Judge Throws out wireless searches and why it don't mean a thing. by Hero

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Judge Throws out wireless searches and why it don't mean a thing.

POSTED BY: HERO
UPDATED: Sunday, August 20, 2006 09:32
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1406
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, August 17, 2006 9:25 AM

Quote:

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves wiretapping conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.

Today a Federal Judge, Anna Diggs Taylor (a Carter appointee...wow), ruled that the Terrorist Surveillance Program's warrantless wiretaps were unconstitutional and ordered the program stopped (pauses while the leftists to cheer and the terrorists dial thier bomb suppliers).

What does this mean? Nothing. First of all the NSA will appeal the ruling and the Court of Appeals will stay execution of the order.

Second, the ruling will be overturned. Why? Beause the question of whether or not the Constitution has been violated is not relevant to the case. As the above quote notes, the ACLU filed this suit on behalf of persons who are not the subject of the program. There is a black letter rule that says a person cannot assert the Constitutional rights of another, in this case the journalists, lawyers, etc. are asserting the rights of their "overseas contacts" aka Osama Bin Laddin and company.

So before PirateNews and the board's liberals start calling FireflyinOsama and the board's terrorists, you might want to be aware of the simple fact that 'you can't stop the signal'.

Also, suppose the NSA simply refuses to comply. You can't arrest the NSA. At most they can sue the NSA, but legally your constitutional rights have a nominal value...$1. The worst thing is that the Court can exclude any recorded calls from trial...but who cares if it stops an attack? So legally I say screw the court's ruling and listen to everybody you need to listen too...for now anyway.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:07 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Dude, screw you.

While you're busy pissing on the Constitution, the document that, if obeyed and respected, keeps THIS country from becoming as bad as tinpot dictatorships in third world countries, SOME of us are busy trying to prevent it from being used as toilet paper by this administration, and a damned lot of them live here in Michigan.

When those jackasses on capitol hill damned near unilaterally agreed (410-8) to support the evil menace that is Israel in their pyschotic overreaction against Hezbollah, three of the eight who opposed this lunatic stupidity were reps from Michigan.

When most of congress was blindly cheering this administrations damn-fool rush to stick our arm in the meat grinder that is the middle-east, and enabling the more excessive abuses in the name of 'national security' it was John Conyers who had the balls to stand up and say "What the hell are you maniacs doing?!"

When it comes to holding our dumbass bunglers in the white house accountable for negligence, stupidity and down right incompetence, Conyers has been right up front every time, and although I do not like him personally, and do not agree with some of his beliefs (regarding copyright law, mostly) we do agree that there are more important issues in front of us right now.

Our Governor doesn't take any shit either, being the former state attorney general and the very best at it this state has seen in a long, long time, weathering endless smear campaigns by ReThugs who offer no ACTUAL solutions beyond roadblocking and sabotage of anything they can't take credit for.

Ms. Taylor did the right thing, and in response to your asinine comment...

Quote:
suppose the NSA simply refuses to comply. You can't arrest the NSA.

That makes the NSA a terrorist organization, something I have always asserted that they are, their very charter, what they were ever given any authority or budget under to begin with, specifically FORBIDS the kind of behavior they have engaged in, and if the rule of law, and the highest law in the land, does not apply to them, then how are we any fekkin different from the Taliban ?

I am not one whit opposed to using military force to dismantle an alphabet agency gone rogue who refuses to comply - who the hell is running this country, dammit, them, or us ?

And hell yes, old and gimpy that I am, I'd be the first in line if they'd have me to help do it, cause these asswipes are a greater threat to us than any other terrorist organisation.

Quote:
legally your constitutional rights have a nominal value...$1

And now that you've shown your true colors, I think maybe you might wanna close that piehole before you dig yourself in any deeper.

You don't support america, you don't even support the IDEA of america, and if that's what you believe, then you are on the wrong side of the atlantic in this engagement, mister.

There's only really one difference between people like you, and the Taliban, and that's who you think should be in charge of your little whole-world theocratic dictatorship...

So, tell me, how are you one whit better ?

