It’s no longer just some pundits and politicians saying the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit struck down the National Security Agency program Thursday, ruling that it’s a violation of free speech and privacy rights. The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers. Few will argue with the need to keep tabs on terror suspects’ phone and Internet communications, especially after the foiled airliner bomb plot. But such surveillance must be lawful.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
184 Comments
I see we did get a thread on this!
But it goes farther than you mentioned here Rhonda. It was a REBUKE of the policies of the bush administration.
Glenn Greenwald:
“I do not yet know anything more than what is in this AP article, but if it is accurate, it is extraordinary news — extraoardinarily good news — on every level…snip
…and really quite extraordinarily, the court (a) declared the NSA program to be in violation of FISA, the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment and (b) issued a permanent injunction enjoining the Bush administration from continuing to eavesdrop in violation of FISA….”
Money Quote from Court Ruling that Bush’s NSA Wiretaps Violate the First and Fourth Amendments:
“”There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution”
From the decision of District Judge Hon. Anna Diggs Taylor:
“The Presidential Oath of Office is set forth in the Constitution and requires him to swear or affirm that he “will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
The Government appears to argue here that, pursuant to the penumbra of Constitutional language in Article II, and particularly because the President is designated Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, he has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, itself.
We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all “inherent powers” must derive from that Constitution.
We have seen in Hamdi that the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution is fully applicable to the Executive branch’s actions and therefore it can only follow that the First and Fourth Amendments must be applicable as well.”
I wonder how long it will take for the preznit’s team to run directly to the supremes?
DETROIT August 17, 2006, 1:09 p.m. ET · A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government’s warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it….”Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution,” Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5663676
A woman judge! No wonder her ruling is making so much sense.
Righties arise! Show your spittle laced outrage at this this…outrage! Get a rope for that judge!
Those darned activist judges just keep on making common sense. Dear me, what are we going to do with them?
Diggs is a carter appointee.
big suprise she isn’t strong on national security.
I’m shocked. ugh.
Get you orgasms over quickly, the ruling won’t stand. Anna Taylor Diggs is a nitwit and her ruling shows she has absolutely no understanding of the NSA program she has ruled against.
Hank
Gosh, is that more right wing civility? Is that an example of attacking the substance, not the messenger?
heheheheh
It must be tough to be hank these days….
KFG, good write up…
I think it was Nathan who attacked my pointing out that the wiretapping is illegal and against the guess, what, 1st and 4th amendments.
Its about time this administration realizes ITS NOT ABOVE THE LAW.!
When Hank says ‘orgasms,’ I become noticeably queasy. I can only imagine how Nathan must feel.
As for the ruling, great to see this Administration have its constitutional ass handed to it. And Hank Price, as usual, presumes to judge when he demonstrably doesn’t know shit.
Well, Hank, you might be partially right (i.e. about archconservative judges overruling her, at least). Funny thing, though, how she said pretty much the same thing I and others have been saying for 8 months, ain’t it?
BTW, I will try to look you up the next time I’m in Doodah. Thanks for the invite!
P.S. Wish I woulda taken ya up on the bet now. Damn!
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/02/bush_quiet_on_k.html#comment-13733657
Dear ksfarmgrrl,
I’m heading up to Osbourne on the 28th of August, from there up into Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and then Oregon. We’ll be heading back by your resturant on Friday the 15th of Sept.
So far, the toughest thing in my life is being that close to your vittles twice and being there at the wrong time!
I had entered a four day trial in Spokane but I was too late. Ended up being an alternate. Missing that trial would have been the toughest thing in my life currently, but we’re going to Glacier National park instead.
Anna Diggs Taylor is a nitwit. The reason the ACLU was in Michigan instead of DC or Virginia trying this case is because they needed a nitwit to get the ruling they wanted. The ruling will be struck down.
Hank
We’ll leave the light on for ya hank :)
STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY
Last week America and the world received a stark reminder that terrorists are still plotting to attack our country and kill innocent people. Today a federal judge in Michigan has ruled that the Terrorist Surveillance Program ordered by the President to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the American people is unconstitutional and otherwise illegal. We couldn’t disagree more with this ruling, and the Justice Department will seek an immediate stay of the opinion and appeal. Until the Court has the opportunity to rule on a stay of the Court’s ruling in a hearing now set for September 7, 2006, the parties have agreed that enforcement of the ruling will be stayed.
United States intelligence officials have confirmed that the program has helped stop terrorist attacks and saved American lives. The program is carefully administered, and only targets international phone calls coming into or out of the United States where one of the parties on the call is a suspected Al Qaeda or affiliated terrorist. The whole point is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks before they can be carried out. That’s what the American people expect from their government, and it is the President’s most solemn duty to ensure their protection.
The Terrorist Surveillance Program is firmly grounded in law and regularly reviewed to make sure steps are taken to protect civil liberties. The Terrorist Surveillance Program has proven to be one of our most critical and effective tools in the war against terrorism, and we look forward to demonstrating on appeal the validity of this vital program.
I suspect we will be waiting right here when the results of that appeal are issued.
The layman’s constitutional view is that what he likes is constitutional and that which he doesn’t like is unconstitutional. — Hugo Black, U.S. Supreme Court justice, 1971
My dear Mr. Price:
You know how you like to ridicule people who post over anonymous nicknames?
(I mean of course the non-conservative posters who use nicknames.)
Well, my friend, you just told every potential theif in south-central Kansas when your house is going to be vacant.
Smooth move, exlax.
How long before we start hearing about activist judges again. It’s the battle cry of the right when they lose in court.
The beginning of the Judge Anna Diggs Taylor biography -
“Biography:”An attorney and judge, Anna Diggs Taylor was the first African-American woman appointed to a federal judgeship in Michigan and later became the first African-American woman to be named chief federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan. Taylor has used her positions to advance civil rights throughout the United States.
“Born Anna Katherine Johnston in 1932 in Washington, D.C., Taylor grew up in a household in which politics and civil rights were highly valued. Her parents sent her to private school in Massachusetts because they felt she needed a greater challenge than the local schools provided. She graduated in 1950 from Northfield School for Girls in Massachusetts and then enrolled at Barnard College where she earned a B.A. in Economics. She entered Yale University Law School and earned her law degree in 1957. After graduation she could not find a job in a private law firm due to the prejudices against African Americans and women. She found work as a solicitor for the Department of Labor, working under J. Ernest Wilkins, the first African American to hold a sub-cabinet post in the United States government. In 1960 Taylor married United States Representative Charles Diggs, Jr., and she moved to Detroit.”
Is “nitwit” conservative code for another label? I am honestly wondering since I don’t run in those crowds.
Rest of her biography here:http://www.daahp.wayne.edu/biographiesDisplay.asp?id=64
Bush owns the S.C. too bad.
Dearest Mr. Paine,
I live in a modest little neighborhood in the country. We have a neighborhood watch. My house is alarmed and monitored by cctv. By the time I leave the neighborhood will probably be monitored by cctv. (Only one way to get in and out of the neighborhood) I have good upstanding republican neighbors on each side of my house and they are armed and going to watch my house for me.
Now I know that liberals like to characterize right-wing fundes like me as being frightened and a little paranoid but nothing could be further from the truth. Well I am a little concerned for the safety of anyone that would break into my house, with me either home or on vacation.
So you are welcome to visit while I’m gone but for your safe being, please check in with the neighbors and tell them I said it was OK.
Hank
RhondaYou do not understand the law.The fact is, 5 Circuit Courts have already ruled that there IS a national security exception to obtaining a warrant prior to wiretapping.This Judge will be overturned.She is in the minority in her legal thinking.You dont need a warrant to fight a war.
No war has been declared.
Further, this ruling even if overturned, serves as groundwork.
When Democrats retake the house and Senate this fall, bush will be impeached, removed from office and hopefully imprisoned.
I would like to see the same episode, J.R., but we can only hope for so much…
Anna Diggs Taylor is a very corrupt judge, she doesn’t care about the law, she cares about her political causes. Take a look at the Wall Street Journal or Rush Limbaugh web page. (Is it TRUE liberals?? Just because I bring up publications and people you don’t like, that does NOT mean that what they say is not true!)”The Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, June 18th, 2002, a column by Thomas J. Bray entitled: “Disorder in the Court — Judicial shenanigans mar an affirmative-action case. Will Congress investigate?
“Rumors in Washington has it that the House Judiciary Committee may hold hearings into the events surrounding the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ 5-4 decision upholding the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action program. In a rare break with judicial comity, two judges in the court publicly questioned the procedures that Chief Judge Boyce Martin, a Carter appointee, had set out in the case… Chief Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the federal District Court in Detroit tried to take the suit against the law school away from Judge Bernard Freedman, who had been assigned it through a blind draw,” which is the standard way these things happen. Case goes to a court, whoever is up next on the docket gets the case.This babe, Chief Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, Carter appointee, tried to take this case away from the judge, Bernard Freedman, “who had been assigned it through a blind draw and who was suspected of being skeptical about affirmative action.” The judge who was assigned the case was suspected of being skeptical about affirmative action. He was suspected! So this Stalinist judge, Anna Diggs Taylor, said, “Well, we can’t have somebody that’s biased that way. We need somebody like me, biased my way, toward affirmative action. That’s what’s fair in my courtroom.” At any rate, she wanted to “consolidate it with a similar suit against the university’s undergraduate admissions practice, which Judge Patrick Duggan was hearing. The chief judge dropped that effort was dropped after the judge hearing the law school complaint went public with a blistering opinion objecting to what he termed ‘the highly irregular’ effort of the chief judge,” which would be Anna Diggs Taylor. “—–
The need to keep tabs on “terror” suspects goes away when we make peace with the Arabs.
Why is it that you never suggest making peace?
Where in the LAW does it say that Federal Courts have jurisdiction over matters of war and defense?The President of the United States does take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.The President does NOT take an Oath to uphold the rulings of nutty Federal judges.This particular judge is a liberal activist and her ruling will not stand.The President of the United States is the Executive Officer of the United States and the Commander in Chief of the United States.George W. Bush’s opinion of what is legal and what is Constitutional carries as much weight as the opinion of ANY single judge! (5 US Circuit Courts have already granted a national security exception to wiretapping warrants.)If the President does NOT have the authority to interpret the Constitution on his own, why does the President take an oath to the Constitution?Why don’t we just have the President kiss the rings of all the Supreme Court justices instead?No simple act of Congress can restrict the Constitutional power of any President.Neither can any Judge!The 6th Circuit will overturn this Judge, there is already a STAY, lol.(Be careful what you say on the phones liberals, we are listening, lol)The President is co-equal, meaning the President has a co-equal say, frequently, it what is legal.In matters of National Security, the Supreme Court usually bows to Constitional war powers.(By the way, Hamden was NOT based primarily on Constituional grounds, that decision said Bush needed legislative approval, which Bush will be given, just watch!)
