what "points" you have been trying to make. Until you offer an unqualified apology for the blatant lies you stated about me, and then repeated multiple times, I could not give a rats ass what you have to say.
It does not surprise me at all that you have demonstrated a complete lack of honor and integrity in regards to this. I certainly hope that your lack of character does not wear off on your students.
JD,
You raise an interesting point but recent events should make any explanation by me unnecessary. The recent arrest of 21 terrorist plotters last week clearly demonstrates that a law enforcement stategy works and we don't have to wait until after people are dead. Conspiracy is enough. Let me ask you, how would a military solution be employed? Airstrikes in High Wycombe?
The fourth amendment is applicable to intelligence gathering in that when gathering intelligence in America, you must get a warrant. Fairly simple. If you don't have enough information to be considered probable cause why would you want the gov't to waste time monitoring those communications?
I have to agree with DinT, RWS. You're letting trolls constantly shift the debate and go into long-winded arguments with themselves. It basically kills every comment thread worth discussing rationally.
G*d knows I don't agree with you on a number of things, but you're letting fools in that have no intention of engaging you (or us) reasonably. Frankly, it's becoming a mess in here.
How ironic that the regulars on this site, who apparently consider themselves well informed and unfailingly correct, deride the "trolls" for not having facts....Where are your facts? It seems the only argument you can make (and JD and Garry Gorrilla are particularly good at this) is to repeat a falsehood and snicker.
YES, the primary weapon in fighting terror is going to be law enforcement and police work. All we have seen lately is the SUCCESS of law enforcement techniques and the FAILURE of military means. But facts mean nothing to you all. You want to ADAPT (i.e. maim, decapitate and mangle) our Constitution but you yourselves can't even respond to physical facts in the living world. And you most definitely don't want to contemplate the ultimate genocidal implications of your vicarious military fantasies.
OK, I'm going to try this ONE more time (though apparently you need it tattooed on your eyeballs to understand): NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE AWAY THE GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO WIRETAP PHONE CONVERSATIONS. WE ONLY WANT THEM TO ABIDE BY THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND OUR CONSTITUTION.
And just chew on this, openminded unbiased ones: In the Brit plot, all the NSA intercepts that were used were OBTAINED BY FISA WARRANT.
The investigation was so large, officials said, that it brought a significant surge in warrants for searches and surveillance from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret panel that oversees most clandestine surveillance.
One official estimated that scores of secret U.S. warrants were dedicated solely to the London plot
There's NO reason not to follow the law. If the admin feels the law is insufficient they have a lapdog rubberstamp Congress. They can get any changes they want. They CHOSE instead to break the law. This is who you are defending and calling yourselves patriots in the process.
Personally, I think you're all just ashamed of yourselves. And rightly so.
Lou is still lickin his wounds from his butt kicking the other day on facts of the British bomb plot.
Jill, are you crazy? I mean that literally, not rhetorically. I'm guessing you're referring to something I didn't read (I never go back past a day or two for comments)...but then again you're probably just assuming that some dumbass comment that didn't get a response was the same thing as a debate victory.
I gave you a new FACT today, Jillie. ALL NSA intercepts in the Brit plot were done via FISA warrant. The law is there and can be followed - is followed - unless the admin is trying to hide something (like, oh, spying on political enemies - who would know?).
There's no NEED for warrantless domestic wiretaps. That is the crux of the argument. Can ANYONE refute that? (And yeah, that was a rhetorical question. Been around here long enough to know that no one can. But don't worry. Neither can your Dear Leader.)
I'd love to hear someone respond to Tom Ridge's quote. Cause when he talked about surrendering our Constitution in the face of terrorism...he was talking about you all. The "I done nothing wrong. They can tap my phones. I'm a good 'Murrcan" crowd.
LOU! - I did not agree with you until you utilized bold font and CAPITALIZED everything. How wrong could I have been ?
Interesting how you keep referring to these as purely domestic, when at least one party was using a foreign number from outside our borders.
Shorter Dave in Texas, Blake: "Mommy! Make them STOP!
JD, I know you're not by son, but if you were, I'd send you to Reading Remediation. Can you even make it through a paragraph that contains compound sentences?