And in the meantime, keep your piehole shut instead of flaming and sabotage of people trying to fix the mess ignorant morons like you helped create.. if yer gonna take issue with what Michigan is doing to un-fubar the situation, then either bring something to the table, offer useful ideas, or shut the hell up.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:10 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves wiretapping conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.

Today a Federal Judge, Anna Diggs Taylor (a Carter appointee...wow), ruled that the Terrorist Surveillance Program's warrantless wiretaps were unconstitutional and ordered the program stopped (pauses while the leftists to cheer and the terrorists dial thier bomb suppliers).

What does this mean? Nothing. First of all the NSA will appeal the ruling and the Court of Appeals will stay execution of the order.

Second, the ruling will be overturned. Why? Beause the question of whether or not the Constitution has been violated is not relevant to the case. As the above quote notes, the ACLU filed this suit on behalf of persons who are not the subject of the program. There is a black letter rule that says a person cannot assert the Constitutional rights of another, in this case the journalists, lawyers, etc. are asserting the rights of their "overseas contacts" aka Osama Bin Laddin and company.

So before PirateNews and the board's liberals start calling FireflyinOsama and the board's terrorists, you might want to be aware of the simple fact that 'you can't stop the signal'.

Also, suppose the NSA simply refuses to comply. You can't arrest the NSA. At most they can sue the NSA, but legally your constitutional rights have a nominal value...$1. The worst thing is that the Court can exclude any recorded calls from trial...but who cares if it stops an attack? So legally I say screw the court's ruling and listen to everybody you need to listen too...for now anyway.

H

And you say all this like its a good thing.

We are The Forsaken - We aim to burn! and we don't need no stinkin levels!

one of the Forsaken TM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 3:29 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Dude, screw you.

Nice start. An intellectual rebuttal of all my legal and political points. Now my equally intellegent response...

Quote:

and a damned lot of them live here in Michigan....if yer gonna take issue with what Michigan is doing to un-fubar the situation, then either bring something to the table, offer useful ideas, or shut the hell up.

Took me a minute to figure out what this Michigan business was. Turns out you think that Michigan is somehow involved in this case. Its not a Michigan court, its not a Michigan case, its not a Michigan judge...its the Federal District Court and it could just as easily be the Norther District of Alabama as the anywhere else. So I'm not taking issue with Michigan (about this...I've been to Detroit and Michigan has enough issues of its own without me adding anything too it), I'm taking issue with a Federal Judge who, like a lot of District Judges, gets something dead wrong that could lead to a lot of just plain dead by hampering our ability to defend ourselves from the folk with the bombs in the baby formula.

Quote:

to support the evil menace that is Israel

Now you see, you've got alot in common with the folk with the bombs and frequent flyer miles. You hate Isreal AND you don't want us listening in on the terrorists. You wrap some of it up in Constitutional rhetoric, but thats what you are arguing for. Perhaps you should change your name to Fremd-sama Bin Laddin...I'm just sayin.

Quote:

it was John Conyers who had the balls to stand up

Can't disagree. I'm no Conyers fan, but the man does have the balls to be dead wrong on every issue. He's also one of two who support the draft.

Personally I think we shouldn't be drafting people, but Mr. Conyers disagrees. I understand his reasoning though. Can't campaign bitch and moaning about the draft if there isn't a draft, so he needs the draft so he can shout "Vietnam!" and keep folk from laughing at him.

Quote:

Ms. Taylor did the right thing, and in response to your asinine comment...
Quote:
suppose the NSA simply refuses to comply. You can't arrest the NSA.

That makes the NSA a terrorist organization

Missed the day they taught about Andrew Jackson..."they made the ruling let them enforce it" or the 'switch in time that saved nine' under Roosevelt. Its hard to enforce rulings like this if the President really does not agree. Not impossible, but difficult, if for no other reason then the NSA can just keep doing it in secret. Sure, they can't use their stuff in court, but they can use it to stop attacks, and thats pretty good.

Quote:

And hell yes, old and gimpy that I am, I'd be the first in line if they'd have me to help do it, cause these asswipes are a greater threat to us than any other terrorist organisation.

Perhaps, but not today I think. Tell you what, lets defeat the terrorist menace today and then we can go after the 'evil govt. menace' tomorrow.