You sound more “shrilly” than shilly today Pauly! I can almost smell your fear.
It’s gonna get ugly for your boy Paul. Just close your eyes and think of Christmas!
“So this Stalinist judge, Anna Diggs Taylor…”
I don’t think the judge would take kindly to your labeling, Paul. A little more of that, and you could be accused of slander.
Or would that be libel, since it’s in writing?
RDI think this IS a Stalinist judge, but I was clearly quoting another person in that particular post.By the way, public figures must prove “actual malice” to win liable or slander cases.As long as I think Diggs is Stalinist I can SAY she is Stalinist.That is the LAW, try to study it before you post!
Hank,”Anna Taylor Diggs is a nitwit and her ruling shows she has absolutely no understanding of the NSA program she has ruled against.”
Is Judge Vaughn Walker (a GHW Bush appointee) also a “nitwit”?Do you understand FISA’s 72 hours emergency surveillance rule? How does FISA hinder the war on terrorism?—–
Some analysis by a constitutional scholar, links to court docs, and personal attacks on judge.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/federal-court-finds-warrantless.html(Hat tip to Truthdig.com)
‘Legal surveillance, not illegal eavesdropping, stopped the U.K. terrorist attacks’http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/legal-surveillance-not-illegal.html
Lieberman is already 12 points ahead of Lamont, but I think Lieberman should introduce the following bill in the Senate:
“Be it resolved that the U.S. Senate recognizes that the President of the United States is Commander in Chief of the United States, and be it further resolved that spying is part of any war. Therefore, The Senate recognizes the Constitutional authority of the President to conduct the current NSA surveillance program.As long as the Chairman and ranking minotiry members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees are briefed on future developments, as we have been in the past, The Senate finds that the NSA wiretapping program is completely legal and Constitutional.Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, no court shall have Jurisdiction over this matter.”
Lieberman would WIN in a LANDSLIDE!
Cosmos,Congress CANT force the President to give up ANY Constitutional powers. The Presidents power before FISA is still the President’s power AFTER FISA passed.
Okay, nice spin, Hank.
It would have been a lot easier to just acknowledge that there’re a lot of good reasons to conceal one’s identity on a wholly public forum with no safeguards on the information.
But since your middle name seems to be “obtuse,” that’s probably too much to hope for.
“Therefore, The Senate recognizes the Constitutional authority of the President to conduct the current NSA surveillance program.”
The one small problem with voting on this would be that only a select few congressmen know what is being done in the NSA program. It is SECRET, Paul.
But of course, Paul would have the congress give Bush extra-constitutional powers when they don’t even know what they are.
Shaking my head…
The difference between Hank and Paul:
Hank is merely wrong.
Paul makes shit up.
Name a single Circuit Court decision that supports what you’re saying, Pauly. Include a link to at least a news article, if not the actual case.
In a case of LIBEL (not liable–which means “likely”), I guess it would be up to the judge if she felt it was worth pursuing the matter.
Paul F. Rosell,
You do not seem to understand our Constitution… or REALITY. Excuse me for not wasting time on you.
“The 6th Circuit will overturn this Judge, there is already a STAY, lol.(Be careful what you say on the phones liberals, we are listening, lol)”
This moron is sick. He brings 1984 to the table and laughs about it. I guess a moronic sicko has to have something to do to keep himself occupied, other than drooling on his lap. Maybe if congress gets some huevos and impeaches this bad exsuce for a president, Paul and Bush can ride their trikes together on a ranch in Texas. Don’t forget your helmet and training wheels.
Oh Well!
If perhaps those of you on the left could from one single argument which doesn’t include slandering Bush with names you might be able to convince us that your opinions are actually based in reason and not irrational hate.
We’re in a big political mess aren’t we?
This has nothing to do with privacy rights but more about checking the President’s Power.
If the Democrats get hold of the house in 06, we will be in a political disaster where nothing will get done, because all the Democrats will do is try to impeach Bush for the next two years.
My Gawd! This sucks! I don’t care if you hate Bush, but give it a rest for once.
Nathan,Since this whole administration is based on irrational thinking, it seems to be the only thing the right can understand, so we on the left will accomodate and give you what you can understand. We will save rational thought for when we are discussing the left.
Joe-All evil, or in this case , incomptetance, needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing. Sound familiar? The Law needs to be followed, not bent, spindle, or otherwise mutilated!
So Joe, where you complaining about conservatives back in the 90s who wasted millions of dollars and precious time when it came to Clinton getting impeached?
Yes Joe blame the Dems. for all that has gone wrong, and let Bush recieve a get of out jail free card!!!!
Yes GaryC! What the Republicans did was a complete waste of money, time, and it was a huge political mess. They aren’t immuned or have their hands clean from this.
I’ll admit that Republicans and Bush are bad, but Democrats are worse. So I rather take the lesser of the two evils.
Yeah! Bush shouldn’t have circumvent the FISA court and the law. But he isn’t spying on Grandma, You or brining this nation down.
I think the term nitwit belongs to Rosel.
Joe, you really don’t know who Bush is spying on, do you?
“I’ll admit that Republicans and Bush are bad, but Democrats are worse. So I rather take the lesser of the two evils.”
How do you figure the Dems are worse? Please list facts and sources.
No ranting, please.
My opponents on this post agree with Lamont and don’t like Lieberman.CT. is a LIBERAL state and Lieberman is about to win by double digits!!You are overplaying your hands liberals, something you ALWAYS do.My views are mainstream.You only think I am on the far right, because your perspective is from the FAR FAR LEFT!JMFor Heaven’s sake, lighten up will you? Though I have profound concern about the common sense and survival instincts of many of you libs, I don’t wish you any ill will.I have already posted, on another thread I think, that the NSA program only targets those calls made between terrorists and others.I doubt we have any true terrorists in here.(I do wonder — if Ed and Ian would call the cops if someone they knew blew up a Jewish Temple. — However, I dont think they would do such a thing themselves.)Anyway, JM, you take yourself far too seriously.You are not important enough for anyone to listen to, not in here, and certainly not over the phone, through a wire tap.LIGHTEN UP!
RDYou might know how to spell it, but you dont know what it means.Again, truth is an absolute defense against LIBEL and SLANDER in all cases.Furthermore, a PUBLIC FIGURE must prove the person who said it KNEW it was false when it was said or there is no case.
CosmosI am not an attorney, but I have a much firmer grasp of the law in this case than anyone else posting today.
FOX NEWS just had a political round table on this issue, including many attorneys, it was there that the fact was made, again, that 5 different Circuit Courts had already recognized a National Security exception to wiretapping warrants.The liberals on the panel did not question this fact at all.Then panel included at least 2 attorneys.
By the way, the courts have never really punished any government agents for wiretapping without a warrant.They just cant use the information in Court, if no warrant was obtained.
We are trying to prevent a mushroom cloud over a major US City, we arent trying to win a court case here, we are trying to win a war.
Screw the warrant, this is war, not a court house drama!
Dennis– Just one term won’t begin to cover that guy!
XXX
Now this isn’t all of them, because there are Democrats that I like.
They are worse, in my opinion, because the tatics they use and I disagree with their political platform.
The tatics they use is so clear in the media in which they will go on publiclly vicious attacks against the Republicans or Joe Lierberman. Disagree with them is ok, but to go out in Public like Ried, Shumer, Kennedy and so many other Democrats do and just make statements like “Bush is a complete failure” is just unprofessional and not stateman like.
There are Republicans I absolutely hate. They don’t really go in public, but they do it behind the scences and are equally bad. Tom Delay is a clear example. I’m glad he is out of office.
In here! On this blog! Sling away with the mud! We’re all just a bunch of blow hards with strong opinions. But carrying it over to the floor of Congress and to the media just to score the days political points and soundbytes just annoy the hell out of me. And Democrats do this so much more than Republicans.
Fox news. Gee, thanks, Paul. I’m overwhelmed.
How about doing a minimal amount of research, Mr. Journalism Grad?
You could at least LINK to Fox news.
Lotsa punctuation, caps and more of the scary scary we are at war crap.
Clearly Paul is very emotional about this. Fear.
And of course some messages from dimension Joe.
If conservatives knew anything about TRUE conservartism they would be cheering this decision. But neocons like Nathan, Paul and Joe are not conservatives.
Good opinion by Jack Cafferty!! Its only 2 min.
Take a look.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/08/17/cafferty-on-the-nsa-ruling-bush-is-breaking-the-law/
I used to hate this guy when he was trumpeting the war. But he has changed his stance and realized how much of a failure Bush is. He must be an intelligent man. That is what intelligent people do, you know change their opinion once the facts come out. Or as you neo-lames would call it “flip-flopping”.
Good grief, I’ve been taken to task by the great neo-con hope, Paul hisself. That calls for some Maalox and nap.
Hey, Paul, I’ll make it even easier for you. Test your listening comprehension. Name a single Circuit Court that the Fox talking heads mentioned as upholding this presumed power.
Or did they just strenuously assert without proof (as they usually do on Fox “News”)?
Faux News.
Paul G. Rosell:You have some GREAT posts, but you are beating a dead horse.You will never convince these people of anything. In their small and narrow mindedness, the left is right and the right is wrong. OOPS!!! That would be an absolute.They have no respect for other peoples opinions. They come here to feast on the grand delusions of their own intellectualism and ideology. They relish in tearing people like you, Nathan and myself apart, without knowing all the facts. They expose only their own hatred for what is moral, Godly and true.
Joe,
How about the quote from Dick Cheny about Lamonts victory “encouraging the Al-Qaida types”
George Allen”This fellow here, over here with the yellow shirt, macaca, or whatever his name is,he’s with my opponent,”
Bill FristThe Senate “has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership,” he said. “They have no convictions, they have no principles, they have no ideas.”
More Dick Cheney regarding election 04″It’s absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we’ll get hit again and we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.”Real Statesmen like huh.
Oh yeah Joe,
One more thing.
BUSH IS A COMPLETE FAILURE!!!!!!!
Nathan,
You want one example, without name-calling?FISA’s very specific laws re wiretapping over-ride the very vague AUMF. That’s how the system is designed.