Keep referring? Strictly domestic? Since I never used the phrase "strictly domestic" once I'm not sure how I can "keep" referring to it. I understand we are talking about international/domestic calls here (although your admin has also stated its right to warrantlessly wiretap completely domestic conversations). The point is so simple - If they have probable cause, get a warrant. It is automatically granted. If there's no time, tap the phone and then get a warrant. The law was made to be workable. If it isn't working the admin has the responsibility to propose amendments to it.
What you are defending is a president who WANTS to flaunt the rule of law. He has done it all his life. He was drafted to head this government by the neocons because of his willingness to break the law. And they are quite bald, quite open in their contempt for our rule of law.
These are the kind of people you've chosen to make your bed with. I realize it can't give you much of a night's sleep. But try and READ before you respond anyway.
Anyone on the Tom Ridge quote?
Anyone?
RWS: If a huge terrorist attack takes place in the US because of this ruling, the left will pay, and MORE than just at the ballot box. Especially if our kids are victimized.
LÖU! - Let's see if we can make this a little easier for you. AQ operative, Salim, calls LÒU! from somewhere in Iraq, to discuss his feelings on the War on Terror. Is this a domestic or foreign communication? Does not the Executive has the inherent power to conduct foreign intelligence gathering, as has been held by the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, and 8th District Courts ?
JD:
If law enforcement is the paradigm, then it requires a terrorist act, and more dead and injured innocents before we take action.
Where do you get this stuff??? Do you think that terrorists who are plotting to harm the United States, such as those who purchased 1,000 Cell Phones (oh, wait), such as those 12 guys who lived in a warehouse in Miami that were hitting up a government agent for money to start an "all out war" on the United States Government (including blowing up the Sears tower..... one of the guys had worked in Chicago once) left any dead or injured????
In the most recent British arrests, the Brits did not want to move on the suspects. They wanted to continue to use their warrants to gather more information about the group which could have lead to more arrests and better information.
Apparently you don't think the American Law Enforcement is as capable as those in Britian? Or you simply don't understand what it is they do in law enforcement? Either way, this is a low point for you.
You really have no concept of what an effective terror campaign would even look like.
jandrew - Now you are portraying the arrests in Miami as a success? Previously, you and your fellow travellers found this to be a stunt to gin up fear. Despite you complete and utter inability to even attempt to understand a perspective differing from your own, I am not advocating a scenario where intelligence does not play a central role. I am just pointing out that as a whole, it has its limitations. But, nuance is lost on you.
RWS: If a huge terrorist attack takes place in the US because of this ruling, the left will pay, and MORE than just at the ballot box. Especially if our kids are victimized.
nikkolai | 08.18.06 - 8:58 am | #
Seriously nikkolai, threatening your fellow countrymen for defending your constitutional rights is a new low, even for you.
Think deeply about when it was you realized you hated your fellow countrymen who did not agree with you politically so much.
Was it in the mid-to late eighties, or did you not catch on with the first wave. In the mid-nineties the AM talk radio explosion offered more reasons to hate your countrymen, but reasonable politicians were still pushing for a unified populace.
You should really examine the reasons you believe that your fellow countrymen are a threat to you, and examine the facts which lead you to those reasons with a little more scrutiny before you act on them.
There were no attacks on U.S. soil by Terrorists (other than Timothy McViegh and the Unibomber) from 1992 to when George W. Bush took office.
Under George W. Bush, we have had anthrax mailings, a sniper in the D.C. area, 9/11, the suicide bomber at the football game in Oaklahoma, the kid in Miami who flew a plane into a building, the shoe bomber (who couldn't ignite his shoes), the kids at Columbine and various other acts of terrorism. Our solution was to ramp up the military and whip the populace into a frenzy about the threat posed by the extremist groups in the Middle East.
What have we solved. Are we safer?
You are now threatening your fellow countrymen for defending your freedom, I would say that we are going in the wrong direction.
Dorita, Lou, Jandrew
Any facts posted yet, have you anything beside fring freshmen at Berkley talking points to spew?
jd:
LÖU! - Let's see if we can make this a little easier for you. AQ operative, Salim, calls LÒU! from somewhere in Iraq, to discuss his feelings on the War on Terror. Is this a domestic or foreign communication? Does not the Executive has the inherent power to conduct foreign intelligence gathering, as has been held by the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, and 8th District Courts ?