Quote:

Quote:
legally your constitutional rights have a nominal value...$1

And now that you've shown your true colors, I think maybe you might wanna close that piehole before you dig yourself in any deeper.

Yeah, we have this entity called the Supreme Court and they make final rulings on things such as this. The Court has ruled that Civil Rights have a nominal value of $1. This is because many times there is no financial loss associated with the loss of a liberty. Sometimes no medical bills, no property damage, no pain and suffering and so on. If there is no harm, then there is no foul (its a long time legal principal) so the Supreme Court invented a legal fiction to assign nominal value to Civil Rights to create a means by which courts could rightfully hear certain cases.

And if you think about it, lack of actual damages means no case. By allowing nominal actual damages, not only can the cases be heard, they can now have an avenue to assess punitive damages.

Quote:

You don't support america, you don't even support the IDEA of america,

We both support America and we both support the idea of America, but we also have differing views on just what that idea is. For example I believe that we should defend America from the terrorist. You believe that we should defend the terrorist from America.

Quote:

There's only really one difference between people like you, and the Taliban, and that's who you think should be in charge of your little whole-world theocratic dictatorship...

And I don't have a beard. And I like naked women (although we can do without all the talky talky...am I right guys?). Oh, and pork products...where would America or any of us be without bacon, hot dogs, and ham sandwiches.

Quote:

So, tell me, how are you one whit better ?

Well lets see. I have an education and I don't kill people, never lost a war, don't abuse women, hmm...

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 4:18 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Again, screw you.

It wasn't meant as a rebuttal, it was meant as an insult, and quite sincere.

I know it's a Federal Judge boyo, but you seem to have missed that I was pointing out, quite pridefully, that a damned lot of the folk trying to shoot down ignorant stupidity in the name of policy come from THIS state, something I *am* proud of, and I think I have a right to be.

As for dead wrong and just plain dead, perhaps you'd care to explain what we have accomplished with this idiotic, asinine stupidity so far ?

We're not any safer, and the larger you make a dragnet the more garbage you dredge up, the longer it takes to sort, and the greater chance of completely missing an actual plot as opposed to doing any good, not to mention it degrades privacy and thus impacts everyone directly - if we become as bad as they are, we hand victory to them, because our way of life will be every bit as wretched as if they had come over here and conquered us.

As for bombs in baby formula - get off the fear wagon, jackass, the primary threat is some dickhead humping a stinger over the unguarded Rio Grande and using it from outside the fence while we're busy feeling up the passengers at the check-in.

Fearmongering and political maneuvering are no substitute for actual security.

You're damned right I hate Israel, having "done my homework" unlike you, I know now that they are no friend of anyones, and if you wanna "Listen to the terrorists" I'd be starting with COMVERSE, AMDOCS, AIPAC, and the ADL (who got caught in their own plot to commit terrorist bombings against us not long ago, mind you.) trust me, as I said, I've done my homework on the matter, you don't wanna go there with me right now, at all.

I may not agree with Conyers on every point, as I told you, but he's tried to hold this administration accountable, which is admirable, and more than I can say for cheerleaders like you who are helping them lead us right off a cliff.

Unlike you, I swore an Oath to uphold and defend our Nation and the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, see - and if the NSA chooses by their actions to defy their charter, (proven fact) the rule of law, and the supreme law of the land, that qualifies them as a domestic enemy, period.

And you did not say CIVIL rights, you said CONSTITUTIONAL rights, which are absolutely, incontrivertably, not to be infringed, and especially not to be flushed down the crapper - it is the supreme law of the land, above and beyond even the supreme court, and the bedrock of the foundation of our entire country.

And if you believe they aren't worth a damned thing, then you do not believe in America.

I would also dispute that you have an education, or if so, you must have seriously bailed on history and civics class, that's for damned sure.

I want us to defeat them - you want us to become them.

-Frem

PS- You might consider stopping now, cause it's not like I am arguing with you, I'm just helping you humilate yourself, really... but if you'd like some more rope, by all means, continue to jabber away.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 5:30 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Again, screw you.

And my reply...

Quote:

THIS state, something I *am* proud of, and I think I have a right to be.