Another Thing Joe,
“But carrying it over to the floor of Congress and to the media just to score the days political points and soundbytes just annoy the hell out of me. And Democrats do this so much more than Republicans.”
So “cut and run” “stay the course” or the new one “adapt and win” are Democrat political points?
TM- No , you self explode. You must have the patent on pompous drivel, or should have! Do you really think anyone believes that crap? The way you keep trying, I guess not.
gster,
I agree with it. look at the last few posts…
Hey Pauly has a fan!
Yup none other than TM has called Paul a great poster.
Of course, TM is familiar to us from the most posted in history Terry Fox thread where she for the first time in this forums history told a new poster to “shut up” and made implied threats if he did not.
Cuckoos of a feather flock together.
Oh and Gary you understated I am afraid.
Bush is REDEFINING failure.
Incidentally Gary and cosmos, the purple chicken is looking for you!
gster:That’s the whole point.You all love yourselves so much there’s no room for God or others.The left is right and the right is wrong.You all think this Circuit Judge is incredible, when all she did was continue to prove Bush is right. Many Judges want to legislate from the bench.I’m not pompous, just truthful and that makes you people rage and hate all the more. You just don’t listen. Why come here if you have all the answers already?You come here to slam, argue with and diminish any one who has a valid dissent from what you believe.
JR:If you reread my post to JB, I said if he was repeating gossip, he needed to learn to keep his mouth shut.It was strong and I apologized to him personally, but I did not tell him to “shut up”.
TM- You are full of crap. I never made any of those statements you so blatantly attribute to me. Get a grip on reality and the facts, before you shot your mouth off and make a jackass of yourself!
Nathan-Sure you do. I rest your case! Your agreement goes without saying. Do you get it?
I was referring to all of you who are on the left.But again, gster, you just can’t resist the slam, can you? You keep proving my point!I’m not trying to provoke you, just get you to see how low level it is. Gster, you are smarter than this. All of you leftwingers have some smarts somewhere. Get up out of the slime and discuss and debate at a higher level.
Paul keeps on rambling on claiming that we are in some sort of a war. I believe the last nation we declared war against was Romania back in 1942. Everything else has been a military engagement, which if you want to call a war means we’re still at war with all of Paraguay after an attack against a naval vessel in 1859. Or perhaps Paul means some one-liner like Jimmy Carter’s war on poverty.
Fighting poverty is no reason to ignore the Constitution Paul. I suggest that if you don’t like the Constitution and want to burn it along with your American flag that you go to a country like Paraguay and continue your anti-American attacks.
TM
Get off your high horse from where you proclaim God says you are right!
Poor dumb “conservatives”. YOU don’t even know what it is to be conservative. You are all too eager to give government the right to have its eyes and hands on you to “keep you safe”.
Hey bring it on! The next President and congress will likely be more to MY liking. Then we can get about looking at church finances.
God didn’t say I was right.God IS right, IS love, IS truth, IS righteousness, IS life.Just can’t abstain from name calling.Good night all!Until tomorrow, God Bless You!
Here’s my two cents, although I’m not real educated in this topic. (Although I should be, I know) Whether or not one agrees with Bush or his policies, we have to be careful when we start comprimising our rights to the government. Although you may agree with what this president does with these powers, theres a good chance you many not agree with the next president, or the one after that, and he will still have those expanded powers. We need to do what we can to protect this nation, but we have to be careful we are not sacrificing our rights to do so. By the way, when was the last time the actual topic was mentioned?
Our nation was founded as a nation of laws. If the president usurps the power to break whatever laws he sees fit, no matter what the circumstance, we cease to be a nation of laws and surrender to the cult of personality.
Jed, Indeed, this is a very real fear, and one that was present in the minds of the founders, based upon what I have read. That is why so many checks and balances where placed in the Federal government. The founders were very close to a real monarchy, and wanted to be careful not to start another one in America. Of course, in a nation where more people vote for american idol then president, i would argue that we already have become a cult of personality.
Paul, I’ll look forward to your edification on the “5 Circuit” claim tomorrow. . .
I hate this “All you do is Criticize Bush” rhetoric you guys on the right spew day after day.
WE DO IT BECAUSE HES RUINING THE COUNTRY!!! WAKE UP
-manipulated war-eavesdropping-tax cuts for the wealthy-CIA agent outing-torture-failure to secure the nation (ports, border, air ports)-Katrina response.-TOTAL COMPLETE LACK OF DIRECTION OR THOUGHT PROCESS TO GET US OUT OF IRAQ. ALL YOU HEAR IS “STAY THE COURSE”. WELL THE COURSE IS NOT WORKING ASSHOLE, TRY AGAIN!!!!
But no we should shut our mouth like good Americans and clap and praise and say “Hail to the Chief” when we see President Bush in public and on tv. No matter how much disrespect he has for us and the constitution.
Did you guys ever take govt. class in H.S.?
GaryC!
Bill Clinton manupulated the Balkin Wars. He killed tens of thousands of innocent people and almost cause a serious international crisis when he bombed the Chinese Embassy and killed Chinese Nationals. Let’s not even talk about Mogadishu, Cobart Towers, USS Cole, and the first attack on the WTC. (Terrorism didn’t start with Bush as popular belief would tell you).
-eavesdropping! It’s the same program that Clinton used. Some one! Just Bush get’s bashed for it.
-tax cuts: Everybody got a tax cut, 50% don’t even have any tax liability at all. Win for everybody and stimulated the economy. Unemployment is at the lowest point in history.
- CIA outing: Nothing definitive yet. More than 2 years has passed and we are waiting for Starr Report II.
- Torture: Like that only started when Bush got in office.
- Failure to protect? Nothings changed in 50 years in regards to that. The borders were wide open during Clinton term. How come he failed to nation (ports, border, air ports). The TSA wasn’t around when Clinton was in Office. Why wasn’t he proactive.
-Katrina response. That failure was square on the back of New Orleans and Lousiana. They are more to blame than FEMA. But we don’t blame Democrats. Bush’s fault.
I can go on and on.
You have a point of critisim. But you’re lacking in your knowledge of history and government.
“They have no respect for other peoples opinions.”
TM, respect? I’ve seen no respect from you for the opinions and beliefs of others. Practice what you preach, hon. And speaking of respect, do YOU believe Thomas Gray of the WSJ showed respect to Judge Taylor by calling her a Stalinist? Or how about referring to her as “this babe?” Oh, wait, it’s OKIYAAR.
“Get up out of the slime and discuss and debate at a higher level.”
Where’s that respect you keep talking about? And what level would you like me and the rest of us Dems to climb to? God’s level? Is that where you believe you are? Pride goeth… I’ll let you finish that.
Have a nice rest and a better day tomorrow.
Good, Joe, you’re following the rules just as you’re supposed to.
Rule God-only-knows-what-number: When all else fails, revert to “Clinton did it!”
Clinton was 6 years ago, Joe. Get with the program. Just because one screwed up some stuff, does that mean it’s okay to continue? If so, why bother having elections? We only need a king. I thought we dumped King George with the Declaraction of Independence.
Doug;The President says we are at war. Every member of Congress says we are at war. The recent Supreme Court Gitmo decision mentions the WAR.Every member of every branch of government says we are at war.Get a grip Doug. You are arguing boring academics, it doesnt matter. You are not on point and nobody actually in the government agrees with you, not even your liberal heroes!
Jed, Bush IS following the law. You have no authority to say that Bush is breaking the law.
JRYou poo-poo the war on terror. You keep acting like those of us who truly “get it” that we are under a greater threat than we were under from the Axis powers, Hitler and Japan, or from Communism, you treat us like we are afraid or paranoid or fear mongers or war mongers.Churchill and FDR frequently referred to themselves as “war mongers” because they understood the threat from Hitler and could not get people like YOU to take Hitler seriously, until Pearl Harbor was bombed.I do not trust the political candidates that you would ever support, because they will likely also believe that the war on terror does not need to be fought.Your political leaders will pretend to care about national security but, like Jimmy Carter, they will be all talk and weaken the country, kissing up to our enemies and leaving our allies in the lurch.You will then take great offense when we say your candidates are WEAK. You will claim that we are “waving the flag” or trying to scare people before the election.However, you are from the crowd that treats true defense hawks like they are paranoids or crass opportunists.Get a clue!We look at you as either a naive, dangerous “Peace in our time” Neville Chamberlain, or as a “hate America first” traitor.I dont know you well enough to know what camp you are in, I only know for sure that your world view is wrong.Liebermans victory will prove how wrong and out of step you would be in CT.You are WAY out of step for Kansas, pal.Even so, I am hopeful that you will see the error of your ways when things get even worse.The terrorists will strike again and again and again, no matter how much we try to make them like us or try to do what they want.Even Chamberlain eventually supported war with Hitler.
Paul, your reading comprehension is failing again. War can only be declared by Congress and they haven’t declared war against Iraq. I know, it’s that pesky Constitution which you hate so much but it’s still the law of the land despite your desire to see it put through the shredder. Do you actually care to mention who we are at war with? It’s not Afghanistan, we already installed an oil executive into power in that country. It can’t be Iraq because Bush already said that conflict is over and the people voted in a new government. So what country are we at war with? I certainly hope you aren’t going to say a group of criminals, it’s like declaring war everytime we go after organized crime. “US Declares War Against the Mafia!” It’s really silly. So who are we at war with?
I can see in another post a neo-con is blaming Clinton for something. That’s all well and nice but Clinton isn’t in office.
However some good news on Bush’s little drug war. Thanks to Bush Afghanistan opium production is up 40%. Mission accomplished.
BTW, Paul, what authority do you claim to have to state that Bush has been cleared of any charges that have been brought against him. As I recall the judge hasn’t even made a decision so what authority do you have to say he’s been found not guilty?
JOE, JOE, JOE
“Bill Clinton manipulated the Balkin Wars. He killed tens of thousands of innocent people and almost cause a serious international crisis when he bombed the Chinese Embassy and killed Chinese Nationals. Let’s not even talk about Mogadishu, Cobart Towers, USS Cole, and the first attack on the WTC. (Terrorism didn’t start with Bush as popular belief would tell you).”
So your blaming Clinton in the same way you complain about people on the left criticizing Bush? I do believe Molosevic caused the Balkin wars, and since we were a part of the U.N. the U.S. did its fair share of service. You talk about all the 90s terrorist attacks, but I do recall the republican controlled congress limiting his capability to track down Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Oh yeah and the first WTC attack, those perpetrators were caught, tried and convicted W/O a PATRIOT ACT!!!