JD | 08.18.06 - 9:25 am
This makes me sad, as I believed at one time you were more informed than this. Or perhaps you are just throwing up the "Chewbaca Defense" on this one.
As we have discussed before, and as you seemed to have comprehended at that time, FISA does not use the words domestic or international. FISA prohibits warrantless wiretapping on calls which have a probability of involving a "United States Person" which is defined as anyone legally present in the United States.
Now for you to stoop to this pitiful level of simply creating confusion on a non-issue shows that you are as desparate as the administration to arrive at a legal justification for this type of program. As you have seen, you and Eastman are pretty much on your own on this one.
I am defending the government's right (nee obligation) to keep us alive. Prove there has been a violation of the constitution. And I don't mean by some stalinist judge in Dearbornistan.
And by the way, I never mentioned any violence.
Dorita, Lou, Jandrew
Any facts posted yet, have you anything beside fring freshmen at Berkley talking points to spew?
EricPWJohnson | 08.18.06 - 10:50 am | #
You sir, are beyond help.
In 2002 the acting Attorney General refuses to re-authorize this program because he beleives it may be unconstitutional.
Various other officials in the Department of Justice also write memo's highly critical of the program becuase they question it's constitutionality.
In 2004 the Media approaches the President with the information they have about the program and he requests that they not publish it.
In 2005 the Media publishes the information and Bush comes out in front of the American Public and makes argument which any 3rd Year law student could easily dismantle about how "legal" the program is, and how even if "illegal" the President doesn't have to follow the law because he is the President. (Ironically The Constitution is the document which grants the President the authority not inherent to all citizens, as pointed out by the court)
The Administartion continues to play hardball with Congress and eventually get Arlen Specter to agree to introduce a bill which will declare that all hearings and other matters concerning this program must be held in secret, including trials to determine it's constitutionality.
This bill is not well received by the Senate, but the President refuses to make any consessions.
A Federal Court rules that the program is unconstitutional (which comes as a suprise to some on the right and clearly must be the result of some bias rather than solid legal reasoning). As a result the program is ordered stopped by the courts.
The Bush Administration does not even request a stay of enforcement immediately, but instead issues a press release to the ACLU claiming that they will be requesting one (so Technically the order is law, and right now various NSA agents are violating the law).
those are facts from me. If you would care to dispute any of them feel free.
The investigation was so large, officials said, that it brought a significant surge in warrants for searches and surveillance from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret panel that oversees most clandestine surveillance.
One official estimated that scores of secret U.S. warrants were dedicated solely to the London plot
Facts from LOU!
NO ONE is against wiretapping the enemy. Repeat after me. No. One.
- Strictly international calls are not subject to ANY controls and are tapped without warrant at will.
- Before tapping any domestic phone, a warrant is required by the Fourth Amendment. We have a FISA Court that grants any warrant the feds request in total secret. The gov't can get start tapping without a warrant but must apply for the warrant within 72 hours.
more facts from LOU
Perhaps you don't understand what that word means.
looks like some of you feel that there is a coup de reason. I read through all of the posts and I think it's very funny that some of you want those on the left booted from the blog.
It would only reinforce my point of view.
By the way...I totally didn't see the "activist judge" arguement coming.
soooo predictable.
Jandrew: "There were no attacks on U.S. soil by Terrorists (other than Timothy McViegh and the Unibomber) from 1992 to when George W. Bush took office."
Good G*D, he really is that stupid.
Jandrew: If you chose, you are free to die from terrorist attack. You are NOT free to have me die with you. Jes sayin'....
I guess that means we'll never hear nikkolai say "Give me liberty or give me death"
Nikkolai:
I'm not sure where you got the idea that the government has an obligation to keep us alive, but apparently you are not one of those "strict constructionists" that many on the right are. I think Terri Shavio's husband and many people in Oregon would disagree with you on that one though.
Seriously, I'm glad that you at least acknowledge that some in this country have freedoms which you are willing to give up due to your fear of terrorists. Should those of us not quite as willing to give up these freedoms be forced to becuase of your fears? That is the question where the courts step in.