You have a right to be proud of Michigan. Michigan and Detroit in particular are cesspools of filth, violence, drugs, terror cells, and everbody know the best cars are made in Toledo, but be proud. I've been all over the country Cleveland, Philadelphia, DC, Atlanta, etc and with the possible exception of East St. Louis Detroit is without a doubt the worst City in the entire nation...but its all American filth so be proud.

(*Note: I am from Ohio so my opinion in this matter is colored by the ongoing rivalry between the No. 1 ranked Ohio State Buckeyes and some "school" located in Michigan. I encourage everyone who can to visit Michigan for yourselves and make your own judgements about the smell.)

Quote:

As for dead wrong and just plain dead, perhaps you'd care to explain what we have accomplished with this idiotic, asinine stupidity so far ?

Attack after attack. No end of 9/11s...no wait, I got that backwards...no REPEAT of 9/11. We might be attacked again tomorrow. Can't stop them all...but they sure haven't gotten a shot off since then. BTW, are you part of the cell buying all those cell phones at Walmat up that way?

Quote:

As for bombs in baby formula - get off the fear wagon, jackass,

Don't blame me, I didn't think to put liquid explosives in the baby bottle and then send mommy and baby on a plane ride.

Quote:

You're damned right I hate Israel

Like I said. You hate Isreal, the terrorist hate Isreal. You hate the NSA's terrorist surveillance program, they hate it too. You advocate violance against US agencies, so do they. I reall think you need to reexamine which side of the line your standing on.

Quote:

Unlike you, I swore an Oath to uphold and defend our Nation and the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic

Took an oath myself when they swore me in as a lawyer. Unlike yours, I take mine seriously. You problem is not the part of your oath where you are willing to uphold and defend...its the part where you figure out who's the enemy.

Quote:

CONSTITUTIONAL rights, which are absolutely, incontrivertably, not to be infringed

Only when you agree with them. You forget the part that says "without due process". The govt. can limit any right you have so long as they provide for due process. That means having a compelling govt interest (turns out security is pretty compelling) and the infringment is narrowly tailored to be the least intrusive possible (in this case listening only to people calling overseas terrorists).

Quote:

And if you believe they aren't worth a damned thing, then you do not believe in America.

I believe they are not worth any amount of money and thus agree to ascribe to them a "nominal value" so as to give them the legal standing they need to be asserted in court. Perhaps you believe that your rights have no place in court because their value cannot be defined.

Quote:

I would also dispute that you have an education, or if so, you must have seriously bailed on history and civics class, that's for damned sure.

Because I disagree with you. Anyone who disagrees with you is stupid...I stopped making those arguments when I was six. Now I set out to prove them wrong or convince them to change, not dismiss them as stupid. You are not a stupid man...a short-sighted, narrow-minded, anti-semitic, hate monger who can't keep a civil tongue in your mouth...but your not stupid.

Quote:

PS- You might consider stopping now, cause it's not like I am arguing with you, I'm just helping you humilate yourself, really...

Thanks. Be sure to adjust your tin foil hat before replying...the NSA is listening. (Can't stop the signal)

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 5:39 AM

CHRISISALL

Frem, the Administration supporters aren't telling us what to think...

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 5:47 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves wiretapping conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.

Today a Federal Judge, Anna Diggs Taylor (a Carter appointee...wow), ruled that the Terrorist Surveillance Program's warrantless wiretaps were unconstitutional and ordered the program stopped (pauses while the leftists to cheer and the terrorists dial thier bomb suppliers).

What does this mean? Nothing. First of all the NSA will appeal the ruling and the Court of Appeals will stay execution of the order.

Second, the ruling will be overturned. Why? Beause the question of whether or not the Constitution has been violated is not relevant to the case. As the above quote notes, the ACLU filed this suit on behalf of persons who are not the subject of the program. There is a black letter rule that says a person cannot assert the Constitutional rights of another, in this case the journalists, lawyers, etc. are asserting the rights of their "overseas contacts" aka Osama Bin Laddin and company.

So before PirateNews and the board's liberals start calling FireflyinOsama and the board's terrorists, you might want to be aware of the simple fact that 'you can't stop the signal'.