“eavesdropping! It’s the same program that Clinton used. Some one! Just Bush get’s bashed for it.”
HMM, maybe you got me here. Can you give me a reference to his use of eavesdropping? I am sure the repubs would have jumped all over this back then.
“tax cuts: Everybody got a tax cut, 50% don’t even have any tax liability at all. Win for everybody and stimulated the economy. Unemployment is at the lowest point in history.”
Which 50% of the tax paying population has no liability? I am one of the poorest Americans out there, and I paid about $5000 in taxes!! I believe the economy improved after consumer confidence improved and we admitted that terrorism will always be here and that we must deal with it and move forward. Manipulating fear into Americans with terror threats does not help improve consumer confidence.
“CIA outing: Nothing definitive yet. More than 2 years has passed and we are waiting for Starr Report II.”
You know the little weasel said he would fire anybody in his office who was involved with the leak. Well Karl Rove was involved and his walking papers haven’t been given. Kind of sickening to out an agent to protect your political ass from getting your cover blown about your war recipe.
“Torture: Like that only started when Bush got in office.”
Maybe so, but this guy is blunt about it. You know with signing statement allowing torture, and Abu Grab brush off. I think this guy likes the idea a little too much.
“Failure to protect? Nothings changed in 50 years in regards to that. The borders were wide open during Clinton term. How come he failed to nation (ports, border, air ports). The TSA wasn’t around when Clinton was in Office. Why wasn’t he proactive.”
He was dimwit. http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/212fin~1.html
“Katrina response. That failure was square on the back of New Orleans and Lousiana. They are more to blame than FEMA. But we don’t blame Democrats. Bush’s fault.”
Well this is how much Bush was concerned http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/05/215.html
OrPelosi: Tells Bush to fire FEMA director Michael BrownBush: “Why would I do that?”Pelosi: “Because of all that went wrong, of all that didn’t go right last week.”Bush: “What didn’t go right?”“But you’re lacking in your knowledge of history and government.”Well at least I know this
Article the sixth [Amendment IV]
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.What part of this do you NOT UNDERSTAND?
The purple chicken acknowledges Gary C.
Oh Paul.
As usual I am the recipient of your rapt rantings.
I said above twice that you are afraid. I reaffirm that…..er no YOU reaffirm that.
“You keep acting like those of us who truly “get it” that we are under a greater threat than we were under from the Axis powers,”
Oh come now Paul! Germany and Japan were industrial nations! Show me the industrial war making capacity of disjointed disparate Islamists with an axe to grind.
You are Paul either a chickenlittle or a liar.
GaryBefore you argue with President Bush, please read his ENTIRE legal brief in the NSA matter:
http://files.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/nsa/dojnsa11906wp.pdf#search=‘Justice%20Department%20NSA%20brief’
Part of this brief explains, clearly, that Congress in crafting FISA and in crafting the AUMF (Authorization to use military Force), Congress expressly recognized the seperate, Constitutional right of the President to operate on his OWN without their authorization.The FISA Court, itself, has recognized in its legal decisions that the President retained the right and duty to conduct surveilence OUTSIDE the FISA system, in certain cases.So, the Congress that you want to impeach Bush GAVE Bush additional, legistlative tools and powers, IN ADDITION to the powers that a MAJORITY of Congress already thought Bush retained, Constitutionally, as Commander in Chief.
Rage,Please read the DOJ brief in this case, that brief references SEVERAL Court decisions and history.Also, Rage, the Judge in this case made a horrible error in finding that the ACLU had “standing” along with news organizations, who brought this case.I believe the judge will be overturned mainly on her abuse of judicial discretion on the “standing” issue, which is sad.I would prefer that the judge had done a better job recruiting someone with real standing, someone who had actually been wire tapped!That way we could get a clear up or down rulling from the courts on the actual case in point, on the merits.Unfortunately, this hack judge will get overturned on a technicality.
To clarify for the casual reader. Paul is afraid of his fear mongers losing power. That is why he is here peddling fear. Watch other threads. See what else Paul peddles.
See there he goes again!
Paul you are an admitted shill for the oil/gas industry.
You have also been intellectually dishonest with us.
Why should anyone here regard anything you post as remotely credible?
JRI have been perfectly honest.YOU are losing an argument again and are attacking me.It hasnt worked in the past, but continue to be a bully.It will actually help my cause quite a bit.I am self employed JR. I make a reasonable income in the finacial industry.Yes, a small portion of that work is sometimes energy related.I am speaking my OWN mind.I am MY OWN man.I dont need to join a union or hang with a crowd that agrees with me for any validation.Nothing against your weak hearted nature, but your lifestyle is not my lifestyle.If you must work at a job you hate, for a company you despise, I feel sorry for you.However, you see the real obstacle in your life every time you look in the mirror.Quit blamming the world for your problems, pal.(Before the rest of you think I am being unkind, JR has posted at least a dozen times that I, somehow, don’t deserve to have an opinion, or am a hired gun, or that I can’t be trusted because I am a paid shill. JR also called me a chickenhawk, but he did apologize for that, after I posted my military record. JR also once said that I had never held a “real” job, and I destroyed that with the fact that I was once a PAID union organizer. — In fact, JR, I made more money working for the Union than I ever made from the Oil and Gas industry. I only did the Oil and Gas stuff part time!)Anyway, I am in the mainstream of political thought JR.There is NOTHING radical or unusual about my beliefs at all.What does that say about YOU???
I think the conservatives are still upset that Clinton had the support of many nations, won a conflict against a developed nation and didn’t have one American casualty.
Bush can’t defeat a third world nation, with no army, no air force and no navy and we’ve been at it longer than our time in the second world war.
It’s just jealousy.
Plus he got some NOOK from a younger lady!!
Youll never see broads lining up to hang with Hastert, STIFF FRITZ, or Specter.
Paul?
A tad defensive your last.
I think our forum is acquaitned with the phrase ” methinks you doth prostest too much”
“I am speaking MY OWN mind” “I am MY OWN man”
Are you trying to convince me or yourself Paul?
Am I exposing you Paul? Or….are am I just helping you expose youself?
Go ahead answer back with lots of caps and punctuation.You are a joke here Paul.
OMG HOW FUNNNYYY!!!!!
hehehe. the last refuge of losers.”clinton did it” hehehe
The second to the last refuge of losers “god did it”.
heheheheheheh
And I see NEITHER of them can post links. Is that like a conservative requirement? Do no research and post no links?
THAT way no one can ever pin you down to the TRUTH? HEE HEE HEE you just substitute your opinions and when asked for proof, paul vaguely cites HISTORY (wtf?) and TM quotes the book of fairy tales.
hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee
Paul, I also want to see the list of five court decisions. I want to see the STAY you talked about.
Please post some links or facts.
Otherwise, you join TM and Joe Williams in the “ding ding ding” hall of shame.
Sounds like conservatives, republicans, and taliban terry’s terrorists are ALL whistling past the graveyard today.
November is gonna be so.much.fun.
No kidding paul makes shit up.
So does TM.
So maybe an active imagination and fantasy life go along with the “do no research, post no links” credo of the right here?
hehehehehe. Fox news and rush limbaugh as credible news sources? hehehe The DRUDGE report? heheheheheh
So then by those standards DU, Crooks and Liars and Daily KOS must be equally credible?
hehehe ’cause ya know….
…just because you dont agree with them doesnt make them credible.
Geez, I bet they think the Hays Daily is a credible source of water news…….
Or John “my daddy owns the company” is a REAL journalist over at the Hutch paper.
KFG- If you do take any prisoners, don’t forget the HUTCH HOLE Facility! Otherwise you’ll have to feed them.
hee hee hee hee gster.
“let ‘em eat salt”?
The HUTCH HOLE would be a great place for both jan pauls and john montgomery.
Losers, forever preserved in salt. Perhaps they could be turned into PILLARS of salt for their evil works?
heheheheheheh
And no, I dont believe in taking prisoners. It’s not like these bozos will ever see the light, so I see no point in prolonging their separation from god, if ya get my drift……
Paul, Paul, Paul.I can’t believe you post this shit and then complain about credibility.For instance:”We are trying to prevent a mushroom cloud over a major US City, we arent trying to win a court case here, we are trying to win a war.
Screw the warrant, this is war, not a court house drama!”
SCREW THE WARRANT?WE ARE NOT TRYING TO WIN A COURT CASE HERE?
So I guess we are no longer a nation of laws?
And this:”I am not an attorney, but I have a much firmer grasp of the law in this case than anyone else posting today.”
Haha, hehe!
And in conclusion:”That is the LAW, try to study it before you post!”
Well my friendly repugnican, you seem to be a self-appointed expert on law, energy, unions, and just about everything else you can put a conservative spin on, but you jump the fence so many times that I’m afraid you really ripped your balls off long ago!
He sounds like a self-made expert in everything! Whatta guy.
(in my best baby-bear impression)HE’S A HE-WOE, HE’S A GUY.HE’S HE-WOE GUY!!
Sorry, I’m barely skimming Paul’s talking points. If I want to know what his posts say, I’ll listen to Rush & crew and their factless arguments. Sooooo much easier and less eye strain.
PAUL!!!! WAKE UP!!!!!!
Turn off the snooze button and post those links on the “five decisions” and which decision cleared bush and declared warrentless wiretapping to be legal.
“Please read the DOJ brief in this case, that brief references SEVERAL Court decisions and history.”
News flash, genius. I’m completely familiar with DOJ’s arguments, from top to bottom. I even went as far as photocopying the Truong case.
The fact that the Bushies stretch principles and precedent to their breaking points doesn’t make them right.
And you still haven’t answered my “5 circuit” question (name one Circuit that upheld these type of activities, Paul–it’s just a damned number!). I haven’t even looked at the DOJ brief in months, but I’m quite certain that not even Gonzales would make such an asinine, nonfactual claim.
There’s been a lot of blather, and little substance on this thread (So what’s new?). This decision will be overturned. Those so iclined will see it as more proof of “conspiracy, complicity, owning judges, etc.” yadda, yadda, ad infinitum. But it will happen nonetheless.
Let me point you to some analysis by those who know. This is quite long, so bear with it.