So far we have had Hamdan, Hamdi, and the most recent ruling which seem to side with those of us willing to die to protect the freedoms which allowed this country to become what it is.
There are plenty of places in the world where freedom is not as cherished as it is here in America, perhaps you should look into living in one of these places should you feel unsafe becuase there are those in America who defend not only their own, but your rights against intrusions into them by our government.
You could also learn to defend yourself, and if you find that to be unworkable, maybe ask some others in your community for help.....
Or create some obligation that you feel the Government owes you, and threaten those who do not agree with you politically. (You don't have to mention violence in order to threaten.)
Either way, good luck, just don't destroy my America on whatever road you are looking to take.
I would think "National defense" is one of the most important functions of government. Allowing a radical, unelected federal judge in Detroit (?) to undermine the CiC in the time of war is not really very smart. But that's just me. I think we'll be seeing the voting public weighing in on this. And you know--that's one of the pesky things of this republic--they just keep voting against the "progressives".
If the Commander is Chief is so incompetent that he can't figure out how to (1) work with the tools he is given, (2) work with Congress to get the tools he needs, or (3) do anything that isn't super secret in our "war efffort" then perhaps the Courts do need to step in.
The policy of listening in on phone calls in which terrorists may be a party is not something anyone in this country objects to. Doing it illegally and misleading the American people as to the illegal programs effectiveness is quite another.
You can blame the courts and the Democrats if you want, but this is country is not a dictatorship and George W. Bush is only the President, not the "Decider" (despite what he may tell you.)
I'm more interested in protecting America than I am in protecting you and others who would trade their freedom for a false sense of safety.
I would much rather have a government who understood it's role in my life than a government who took illegal measures in my name to protect me.
And how about this for "threats": Get all reasonable people as possible to the polls in November; boycott all sponsors/advertisers of seditious publications i.e. NYT's; alert the public to the identity of the "progressive" organizations behind many of the recent public demonstrations (International Answer, Code Pink, et al).
How is that for starters? An educated public spells certain doom for the "progressives" ( a misnomer, if I eve heard one.)
And I take from your comment that this Federal Judge should not have been "allowed" to "undercut the CiC". What system of government do you propose we live under?
Seems tha Lincoln had a different way of dealing with those that sought to undermine our war effort. So did FDR, if memory serves me.
But this decision seems sure to be overturned. Congress does need to clarify the whole process. Why they have not does so by now, I don't know.
Poor leadership?
At least you are willing to get on board with G.W. and admit the program does not comply with current law.
But also...and we, and I looked and I said look, is it possible to conduct this program under the old law and people said it doesn't work in order to be able to do the job we expect us to do. And so that's why I made the decision I made.
- G.W. Bush, President of the United States of America, Lawbreaker.
Geez, with all of the leftie trolls posting comments here, maybe RWS should rename her blog "Snakes on a Comments Page"!
And seriously nikkolai, when do you think terrorism began??? 2001????
The fact that you can sit their and compare one terror attack on the U.S. with the Civil War and WWII says quite a bit about how much of this crap you are willing to swallow.
Terrorism has been around far longer than Al Qeada. We have far more enemies willing to use terror against us than Iraq insurgents. Will we simply continue to rely on other governments to break up terror plots, or are you willing to start using some of the budget deficit to fund a real National Security Program that isn't focussed on future oil supplies and troop placements in the Middle East.
Your cowardice has been expressed, now it is time for action. What have you done to make your country safer from terrorism?
How again is this program different from carivore or the other big one Clinton used? Many of us suspect it has more to do with BDS than any law. And that's what we find disturbing.
The fact that you have bought hook line and sinker that Democrats are incapable of keeping America safe speaks volume of your capabilities for critical reasoning.
When was the last time you felt safe from the terrorists for an entire year? Who was in office then?
This program is being used on phones where in which one of the parties is a "United States Person" as defined by the laws. The current law does not allow for that. Bush knew it. You are slowly coming to realize it.
Why Congress has failed to act???
Poor Leadership.
Why the President was unable to use his bully pulpit to force Congress to act???
Poor Leadership.