Also, suppose the NSA simply refuses to comply. You can't arrest the NSA. At most they can sue the NSA, but legally your constitutional rights have a nominal value...$1. The worst thing is that the Court can exclude any recorded calls from trial...but who cares if it stops an attack? So legally I say screw the court's ruling and listen to everybody you need to listen too...for now anyway.

H

Piratenews is a liberal!!!!!
Pull the other one, chum.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 5:58 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by oldenglanddry:

Piratenews is a liberal!!!!!
Pull the other one, chum.

Phrased it badly. Meant PirateNews as well as those persons who are liberals. Not that he was a liberal, I was merely placing them in the same sentence, not the same catagory.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 6:46 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hero- And... how is that you like Firefly again? I just can't understand who you identify with since you're a major authoritarian. :puzzled:

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 6:47 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hero- And... how is that you like Firefly again? I just can't understand who you identify with since you're a major authoritarian. :puzzled:

The Alliance?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 7:54 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hero- And... how is that you like Firefly again? I just can't understand who you identify with since you're a major authoritarian.

I identify with the ship. Either she flies or she don't. The most unforgiving and authoritarian character on the show was Serenity.

Besides the show's all about conservative values vs. liberal-elitism. For example, I can very much see The Alliance telling you not to smoke in your own home because its not good for you and they know better, or what to drive or what to eat. And not one of those rules would apply to the folk with the John Kerry accents running things and making their pronouncments from on high. Now I know some of you folk out there will point to things like abortion and say conservatives meddle just as much as liberals. But I'm not talking about the elitist leadership...I'm talking plain folk and most plain and simple folk are conservatives (even the Democrats).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 8:45 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Moving my questions about FISA from the Gullible thread....

First of all, you said that in general the Constitution holds that privacy is a thing unto itself, although there are exceptions. But in this thread you lean towards "no harm no foul". Why would you lean in that direction for THIS interpretation?

My other question is- Is there any particular reason why you would support WARRANTLESS wiretapping. In your other answer, you said that the wiretapping was restricted to people who were in contact with known or suspected terrorists. Given that fact, it seems like a FISA surveillance order would be easy to get (historically, they have been VERY easy to get) and for cases of immediate urgency there is the 72-hour after-the-fact provision. There is no question that wiretapping is needed, the question is- does it have to be warrantless?

It seems to me that it's up the the Administration to make the case that they NEED warrantless wiretapping since on the face of it, warrantless wiretapping violates the Constitution and FISA.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 8:46 AM

USBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves wiretapping conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.

Today a Federal Judge, Anna Diggs Taylor (a Carter appointee...wow), ruled that the Terrorist Surveillance Program's warrantless wiretaps were unconstitutional and ordered the program stopped (pauses while the leftists to cheer and the terrorists dial thier bomb suppliers).

What does this mean? Nothing. First of all the NSA will appeal the ruling and the Court of Appeals will stay execution of the order.

Second, the ruling will be overturned. Why? Beause the question of whether or not the Constitution has been violated is not relevant to the case. As the above quote notes, the ACLU filed this suit on behalf of persons who are not the subject of the program. There is a black letter rule that says a person cannot assert the Constitutional rights of another, in this case the journalists, lawyers, etc. are asserting the rights of their "overseas contacts" aka Osama Bin Laddin and company.

So before PirateNews and the board's liberals start calling FireflyinOsama and the board's terrorists, you might want to be aware of the simple fact that 'you can't stop the signal'.

Also, suppose the NSA simply refuses to comply. You can't arrest the NSA. At most they can sue the NSA, but legally your constitutional rights have a nominal value...$1. The worst thing is that the Court can exclude any recorded calls from trial...but who cares if it stops an attack? So legally I say screw the court's ruling and listen to everybody you need to listen too...for now anyway.