From Eugene Volkh, UCLA School of Law:
“By that standard, the judge’s opinion in today’s NSA eavesdropping case seems not just ill-reasoned, but rhetorically ill-conceived. A careful, thoughtful, detailed, studiously calm and impartial-seeming opinion might have swung some higher court judges (and indirectly some Justices, if it comes to that). A seemingly angry, almost partisan-sounding opinion (”[The orders] violate the Separation of Powers ordained by the very Constitution of which this President is a creature,”) is unlikely to sway the other judges — especially when the opinion is rich in generalities, platitudes (”There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution”), and “obviously”’s, and poor in detailed discussion of some of the government’s strongest arguments.” http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_08_13-2006_08_19.shtml#1155856506
From Dale Carpenter,Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, Yale Univ.:
“The Supreme Court has held that, to establish standing, the plaintiffs must allege an injury that is concrete and particularized, not hypothetical and conjectural. Cases in the past decade or so have shown that this doctrine is quite flexible, allowing the Court to sidestep difficult or particularly sensitive constitutional questions where there’s even a doubt about whether the standing threshold has been met. An example of this technical maneuver to avoid consideration of a thorny constitutional issue is the Supreme Court’s recent decision to reject a non-custodial atheist father’s claim that it is unconstitutional for public schools to lead children in reciting the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004) (dismissing claim on the ground that the father lacked standing). Justice Stevens’s majority opinion declared: “The command to guard zealously and exercise rarely our power to make constitutional pronouncements requires strictest adherence when matters of great national significance are at stake.” Id. at 11 (emphasis added).
The district court nevertheless thought the plaintiffs had met this standard because the “chilling” effect from the very existence of the program was clear. The court then cited cases in which plaintiffs had adequately alleged chilling and other effects from the operation of federal laws. The problem is that, in each case, there was no question that the plaintiffs had actually been subjected to the regulation in question, not simply whether they might be. Once the application was clear, a chilling effect surely suffices as a sufficiently concrete injury. But the predicate is not clearly met in this case.
I am one of those who believes that the NSA program is not authorized by the AUMF, that it violates FISA, that FISA is a constitutional exercise of congressional power, and that therefore the NSA program is both illegal and unconstitutional. I have written so here. But I am less sure this is an issue courts should review, and even less sure that this case is one they should review.” http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_08_13-2006_08_19.shtml#1155856278
(Note that Carpenter generally sides with the opponents of the program; nonetheless, he acknowledges that there is another side with a colorable arguement.)
And from Orrin Kerr, Professor of Law, George Washington Univ.:
“Here’s the part that comes closest to being an analysis section:
“‘ [The Fourth Amendment requires] reasonableness in all searches. It also requires prior warrants for any reasonable search, based upon prior-existing probable cause, as well as particularity as to persons, places, and things, and the interposition of a neutral magistrate between Executive branch enforcement officers and citizens.In enacting FISA, Congress made numerous concessions to stated executive needs. They include delaying the applications for warrants until after surveillance has begun for several types of exigencies, reducing the probable cause requirement to a less stringent standard, provision of a single court of judicial experts, and extension of the duration of approved wiretaps from thirty days (under Title III) to a ninety day term.All of the above Congressional concessions to Executive need and to the exigencies of our present situation as a people, however, have been futile. The wiretapping program here in litigation has undisputedly been continued for at least five years, it has undisputedly been implemented without regard to FISA and of course the more stringent standards of Title III, and obviously in violation of the Fourth Amendment.The President of the United States is himself created by that same Constitution.’”
I confess that this has me scratching my head. Let’s take it bit by bit:
“[The Fourth Amendment requires] reasonableness in all searches. It also requires prior warrants for any reasonable search, based upon prior-existing probable cause, as well as particularity as to persons, places, and things, and the interposition of a neutral magistrate between Executive branch enforcement officers and citizens.”
It’s true that the Fourth Amendment requires reasonable searches. But Fourth Amendment reasonableness is satisfied by a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement, and there are several possible exceptions to the warrant requirement that may apply. Whether and how they may or may not apply depends on the facts of the surveillance, which are currently unknown.Also, identifying a reasonable expectation of privacy in communications is really quite complicated given new communications technologies; for example, courts have held that there is no REP in transactional information and cordless phone calls, and individuals with no voluntary contact with the U.S. presumably have no Fourth Amendment rights at all. We’d need to know the details of the surveillance to know this, but we don’t know those details.
“In enacting FISA, Congress made numerous concessions to stated executive needs. They include delaying the applications for warrants until after surveillance has begun for several types of exigencies, reducing the probable cause requirement to a less stringent standard, provision of a single court of judicial experts, and extension of the duration of approved wiretaps from thirty days (under Title III) to a ninety day term.All of the above Congressional concessions to Executive need and to the exigencies of our present situation as a people, however, have been futile.”
What does this have to do with whether the program violates the Fourth Amendment?
“The wiretapping program here in litigation has undisputedly been continued for at least five years, it has undisputedly been implemented without regard to FISA and of course the more stringent standards of Title III, and obviously in violation of the Fourth Amendment.The President of the United States is himself created by that same Constitution.”
It’s hardly obvious that the program — or some aspect of it — violates the Fourth Amendment; that’s the issue before the court, and my sense is that we really don’t know enough to answer it without knowing the facts. And while it’s true that the office of the Presidency was created by the Constitution, and the Fourth Amendment is a part of that Constitution, it’s not clear how this relates to the Fourth Amendment issue. (Oh, and on an exceedingly minor point, I think that’s four years, not five.)
I can come up with explanations for why a district court judge inclined to rule against the program would put out an opinion that isn’t quite ready for prime time. For example, Senator Specter’s bill would take these issues away from the district court, so the choice might be to speak now or never. But at least based on the court’s Fourth Amendment analysis, I suspect this opinion is important more for its political impact and its triggering of appellate review than for any analysis in the opinion itself.” http://volokh.com/posts/1155854205.shtml
Even the Washington Post is hard on the Judge and decision:
“Unfortunately, the decision yesterday by a federal district court in Detroit, striking down the NSA’s program, is neither careful nor scholarly, and it is hard-hitting only in the sense that a bludgeon is hard-hitting. The angry rhetoric of U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor will no doubt grab headlines. But as a piece of judicial work — that is, as a guide to what the law requires and how it either restrains or permits the NSA’s program — her opinion will not be helpful.
Judge Taylor’s opinion is certainly long on throat-clearing sound bites. “There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution,” she thunders. She declares that “the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution.” And she insists that Mr. Bush has “undisputedly” violated the First and Fourth Amendments, the constitutional separation of powers, and federal surveillance law.
But the administration does, in fact, vigorously dispute these conclusions. Nor is its dispute frivolous. The NSA’s program, about which many facts are still undisclosed, exists at the nexus of inherent presidential powers, laws purporting to constrict those powers, the constitutional right of the people to be free from unreasonable surveillance, and a broad congressional authorization to use force against al-Qaeda. That authorization, the administration argues, permits the wiretapping notwithstanding existing federal surveillance law; inherent presidential powers, it suggests, allow it to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance on its own authority. You don’t have to accept either contention to acknowledge that these are complicated, difficult issues. Judge Taylor devotes a scant few pages to dismissing them, without even discussing key precedents.”
Me again.These professors did the analysis far better, and faster, than I could. I’m sure there is other analysis out there on the other side; this issue is hardly an easy, one-sided one. But if that argument wants to hold water, it must come from a better framed, better written, better analyzed decision than this one.
So . . .Long and short of it? A decision by a political judge, full of sound and fury, but signifying little. It will be overturned.
Ks Farm Girl (and others)I AM the authority. I understand this issue better than all but, perhaps, one other person on this thread.This decision is trash.It will be overturned.(By the way, I once represented MYSELF in the Federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and I won. I am not an attorney, but I have more legal experience than anyone else who has posted here so far!)However, all of the previous decisions relevent to this case are listed in the DOJ brief that I have posted previously.That you are too lazy to read it, or dont understand how to read a legal brief is not my problem.You liberals have set yourself up here.Congress has already recognized the President’s unique power.The Courts have already recognized the President’s unique power.Several previous court cases are listed in the DOJ brief.This judge, as I said, will be overturned on the standing issue.That is too bad, I would rather win on the merits.
DougCongress authorized the use of military force in Iraq.John Kerry and Hillary Clinton voted for that authorization.Nobody with any authority in government accepts your ridiculous argument that we are not at war.Our military is awarding Purple Hearts. Congress is authorizing Congressional Medals of Honor. Our troops are receiving Congressionally authorized combat pay.Every Supreme Court Justice mentioned the current war in the recent Hamdi case.There isnt a single member of Congress who has publicly stated that we are NOT at war.You are a kook Doug.You are alone in your own little world.Lucky for you, Bush will try to protect that world as well.
Doug lives in HIS little world? Sort of the pot calling the kettle black, doncha think?
(I should have said Personal legal experience, I realize that there are a couple of attorneys that do post here. I won my case on a jurisdiction issue. I know the jurisdiction and standing issues, which apply to all cases, very well.)
GMC, The long and short of it is that you let Eugene Volokh do your heavy lifting for you. In some respects I admire the guy, a youthful overachiever who shares my interest in both types of ‘code.’ But he’s usually wrong on issues like these.
One can haggle over how well-written the decision was, but it’s interesting that only the professor who OPPOSED the program addressed the substance of it. For example, Orrin Kerr asked rhetorically “What does this have to do with whether the program violates the Fourth Amendment?” Kerr is being disingenuous. To argue that the rule of federal law governing electronic searches-or whether they were ignored–strikes at the heart of the Fourth Amendment. For some reason, Kerr finds it expedient to pretend otherwise. It is in fact HIS hectoring which is “sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
The only real weakness of the case is of course the standing issue. Beyond that hurdle, it’s a slam dunk, for the administration’s own admissions and arguments have made it so. And the problem with denying standing in this instance is that NO ONE would have standing anytime the Executive chose to act in secret, no matter what actions the Executive took or whatever powers the Executive publicly claimed to have. Perhaps precedent compels this conclusion (I’m skeptical), but, if so, that is a prescription for monarchy.
Judge Taylor actually addressed the issue of standing quite well. Whether the circuit court will overrule her determinations remains to be seen.
P.S. Paul, you correctly named a circuit court! Yay! Now pick some numbers. We’re still waiting for the “5 circuits.”
Paul:
We probably agree on this issue.
BUT – please don’t write crap like “I AM the authority. I understand this issue better than all but, perhaps, one other person on this thread.”
You sound like a kook.
Then you tell us that you represented yourself before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Assuming that to be true, and assuming that the matter was one of some importance to you, despite your assertion that you won, I can only conclude one other thing.
You’re either an idiot, or a fool.
For only an idiot or a fool would attempt to represent himself on a matter of importance before any court other than perhaps a traffic matter or a small claims court. If you do . . .