Why Clinton gets brought up every time you feel like you have nowhere else to turn???
........
Perhaps you are attempting to bring up the fact that during the Clinton Administration the Federal Government engaged in physical searches without a warrant in the interest of National Security in the Aldrich Ames case. (Although it's hard to tell from your question).
That case had nothing to do with wiretapping international phone calls where one party was a United States Person. The current program does, and so does the current law.
Perhaps you were attempting to make references to Echelon, the Global satelite network that intercepts most international communications.
No one is complaining about that one in this case. The legallity of that program was challenged, but FISA does not apply to it.
Hell, Bush didn't even need to involve Congress. If he had better relations with our allies such as Britain, Austrailia, and Japan, their intelligence services could have tracked these calls for us, and simply tipped us off legally.
But no, Bush simply elected to directly and knowingly violate the law. Consequences???? Hell, he should be given more support, it's not like he lied about a blow job.
The... this country of ours is at war and we must give those who are... whose responsibility it is to protect the United States, the tools necessary to protect this country in a time of war
This is exactly the kind of patronizing Bul!$#it I don't want to hear coming out of the Federal Governmnet.
Why am I not one of those "whose responsibility it is to protect the United States"????
The Government has a hell of a lot of tools at it's disposal, why doesn't it make any of them available to us to help them with this fight.
Jandrew, Was there an attack on the WTC in 1993?
Clearly jandrew misspoke. The first WTC bombing occurred in 1993. All of the promulgators of that attack are now either dead or in American prisons, having been successfully apprehended and convicted by the Clinton administration. We then went over 8 years without a terrorist attack on our soil, which by RWS' logic meant we were "safe" that whole time.
Nikkolai has done us three favors on this thread.
One: By equating this admin with Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and FDR's incarceration of Japanese Americans, he has demonstrated the winger habit of justifying their actions by comparing themselves to the lowest points in our history. They seem to find victory in shared disgrace. It's odd.
Two: He has demonstrated that ultra reliable Winger Ignorance of History. BOTH those actions were later deemed unConstitutional and are universally regarded as shameful moments in our history. Neither has ever been repeated and - until this despicable administration - it would have been conventional wisdom that no American would ever want to remember them as anything other than shameful.
Three: He has demonstrated what has become the MOST undeniable aspect of Wingerism - utter bedwetting cowardice. You people would sell your birthright for a bag of beans. Give me liberty or give me death? Not to a winger. For them, it's Give me MOMMY!
Heads up, friends. We can be both safe AND free. We can retain our American ideals and still protect our children. We don't have to burn the village to save it. Your admin doesn't care about Homeland Security, about spending the money to secure our ports and borders. We know that. But that isn't the same thing as it being impossible.
Just like we know they aren't really breaking the law to keep us safe. That's been demonstrated to you in this thread. You've chosen to ignore it. Is that how bedwetting cowards deal with reality - by fingers in their ears and nyah nyah nyah? Wake up, sheeple. We really DO need to secure our nation and your profiteering liars aren't going to do it for you. They're quite happy to leave you covered in piss and sucking your thumbs under your beds. It's really up to you. Are you mice or men? Sound like mice to me. Little baby mice.
Jandrew: "There were no attacks on U.S. soil by Terrorists (other than Timothy McViegh and the Unibomber) from 1992 to when George W. Bush took office."
Good G*D, he really is that stupid.
1993 WTC anyone? Oh, it was just an attempt to prevent anyone from parking.
RH, advice offered to RWS about letting morons crap all over her blog, because all they really want is to 1) embarrass her and 2) discourage her, shut her down.
You apes stifle dissent by making it boring. You had an original thought in 1994 and you've been cutting singles out of it ever since. But it was only 50 minutes of music moron.
Her blog, her call. I have better things to do.
Hey lou, don't you just hate living, when you know that us "wingers" could kick your ass! But at least we'd only give you an ass-whuppin'. Your would-be pals in Hezbollah would like to cut your head off, although I'm sure if they did do that the lack of quality in your posts would improve.
Garry Gorrilla, if your fantasy that wingers can "kick ass" makes it easier to accept your bedwetting cowardice, I'm not going to take that away from you.