H

Hero, I hope you are correct, however I wouldn't put anything past the ACLU. They are despicable human beings, the enemy within in my humble opinion. I might have a different opinion if I thought they had conviction in their lawsuits. But they have proved time and time again they sue just because they can.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 8:49 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hero _ I don't think the story is about liberals versus conservatives. First of all, you cross-wire the identification of liberals with elitists and common folk with conservatives. But, I have a real life to live, so I will take this up with you later.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 10:09 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
First of all, you said that in general the Constitution holds that privacy is a thing unto itself, although there are exceptions. But in this thread you lean towards "no harm no foul". Why would you lean in that direction for THIS interpretation?

Because it makes sense to me and it has the added benefit of being the way Constitutional interpretation seems to be leaning. In the olden days police were given way too much leeway. Then they were properly reigned in. Now we can start letting the leash out a bit.

The idea is that while a person is harmed by a violation, society is also harmed in that justice is not served. The Court is seeking to balance that competing interests when there is no intentional or actual harm, society should not be unduly punished. (Kinda a good faith doctrine mixed with the no harm no foul approach).

Quote:

My other question is- Is there any particular reason why you would support WARRANTLESS wiretapping. In your other answer, you said that the wiretapping was restricted to people who were in contact with known or suspected terrorists. Given that fact, it seems like a FISA surveillance order would be easy to get (historically, they have been VERY easy to get) and for cases of immediate urgency there is the 72-hour after-the-fact provision. There is no question that wiretapping is needed, the question is- does it have to be warrantless?

First of all FISA needs revised. It does not apply specifically to these types of situations or these methods of communication. Also FISA courts are understaffed like most Federal courts (because Bush appointees can't seem to get hearings) and historically take a long time to operate. The system was designed for long term espionage investigations, not rapid fire terrorist interception. It needs revised, perhaps incorporating a streamlined process.

Another argument is that the authorization Bush received in 2001 and again in 2003 authorizes him to bypass FISA in war related circumstances. Its implied and historically consistant with Presidential war making power.

The Bush administration made use of FISA where it was practicle and informed Congressional leadership of this program to bypass them when it was not. This was not a unilateral program and with the exception of the a few liberals (including one who likes to hit cops) most of Congress has refused to call for the program to end. They're just mad because they were not informed (actually they need something to attack the President with).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 11:17 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I don't think the story is about liberals versus conservatives. First of all, you cross-wire the identification of liberals with elitists and common folk with conservatives.

Some peeps see Clockwork Orange as a story of a kid that the government tries to squash the uniqueness out of and control like a pet.
Others see it as a cautionary tale told through the eyes of a sociopath.

And some feel Mal prolly has a poster of Dubya next to his bed, we just didn't see it 'cause of lefty libby Joss not lettin' us.

Like Rue says: filters...Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 2:08 PM

ANTIMASON

heres whats so scary to me:

theyre telling us this war on terror is never ending. if "war" justifies survelience, then a never ending war justifies never ending survelience.

what makes someone a terrorist? since its not limited to muslims, i guess anyone who dissents or disagrees with the government is one; isnt that what your implying HERO? the Patriot act says that anyone who violates a state or federal law can be classified as a terrorist.

do you want them holding you captive in secret, or putting you in concentration camps? what do you think will happen upon the next attacks? this is a dangerous precedent, and i hardly, HARDLY believe its benevolent

the constitution is not antiquated, the nature of warfare is. if it is someones mentality or ideals that initiates their "terrorist" behavior, how does starting wars and killing innocent civilians help solve the problem? dont you have to negotiate with terrorists, so you can see what the cause of their afflictions are? or maybe they never cared all along

...maybe this was the real reason for the cold war, so governments could transfer that technology into policing their own populaces

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 4:30 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The idea is that while a person is harmed by a violation, society is also harmed in that justice is not served. The Court is seeking to balance that competing interests when there is no intentional or actual harm, society should not be unduly punished. (Kinda a good faith doctrine mixed with the no harm no foul approach).

But OTOH, when justice does not REQUIRE a warrantless invasion of privavy, then there is no reason for that action. So assuming no harm came out of a warrantless wiretap (for example), it didn't protect society either. In other words, the Constitution was violated with no benefit.

So I come back to my statement that it seems that the Administration has to show that they NEED warrantless wiretaps. So far, they haven't done that. YOU may say that FISA doens't work but so far I haven't heard Alberto Gonzales claim that the FISA courts are too slow or too restrictive.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 5:59 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

All I got out of Zero's posts was:

brown people with big noses !!!

blah blah blah

brown people with big noses !!!