Well, you know the old saying about having a fool for a client . . . . . . .
Paul, please finish your statement.
“Congress authorized the use of military force in Iraq.”
Congress authorized the use of military force in Iraq AS A LAST RESORT AND AFTER CERTAIN CONDITIONS WERE TO BE MET.
Neither of which Bush paid the least big of attention to. Congress was given the same misleading information that Colon Powell gave the U.N., and we all know the truth about that information, now don’t we? Those of you who don’t, well, there’s no hope for you. Continue with your little charade, and may karma bite you in the ass.
GMC wrote–”[Paul, what you write makes] you sound like a kook.”
He sounds that way because he IS a kook.
OK, Rage:
Citations to authority, other than yourself?
If the question is whether this decision will stand, it isn’t even a close call. It won’t. If the question is the ultimate constitutionality of the program, that’s a much closer call. Personally, I tend to believe that if FISA was inadequate, it should have been amended, and the administration should have worked through statutory authorization. That doesn’t necessarily mean the program is unconstitutional, however, nor does it go to remedy.
But there is coherent argument on both sides here. It’s hardly a “slam dunk.” That’s the sort of conclusory language the decision we discuss here is long on, without any analytical support. And yes, I refered to others; first, they are more qualified than I in this subject, and second, I haven’t the time to focus only on that issue (job, ya know). I’d be glad to read from qualified authorities arguing otherwise.
I, for one, will let the courts sort it out. In order for that to happen, there will have to be a more coherent argument for the other side than this opinion.
I too have work to do, GMC, but last I heard Katz was still good law.
GMI informed the 10th circuit court of appeals that Federal Judge was an alcoholic and could not remember the names of the people appearing before him.There was very good reason why no attorney wanted to touch my case.I could say things that attorneys could not say. Kelly stepped down soon after I won my case.Anyway, I have thicker skin than most, but perhaps these (other?) kooks in here are wearing on me a bit.I will take your advice to heart. However, I think it is ridiculous that those in opposition to my views expect a link on everything said here.This is a political blog sponsored by a newspaper editorial page. Does the Eagle post any “facts” when it states a position? Precious few, I think.I believe what I post, I reference why I believe it.I honestly heard on a news program that 5 other Circuit Courts had upheld what Bush is doing in previous cases. (My guess is that they upheld Constitutional powers to spy, and those cases could therefore have happened BEFORE NSA was passed. Of course, NSA did NOT change the Constitution.)I also posted the DOJ brief in this case that lists several other court cases.Of course, if another Circuit Court had upheld NSA but that decision was not “precident setting” (because it repeated a previous decision) then the DOJ brief would not reference those other cases that were on their side but not “precedent”It is possible that the pundits I listened to were wrong.However, I am a very honest person and I am taking personal offense to being called a “liar.”I do NOT make things up, here or anywhere else.You must admit that my opposition on this thread has been very, very emotional.That doesnt justify any emotion on my part.Point taken.
Rage:
Yes, the principles of Katz are still good law. But as Kerr points out, the REP analysis of Katz has huge holes, especially in the modern communications age. You’ll have to do better than that.
Youngstown v. Ohio. The Executive is hugely overreaching.
And GMIf a “fool” like me could win his own case, what does that say about the Judge in question, who was humiliated by the 10th Circuit?
Point taken, Paul. But you might come up with more reliable sources next time.
Rage:
Youngstown is hardly a 4th amendment case. It is, rather, exactly at that “nexus of inherent presidential powers, laws purporting to constrict those powers, the constitutional right of the people to be free from unreasonable surveillance, and a broad congressional authorization,” to quote the Post.
And while the Youngstown framework is valuable, it is hardly clear 1) whether that framework applies, i.e., can this circumstance be distinguished from Youngstown; and 2) exactly where this program fits on that framework.
I sincerely hope that this matter is ultimately litigated thoroughly, and on the merits. Taylor’s decision, unfortunately, is short on merits and long on wind.
RDThe United Nations authorized force long ago in Iraq. I dont think we needed another Congressional “Authorization” specific to Iraq, but Bush got one anyway.Nobody in Congress is claiming Bush did not have authority to go to war.Please post the name of anyone in Congress that agrees with you, RD?Come on, give us a name!Who in Congress has stated that this war is “illegal?”If the war truly is illegal, and the Democrats truly believe what YOU are saying, isn’t your Party a pack of cowards for not acting on that belief?
Take a look at this, an ACLU attorney in this case has some ethical problems:http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/01/whos_behind_the.html
“Then, there is Mohammed Abdrabboh, a Palestinian attorney and ACLU of Michigan Board Member.
Not only does he represent a number of accused terrorists, he lied in signed documents about it. In the ACLU lawsuit, Abdrabboh’s ACLU claims:
86. As part of his criminal defense practice, Mr. Abdrabboh has represented and continues to represent people the government has suspected of allegedly having some link to terrorism or terrorist organizations.But in a grievance Abdrabboh filed against ME to the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission (designed to deny my right to free speech and get me to change this column about him–I didn’t and won’t), a year ago, Abdrabboh wrote (and signed his name to) the following:
Without hesitation, I affirmatively state that I have never represented anyone accused of terrorism or money laundering. I can also affirmatively state that I have never represented or consulted with anyone accused/suspected/indicted of money laundering, let alone money laundering to finance Al-Qaeda. . . . Debbie Schlussel will not be able to provide the ADB [Attorney Discipline Board] with a single court appearance, document or public record that would indicate that I have ever represented a suspected terrorist or money launderer.Hmmm . . . I think a grievance against Abdrabboh for lying either in Court or to the Grievance Commission is appropriate.
In fact, Mohammed Abdrabboh represented Gamil Manea “
GMC, HE IS A KOOK.With quite a resume of opportunism.Which side of the fence are you on today?
That’s the crux of the biscuit, GMC. Bush is claiming inherent powers to take action that pretty clearly violate FISA and the basic requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Yeah, yeah, I know, TLO and all that crap. But the balancing analysis test hardly applies when federal law declares an Executive action to be illegal unless authorized by statute. Either it’s legal or it ain’t, and if it ain’t legal, it’s not constitutional. “When government becomes lawbreaker, it fosters contempt for the law.” (Brandeis, yada yada).
To claim that the AUMF authorized these extrajudicial actions is at best novel. Certainly the legislative history doesn’t support that.
op·por·tun·ismPronunciation: -’tü-”ni-z&m, -’tyü-Function: noun: the art, policy, or practice of taking advantage of opportunities or circumstances often with little regard for principles or consequences
Question:Paul, George, or both?
Hey Paul, authorizing the use of force isn’t the same as declaring war. Purple hearts are awarded during military engagements, not just during war. You really need to get the facts straight unless your sole goal here is to make yourself look foolish.
Too late on the goal there Doug.
He already took the opportunity!
I’m wondering when Paul will enlist in the military to serve in the “war” that he loves so much. Why is he here and a pointless discussion forum when he could be the great war hero (and add that to his growing list of expertise)?
Why not Paul, they’ll accept anyone up to 42 unless you’re gay.
DougI am 47 and have previously served.
RageThe Congress does not have the power to limit the President’s Constitutional power by statute. That simply can’t be done. It is not legal.
This particular ruling will not survive very long, and it is curently stayed pending appeal. It will be overturned, but probably on the standing issue, we might not get to the merits for awhile.
However, I am convinced that, on the merits, Bush will still prevail.
Rage, long ago I asked: What if Congress passed a law requiring all Generals in the Military to get their duty assignments approved by Congress? Even if passed by a super-majority in Congress, over riding a veto, would such a “law” have any legal merit?No, it would not.Unconstitutional tampering with the division of powers is not Constitutional, is not legal, and may be ignored by the President.The President retains the authority to interpret the Constitution for himself.The Courts were not given sole authority to interpret the Constitution for us, the SCoTUS ruled for themselves that they, the Court, had that authority.Bush and all Presidents before him have likewise ruled, for themselves, that they had certain authority that the courts and congress could not diminish.
You are focused on legislative law.Legislation is not always legal. If FISA does as you say, FISA is illegal.The debate in Congress, when FISA was passed, clearly indicated that Congress did not believe FISA would restrict the National Defense duties and rights of the President, and that the act would not be Constituional if it did so restrict the President.FISA is a tool that the President can use when needed, when prosecution in a court room is warranted. The intent of FISA was to allow for warrants in criminal cases.When we are fighting the enemy and trying to prevent an attack, FISA might not be appropriate.
The FISA Court, itself, once ruled that the President could conduct his own spying outside of FISA restrictions.
Dont you respect the FISA court decision?
You dont need a warrant to fight a war!
And we don’t need a traitor to tell us what to do.
Ed, I was being nice.I substituted opportunist.These idiots really don’t get it do they Ed?The very freedoms that make us American are being ripped away like never before at an accelerated rate, and all that Paul, LRB, can do is cheering this shit on.Damned un-American.
TracyI can name several Presidents that have done far more domestic spying than George W. Bush.That spying was barely even challenged by the courts or congress.Do not talk in such high-drama terms.This is nothing new, Presidents have always done things like the NSA program. This program is actually very mild in its application, nothing like the domestic spying of WW2, or even what LBJ and JFK did.The Courts and Congress have generally conceded this turf to the Executive branch, on Constitutional grounds.You are certainly free to advocate for a change in the balance of power, but this really is the way things have always been done.You are the one advocating a change, not me.
EdBeing called a “traitor” by a man like you, who has truly un-American, racist, anti-semitic, pro terrorist views, is a badge of honor.Tracy, do you really want to be on the same side as Ed???
Tracy- Is this a purple chicken matter?
“…nothing like the domestic spying of WW2, or even what LBJ and JFK did.”
Oooops, Paul forgot to mention NIXON. Imagine that…
Paul, how is it that you know the operational details of the NSA program in question?, when many congressmen have no idea what is going on. It is secret. I know you have many impressive credentials, but a Federal security clearance above most in congress is likely not one of them.
Feb. 24, 2003
Feb. 24, 2003The U.S., Britain, and Spain submit a proposed resolution to the UN Security Council that states that “Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in Resolution 1441,” and that it is now time to authorize use of military force against the country.
France, Germany, and Russia submit an informal counter-resolution to the UN Security Council that states that inspections should be intensified and extended to ensure that there is “a real chance to the peaceful settlement of this crisis,” and that “the military option should only be a last resort.”