Let's take a commentor poll here. What is the most ridiculous moonbat meme ? A) Bedwetters. B) Fake, but accurate. C) Banging the war drums. D) War for oil.
All of the above. That was easy. And don't forget not knowing there was a terrorist attack on the WTC before 2001.
And yeah, LOU!, it's so much better to apprehend them afterwards than beforehand. What? You think the goal of the first attack was simply to bomb a parking garage and not bring down the buildings?
The wacky left: You can't live with them and you can't live without them. Or can you?
Such bile, such hatred. Sheesh....
Oh, and Lou--Last time I was in DC, saw a huge monument there. I believe they told it was Lincoln's. YOU MIGHT WANT TO CHECK IT OUT. It is part of the fabric of this land.
Oh, and Lou--I was referring to FDR's secret war tribunals, not the shameful treatment of Japanese-Americans. Only a true dem could have done that.
Shorter Dave in Texas: "It's getting harder by the day to maintain my core delusions. Please don't make it even more difficult.
And though I try to project the air of your classic blowhard bully, in reality I'm feeble-minded and very insecure, with a tiny wiener. Please don't hurt me.
I want my mommy."
If you were a man I'd say, "If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. If you think that you can, by all means - bring it on."
Oh, now, it's the little penis putdown! How very mature and clever of you. Let me guess, you have small hands. (Not that's there anything wrong with that.)
And yeah, LOU!, it's so much better to apprehend them afterwards than beforehand.
You're right. The Bush admin doesn't beleive in apprehending perpetrators either before OR after they attack. First they ignore all warnings of an attack that seemed all but inevitable, THEN they invaded an entirely unrelated nation, unleashed a bloody civil war with 130,000 of our troops held hostage in the middle of it...and just let that nice mr. Bin Laden go back to his video making business.
What fools you are. I'm ashamed really that you cowardly enablers have the right to call yourselves Americans.
Again, with the coward mantra, eh, Lou? Very mature. Surely you must know that your hyperventilating rants and raves are winning no arguments here. You are becoming a poster child for the wild-eyed, unhinged, lunatic left. Have you tried tbogg? du? They have many posters there who'll agree with you.
nikki, just because you lemmings find it so convenient to borrow the label "wild eyed, unhinged, lunatic" from your RNC talking point distributors, doesn't change what's true: You who post here, like all winger blog hermits, are never confronted with factual evidence or alternate perspectives on the great issues of our time. You don't really care about much of anything except that which strokes your fevered heads and promises you that you're always right and you're the only patriots in the country. When you're confronted with facts that confuse your rigid thinking, you just throw labels like monkeys throwing feces. It really doesn't matter to you if our country is safe or what is happening to our national character or our Constitution or our children's futures. You only want to be the monkey with the biggest pile of feces to throw.
Let's take a commentor poll here. What is the most ridiculous moonbat meme ? ........... D) War for oil.
JD | 08.19.06 - 8:33 am | #
Hmm......
This speech from almost a year ago seems to imply we needed to protect the oil fields and the revenue derived from them from falling into the hands of the terrorists.
And it seems to have been repeated last Thursday and today:
"A failed Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will provide safe haven for terrorists and extremists. It will embolden those who are trying to thwart the ambitions of reformers. In this case, it would give the terrorists and extremists an additional tool besides safe haven, and that is revenues from oil sales."
Perhaps you can translate how this has nothing to do with oil revenues falling into unfreindly hands (or is that a completely different topic).
Was the plan honestly to create a brand new governmnet and then attrack terrorist to fight us there so we wouldn't have to fight them herre?? I give Bush more credit than that.
Or perhaps JD is classifying Bush as a "moonbat" now?
A free flowing supply of oil is in our national interest. In other words, we prefer to BUY the oil at market prices to keep our economy moving. When a nutjob comes along that threatens to take over that supply of oil (Saddam in 1991, Iran's mullahs now), this threatens our national interests.
no, no, no.... it's not about the oil... it's about creating a void of power in a country which houses three rival factions and allowing them to set up a Democracy while attracking terrorists to their country so that we don't have to fight them here, then whining about how ungrateful they are....
That's our current foriegn policy.
Commenting by HaloScan