Oh and Zero,
your dialogue:

Quote:
Again, screw you.
And my reply...

looked an awful lot like you were offering deviant sexual favors in a way that's probably illegal.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 19, 2006 3:27 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Now that enough rope's been fed out, let's pull it up short a bit...

I swear this is like standing 16 feet away from a nasty rottweiler on a 12 foot chain sometimes, and just about as easy.

Two points you do not address, because you either cannot, or will not, address them, would-be-hero.

#1 - How exactly does the christian fascism you propose differ significantly from the Taliban in form or execution ?

#2 - Why should I not see you and yours as the exact same threat or worse, because unlike the Taliban, they have the means and material to pull it off ?

See, your position sucks because you have nothing to offer but the exact same thing the terrorists do, a totalarianist government oppressive and hostile towards anything resembling dissert or freedom - so to my perspective, there's not one dimes worth of difference between people like you, and folks like Osama.

Also noteworthy, I am not disagreeing with you, I'm calling you an idiot - the same as I would with someone who thought the sky was green, or the earth was flat... there's no moving a zealot from their position, there's only hanging them out to dry on their own fallacies.

You can't save the Constitution by torching it.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 19, 2006 3:42 AM

CHRISISALL

"These words are not just for the Yangs, but the Coems as well. They must apply to EVERYONE, or they mean NOTHING, do you understand?!"

Kirkisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 19, 2006 4:41 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER

While I think this warrantless wiretapping is illegal and will ultimately be found unconstitutional, I would like to point out that Hero is probably right in that this decision is meaningless and will be overturned.

From the New York Times (not a friend of conservatives):

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/washington/19ruling.html?_r=1&oref=s
login

Experts Fault Reasoning in Surveillance Decision
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: August 19, 2006

Even legal experts who agreed with a federal judge’s conclusion on Thursday that a National Security Agency surveillance program is unlawful were distancing themselves from the decision’s reasoning and rhetoric yesterday.

They said the opinion overlooked important precedents, failed to engage the government’s major arguments, used circular reasoning, substituted passion for analysis and did not even offer the best reasons for its own conclusions.

Discomfort with the quality of the decision is almost universal, said Howard J. Bashman, a Pennsylvania lawyer whose Web log provides comprehensive and nonpartisan reports on legal developments.

“It does appear,” Mr. Bashman said, “that folks on all sides of the spectrum, both those who support it and those who oppose it, say the decision is not strongly grounded in legal authority.”

The main problems, scholars sympathetic to the decision’s bottom line said, is that the judge, Anna Diggs Taylor, relied on novel and questionable constitutional arguments when more straightforward statutory ones were available.

She ruled, for instance, that the program, which eavesdrops without court permission on international communications of people in the United States, violated the First Amendment because it might have chilled the speech of people who feared they might have been monitored.

That ruling is “rather innovative” and “not a particularly good argument,” Jack Balkin, a law professor at Yale who believes the program is illegal, wrote on his Web log.

Judge Taylor also ruled that the program violated the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. But scholars said she failed to take account of the so-called “special needs” exception to the amendment’s requirement that the government obtain a warrant before engaging in some surveillance unrelated to routine law enforcement. “It’s just a few pages of general ruminations about the Fourth Amendment, much of it incomplete and some of it simply incorrect,” Orin S. Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University who believes the administration’s legal justifications for the program are weak, said of Judge Taylor’s Fourth Amendment analysis on a Web log called the Volokh Conspiracy.

Judge Taylor gave less attention to the more modest statutory argument that has been widely advanced by critics of the program. They say that it violates a 1978 law requiring warrants from a secret court and that neither a 2001 Congressional authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda nor the president’s constitutional authority allowed the administration to ignore the law. A recent Supreme Court decision strengthened that argument. Judge Taylor did not cite it.

Some scholars speculated that Judge Taylor, of the Federal District Court in Detroit, may have rushed her decision lest the case be consolidated with several others now pending in federal court in San Francisco or moved to a specialized court in Washington as contemplated by pending legislation. Judge Taylor heard the last set of arguments in the case a little more than a month ago.