Feb. 24–Mar. 14, 2003The U.S. and Britain’s intense lobbying efforts among the other UN Security Council members yield only four supporters (in addition to the U.S. and Britain, Spain and Bulgaria); nine votes (and no vetoes from the five permanent members) out of fifteen are required for the resolution’s passage. The U.S. decides not to call for a vote on the resolution.http://www.infoplease.com/spot/iraqtimeline2.html
Paul
Take you badge of so-called honor and shove it up your G-D ass, you treasonous piece of shit. You’re not fooling anybody, you disloyal turd.
Tracy, Wanna second the motion?
Zionist piece of garbage…….
Steve, you are right, I dont know everything in the program.I know enough to know that Bush has the Constitutional right to have such a program.We have ONE Commander in Chief, his name is George Bush and it is his call for at least 2 more years.By the way, do you realize that Tom “Leaky” Leahey (ck spelling) and others have been removed from Security briefings because of unauthorized leaks?Congress does not need to know everything that the President does.Congress never has needed to know full details of all spying programs.Your point is hard to grasp here.No member of Congress is on the Joint Chiefs of staff — Save of course, maybe, Dick Cheney in his Senate roll.No member of Congress, other than Cheney, serves in the Executive Branch.Again, no President has ever told the entire Congress every detail of every National Security Agency program.It is not required and it would be a stupid thing for any President to do.
Jesus, Where do these guys come from??? I don’t recall any news regarding a mojor breakout from some institution!
“Your point is hard to grasp here.”
Not surprised by this, either. My sole point was that you did not know what you were talking about in terms of what the program was doing, who it was looking at, how that is happening, etc. There has been some informed speculation in the Washington Post and the New York Times about what the progam is or may be.
The intelligence committee you mention has some information about the NSA program and even folk friendly to the president are unhappy with what Bush is willing to disclose.
I assume that Rep.Hoekstra (R-Michigan) knows more about what he should be getting from Bush than you do.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2761/
We fundamentally disagree and I am okay with that. Bush needs more congressional oversight and not less. Any damage that would accrue to the office of the president because of congressional oversight would pale in comparison to the damage an unrestrained George W. Bush could do.
“Congress does not need to know everything the Presdent does”
Paul if I thought there was a significant number of people like you I would worry.
But you are fortunately one of a small group of dangerous nuts.
Your meltdown upthread will be the stuff of legend aroud here though!
“I AM the Authority!!”
So sayeth Paul the kook.
JR–Does being “The Authority” upstage “The Decider”? Hmmmm.
Gster I think it reveals a similar….uh…….I was gonna say mindset. But that would require minds.
Oh man I can’t wait for everybody to read what Paul has shared with us today!
Don’t you crab away from this Guy GMC! He is all yours.
I won’t cutnpaste here. I have in the past tried to help GMC with his humor. Do this. Go back to GMC’s 12:08 post and delete all but lines 1 ,5, and 11.
Paul F. Rosell:You are a GREAT AMERICAN!!I applaud you and honor your service to our Country.Paul, you also have a brilliant intelligent and wise mind.I envy your ability to stand up to the people on this thread.Paul, you inspire me!!
Let’s see… we have “The Authority” , and now up pops “The Lost”. The set is almost complete!
Paul has a fan!!!
I saw you TM cheerleading Paul before too. TM did you use to be rockl?
I would argue that Paul is a very dangerous man but TM also loves that paragon of virtue Terry Fox! So with her at least I would be wasting my time.
“2, 4, 6, 8,Who do we appreciate?Paul, Paul, Paul!!!”
Please keep posting Paul. You provide the most reasons why there will be a sea change in ‘06.
JR
If you evaporate Paul’s ego, all that’s left is the toilet paper.
This is a better link to the Rep. Hoekstra story:
http://www.themonitor.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=14305&Section=Opinion
Ed- Hat’s off!!! That’s brutally funny!
Tracy: It’s not about sides, I don’t take sides. I simply call em as I see em.
JR – I don’t try to be witty or funny, and I don’t need any help, thanks anyway. And again, Paul ain’t “my guy,” I don’t have “guys.” You all are so anxious to attach labels and place people in the preconceived boxes. I won’t be so placed.
And finally, Rage, thanks for the give and take. I don’t think the AUMF argument is as far out there as you might think, though I am far from sure it is a winner. Nor do I think Youngstown helps a lot. And “legal” and “unconstitutional” are two different standards, often overlapping, but different nonetheless.
Again, I’m hoping for a litigation on the merits. Despite what some write here, it IS, in our suystem, the final authority of the Courts to say what the law is (define, not create, thought there is a smaller line there than many want to admit), and hopefully we’ll get a rational ruling on that matter soon.
But this Taylor decision is not it. It’s long on soundbites and short on substance.
Paul F. Rosell,
“This is nothing new, Presidents have always done things like the NSA program.”
And FISA was created in 1978 (after Nixon resigned) partly BECAUSE of their abuses of intelligence gotten from warrentless wiretaps.
Also, an informative page… ‘Top 12 media myths and falsehoods on the Bush administration’s spying scandal’http://mediamatters.org/items/200512240002
“Congress does not need to know everything the Presdent does”
I’d lay odds that Paul wasn’t saying this while Clinton was in office.
IOKIYAAR…AARIIO
JR”I am the authority” on what I believe.That statement is necessary as many of you have called me things like “fundy” (I was raised Catholic, and after posting that point, I was taunted about Communion Hosts) “chickenhawk” (former USMC) “bigot” (I had Black and Mexican room mates in College and rival frats burned a cross in our yard) etc.This time, I was being browbeaten for posting a real time quote from a panel on Fox News where no one on a panel of experts disputed a statement that 5 US Circuit Courts had previously recognized a National Security exception to obtaining warrants.The rabit lefties on this thread wanted exact, specific references, cases, dates, etc.I was very clear, from the beginning, on where I obtained my information.Fox News is a legit news outlet. The do not just make stuff up, unlike CBS, Dan Rather, Reuters and the New York Times.However, all journalists make mistakes, the person on Fox may have mispoken, but I doubt it.I also posted the DOJ brief in this case, which contains several citations. I explained that the DOJ brief would not list concuring opinions, only the precedent setting opinions, in different circuits. I also explained that court cases prior to FISA were completely relevent, since FISA cant change the Constitutional balance of powers.I was still browbeaten with demands for citations and links and more facts from people who could not possibly have read the DOJ brief, based on what they were saying.I was called a liar and told that I was making things up.I should not have to post links and comments and such when I state a simple opinion. I believe what was said on Fox. The comment could have been wrong, but it was not a deliberate lie. I have tried to back it up with my own research.You take my quote out of context.Again, and, in all modesty, I do know far more about jurisdiction and standing issues than just about everybody else in this thread, and far more than most non- attorneys.I was, I believe, the first on this thread to say that this case would be overturned based on the Standing issue.If GM beat me to the punch, thats ok, I typed my prediction before I read his.If I am right there, won’t that, alone, make me an authority compared to the majority of other posts here?—-I am trying to make a point beyond this particular topic:Are liberals capable of respecting or “tolerating” other views?Must everyone who disagrees with you be crazy, Zionist, Right Wing, “shilling”, stupid etc?This Blog is full of Christian bashing, Jew Bashing, Catholic Bashing and Bush Bashing.Yes, some of you are capable of making a point without getting personal.However, I would have more respect for all of you on the left if you would reign in some of the less civil in your camp.I am the final authority on what I believe, and that needed to be said because JR claims I am some kind of political or oil industry whore not capable of introducing my own thoughts.I would have more respect for you on the left if you would demand documentation and restraint from your allies in these threads who post such outlandish comments.”May you always be underestimated by your enemies” — I believe that comes from “The Art of War”(Do I need a link??)
Oh how sweet it is!!!Paul, you are bold and humble all at the same time. You are awesome!!!Thanks for speaking the truth!!
Nice performance, er, ah, om, uh .. guys?Are you a tag team??
TM are you going to wet yourself EVERY time Paul posts or just when he tosses out a particularly long winded rant like that last
I’ll be back to take care of you later Paul.
Hmmmmmmm…Symbiosis, perhaps?
Paul,I am not in the least bit interested in your respect for me. I have very little respect for both you and your opinions. You claim I am uptight and take myself too serious. When someone such as yourself comes along and attempts to justify Bush and his policies, without wavering from the Bush line, I have a serious problem with that.
I was a conservative Republican for most of my life. Know what turned me around? Bush. Never in my life have I heard of a president who has had absolutely no respect for the common man. He has done everything in his power to make life difficult for the poor in this country, has failed to protect this country (borders, Paul, borders), while waging an illegal war in Iraq and sending many of those same poor men and women to die in that same war.
He has called for tax breaks for the rich while making it difficult if not impossible for us lower class people, who fall on hard times, to file for bankruptcy.
He has made a mockery of the constitution without batting an eye. He has made us a laughing stock in much of the world. He has made no attempt to sit down with Muslim leaders and work out a solution to the terrorist problem that is originating in predominetly Muslim countries.
He has made rash and stupid statements concerning the war in Iraq and the Israel/Hazballah conflict.
You and people like Rush, Connie, Coulter, TM and the rest of the pablum spouting neo-cons don’t deserve respect: you’re all too ignorant to respect.
BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER!
Walker,Once again, you get an Amen from this corner. You rock, dude.
You’ve taken a real beating here today Paul. I note in your last, you address me. Just me. What of the links cosmos provided? What of the fact that GMC distances himself from you?
Oh but you DID pick up a fan! TM is a kook like you. You could at least have acknowledged her getting your back. You kinda surprise me for not doing so. And I predict you will get to that. She fed your ego. And that ego has one TRE mendous appetite.
GMC got away from you. Now GMC is dry and boring and has ego issues too. But GMC is no shill Paul. He is a little over into what is law vs. what is right. But he has a mind open enough to weigh issues. YOU Paul are not nearly that deep. You are a shill.
Now you many times many ways call me a bully Paul. I say you are projecting. YOU are the bully and you get real itchy when I back you down and you blow up.
Let’s look at what you’ve given us today Paul.
“I AM the authority.” Now you in your last try to qualify this with “I am the authority on what I believe”. Oh but that was not in the spirit you posted that earlier and you reconfirm THAT in the same post you try to qualify it. “won’t that, alone, make me an authority….?”
Trying to convince ME the blog or yourself?
There is more.
That last has lots of whining in it. “I was called this I was called that” (paraphrasing) Well Pauly this is a rough forum. You arrive late. I’ve been accused of being everything but a white woman by those on your side. You came to fight and offend so you’ve no right to bitch when you get hit or offended.
I see you have read “The Art of War” I haven’t, but I am familiar with the tactic of distraction. YOU were asked questions here. You were presented with facts. But in the end you retreat to “J R is MEAN!!!! Reign in J R! ” See anybody calling me a kook do ya Paul?
I call you a shill. Prove you are not. I can do bonedigs that justifies everything I have ever posted about you. I credit you that you are an honest shill. Your posts have been very revealing of you. That same honesty convicts you.
Call me a bully all you like Paul. I am gonna be on you like flies on shit or white on rice. (Probably that made TM faint) Cause deal is Paul you and yours are WAY more dangerous than angry arabs on the other side of the planet. You use fear to steal freedom or at least you try. You have sold out all your life and now you are ready to sell out our freedom just so YOUR choice of politician gets to be right. Thanks no Paul. America aint for sale and it aint buying what you are selling anymore.
One more stick in your cheerleader TMs eye.
RAMEN!
Well said JM!
See TM that is how we do it here. Sometimes posts cross but we post OUR opinions instead of just rah rahing others!
LOLAgain, I have a purpose here. I am fully aware that I won’t change many minds among the posters.However, literally thousands of people read these posts every week who do not, themselves, contribute.I am guessing that I have alienated very few, attracted more than a handful, and benefited greatly from the angry words of my foes.Keep it up.All is going according to plan.I have “lost” nothing.I predict Lieberman will win.I predict that this crackpot judge in the NSA case will be overturned and that scholars on the Left will distance themselves from her.TMT, Time will tell.I might be wrong, but so might you.Bush is in the White House, Brownback is in the Senate, Tiahrt is in the House, my guess is many of you predicted otherwise on all of those races.My ego can handle being wrong, can yours?(As far as psychoanalysis goes, can you “project” someone “projecting” — I think you are projecting me projecting you projecting me, lol)Who is having a better time in here?Who sounds the most angry and hateful?Isn’t “projecting” something that often is motivated by anger or fear of facing reality?That is not me friends.I am firmly planted in the real world.That world is made much safer by George W. Bush!
Paul F. Rosell,
“FOX NEWS just had a political round table on this issue, … The liberals on the panel did not question this fact at all.”
Fox often has “liberals” on who are not well-informed on the issue being discussed. That’s one of Fox’s tricks to appear “balanced”.
Paul: “Fox News is a legit news outlet.I am firmly planted in the real world.”
Faux reports a fantasy world. 1,394 (and growing) examples of Faux’s misinformation, etchttp://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/outlets/foxnewschannel
‘Media Outlet / Personality: Fox News’http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=19&media_outlet_id=2
Oh boy!
Paul gets one kook poster fan and now he thinks he has readers!
Yeah Paul you got readers ok. They come here in droves to watch us embarrass you and your discredited, shallow, suspect agenda. They are probably just like me. I see Paul F Rosell on the recents and that is the first place I click cause I know it is gonna be a fun easy “kill”. Every single thread you have posted you have had your rear end handed to you with links you can’t dispute and lies and near lies you do very little to cover.
Let’s just take apart your last.
“Again, I have a purpose here.”
Yes Paul I am sure you do. The largely progressive blogosphere is being targeted by conservatives. They already control the popular media. BUt the blogosphere is out of their reach because they can’t buy it. But they CAN pay people to infiltrate it. Yes Paul I am again calling you a poster paid for. I have more than ample evidence. While anectdotal, it is from your own words.
Of this forum and readers to it you say
“…..attracted more than a few…..”
Well that’s just silly AND shilly Paul. You can’t “attract” people here! They find this forum on their own. Are you trying to convince the blog that you have the power to magically bring people here? OR are you trying to boost your own ego? OR are you trying to convince the entity paying you to post here that you are getting your “job” done?
“Keep it up.”Oh I intend to! My readers would expect no less.
Ya know Paul? When you are getting your ass kicked on a daily basis the easiest thing to do in the world is to deny it and advise your “enemy” to keep on keepin’ on. But this would NOT explain why you have here and elsewhere whined about your treatment here.
“Who is having a better time in here….”
I’m having a blast Paul! Hell if you weren’t here I’d have to invent you to show how wrong wrongheaded can be. Go do a bonedig and see if I have ever whined about your posts to me. I can do one and show you doing so. Or is your appeal upthread for the left to “reign in J R” sarcasm? Sure didn’t sound like it.
“I am firmly planted in the real world”
You are? You have posted disagreement with the scientific consensus on the reality of global warming. You are actively against an increase in the minimum wage which 83% of Americans support. Ah but you saved the best for last.
“That world is made much safer by George W. Bush!”
That’s gonna please your sponsor Paul but it does not jibe with reality. bush is for open borders and selling the security of seaports to the highest middle eastern bidder. He “doen’t think much” about Osama bin Laden. He doesn’t think much about having broken Iraq beyond repair. It could be argued he doesn’t think much at all.
DO keep selling your self and your agenda here Paul. You are good fodder for people who truly care about America. You show what a patriot is not. America needs to see that.
I too enjoyed the give-and-take, GMC, and I hate the destroy the warm fuzzies. . but. . .Taylor’s opinion is short on substance? How so?
From Taylor’s opinion:
“In the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker. The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad. And the Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who make laws which the President is to execute.The first section of the first article says that ‘All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States ** *’
The President’s order does not direct that a congressional policy be executed in a manner prescribed by Congress – it directs that a presidential policy be executed in a manner prescribed by the President. . . . The Constitution did not subject this law-making power of Congress to presidential or military supervision or control.Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 587-588.”
That of course is not actually Judge Taylor; that’s Judge Taylor quoting Justice Black. Gee, the president executing policy in a manner prescribed by the president. . . . why does that ring a bell? Oh,no, it’s not AT ALL clear how Youngstown might apply!—————————Regarding AUMF, here’s a bit of fun :-):
“In Morales v. TWA, Inc., 504U.S. 374 (1992), the Supreme Court taught us that “it is a commonplace of statutory construction that the specific governs the general.” Id. at 384. The implication argued by Defendants, therefore, cannot be made by this court.”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=504&page=384#384
Now where on Earth did Taylor get THAT? Perhaps Justice Scalia meant something other than what he said? Well, here’s Chief Justice Rehnquist, in the case SCALIA cited (CRAWFORD FITTING CO. v. J. T. GIBBONS, INC., 482 U.S. 437 (1987):*********As always, “`[w]here there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment.’” Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co., 426 U.S. 148, 153 (1976), quoting Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550 -551 (1974) (emphasis added).*******http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=482&invol=437#445
Whoops! All of a sudden, we’ve gone back 30 years, to Justice Stewart, who also said this:”It is a basic principle of statutory construction that a statute dealing with a narrow, precise, and specific subject is not submerged by a later enacted statute covering a more generalized spectrum.”
And, hey, look, he’s got a quote, too!:”The reason and philosophy of the rule is, that when the mind of the legislator has been turned to the details of a subject, and he has acted upon it, a subsequent statute in general terms, or treating the subject in a general manner, and not expressly contradicting the original act, shall not be considered as intended to affect the more particular or positive previous provisions, unless it is absolutely necessary to give the latter act such a construction, in order that its words shall have any meaning at all.” T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 98 (2d ed. 1874).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=426&invol=148#153I wouldn’t be too sure that argument was a winner, either, hehe (it’s nice when precedent coincides with common sense).
P.S. Youngstown IS in Ohio, ain’t it? I just realized my boo-boo upthread. Oh well—thanks for foregoing the cheap shot.
I see TM never answered the question about also being rockl.
I guess a good christian couldnt lie, so she just ignored the question.
hehehe. Truthful indeed.
The internet is so forgiving. Make an ass of yourself using one nic? heheh, no problem. Just pic another name and use it… until you SHAME it so much it is a joke….
…then pick another nic.
A well used strategy here!
Rage:
Love to chat about it, but got a jury tomorrow. If this is still going after that, well, we’ll see.
Wanna bet a dinner over whether this decision is overturned?
I like expensive steaks . . .
Uh, one problem, with that, GMC: I moved to Tucson in July. There are some nice restaurants on Fourth Avenue, but I’m NOT paying your airfare! ;-)
I’ll have to think about that. I am pretty sure that, if it’s overturned, it will be on the narrow standing issue, and not on anything else. Standing is not a issue I’ve studied (yet), though I know the basic premise–you gotta demonstrate something hurts you personally before you can complain about it!
About how much would that steak dinner cost?
Rage:
taking a quick break from trial prep.
Tuscon in July!! hot, hot, hot; I’ve been there in August (”but it’s a dry heat . . . riight!)
Sorry; probably won’t fly down, though the offer is tempting; perhaps in January, when the wind is howling -20 wind chills here??
Oh gee, it turns out that U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor is on the board of an organization that funds the ACLU.
Conflict of interest? And a ruling that is being criticized by legal experts of all political stripe. Hmmm…..It won’t stand.
I’m sure the surveillance is working and I’m glad they do it.
However, what an extreme case of dumb-ass, that they didn’t go through the process to do this by the rules.
Would have been sooooo easy!
Tracy
It much easier to make peace with the Arabs.
Ed
Dontcha think that at the very least this judge should have made a public disclosure of her connection to the ACLU when issuing her ruling?
As for the ruling, even Lawrence Tribe backhanded her in twisted kind of way.
IF Greenwald’s claims are correct, the quality of Judge Taylor’s opinion, and ACLU fund connection are irrelevant.
‘Ongoing misconceptions about Judge Taylor’s opinion’http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/ongoing-misconceptions-about-judge.html
See #’s 3 and 7
Hey, GMC, check out cosmos’ link! Look who’s arguing with Greenwald (hint: his initials are O.K).
cosmos, I think #4 is especially pertinent, too.
P.S. Regarding Lawrence Tribe:
“it’s those with constitutional blood on their hands who deserve to be chastized most insistently in the public press,and it seems to me something of an indulgence to spend so much time complaining in the media that the judge who called foul used some ill-chosen rhetoric, and that she stuttered and sputtered a bit more than necessary, when the principal effects might well be tounderscore one’s own professional credentials and one’s cleverness and even-handedness and fair-mindedness at the expense of distracting the general public from the far more important conclusion that the nation’s chief executive has been guilty of a shamelessly unlawfulpower grab.”
http://uptoknowgood.wordpress.com/2006/08/23/professor-tribe-points-to-%E2%80%9Cthose-with-constitutional-blood-on-their-hands%E2%80%9D/