The decision has been appealed, and legal scholars said Judge Taylor had done the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the plaintiffs, few favors beyond handing it a victory. On the other hand, they added, the appeals court is bound to examine the legal arguments in the case afresh in any event.

Indeed, Cass R. Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago, predicted that the plaintiffs would win the case on appeal, but not for the reasons Judge Taylor gave.

“The chances that the Bush program will be upheld are not none, but slim,” Professor Sunstein said. “The chances that this judge’s analysis will be adopted are also slim.”

Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who presides over the Volokh Conspiracy Web log and says he is skeptical of the legality of the wiretapping program, called the decision “not just ill-reasoned, but rhetorically ill-conceived.”

“If I were the A.C.L.U.,” Professor Volokh said, “I would rather have a decision that came across as more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger and that was as deliberate, meticulous, thoughtful and studiously impartial as possible.”

Anthony Romero, the executive director of the A.C.L.U., said Judge Taylor’s decision represented vindication of established limits on the scope of executive authority.

“Ultimately,” Mr. Romero said, “any doubts about the decision will be taken up on appeal by sitting federal judges rather than pundits or commentators.”

Judge Taylor, a longtime trial court judge who was appointed by President Jimmy Carter, enjoys a good reputation among lawyers who have appeared before her, according to anonymous comments collected by the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary.

“Lawyers interviewed rated Taylor high in legal ability,” the almanac concluded. The eight quoted comments ranged from enthusiastic (“She is smart as hell”) to lukewarm (“She is competent”).

Supporters of the program, disclosed by The New York Times in December, suggested that Judge Taylor’s opinion was as good a way to lose as any.

“It’s hard to exaggerate how bad it is,” said John R. Schmidt, a Justice Department official in the Clinton administration who says the program is legal. He pointed to Judge Taylor’s failure to cite what he called several pertinent decisions, including one from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review in 2002 that said it took for granted that Congress “could not encroach on the president’s constitutional power” to conduct warrantless surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence.

The decision also failed to cite a Supreme Court decision in June helpful to the plaintiffs, a group of journalists, scholars, lawyers and nonprofit organizations. The decision, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, struck down the administration’s plans to try prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, as war criminals. It was widely interpreted as a rebuke to the administration’s expansive conception of executive power.

“After Hamdan,” Professor Sunstein said, “this program is not easy to defend.”

Professor Balkin said there was a rushed quality to Judge Taylor’s decision, but he added that her reason for moving fast may have been the laudable one of assuring that more than one appeals court would have the opportunity to pass on the legality of the program.

Martin S. Lederman, a former Justice Department official who believes the program is illegal, said he found the contrast between Justice John Paul Stevens’s approach in Hamdan and Judge Taylor’s in the wiretapping case telling.

“Justice Stevens was criticized for not including sound bites and sweeping constitutional interpretation,” Mr. Lederman said. Judge Taylor’s decision, by contrast, he said, “was meant for headlines.”

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 9:23 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
"These words are not just for the Yangs, but the Coems as well. They must apply to EVERYONE, or they mean NOTHING, do you understand?!"

Thats a great episode. I note for the record he was teaching that lesson to Yangs only. In order to spread the words to the Coems he was imposing on the Yangs a burden to civilize the world.

You can't negotiate with people whose goal is to kill you.

Here:

"Ok Mr. Terrorist...what do you want to make peace?"
"You must die."
"How bout land?"
"OK, and you must die."
"Money and land."
"Deal...but you must die."
"Money, land, and power over us."
"And you die? Then deal."

See. Does not work. The only proven method of dealing with people like this is to kill them and keep killing them until finally you get one who says "enough". Ask Japan.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 20, 2006 9:32 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
She ruled, for instance, that the program, which eavesdrops without court permission on international communications of people in the United States, violated the First Amendment because it might have chilled the speech of people who feared they might have been monitored.

That was one of my favorite ones. Its like a bar owner suing to overturn the state's DUI laws because it might chill the drinking habits of folk who are afraid they are going to get pulled over.

Gee, speeding laws are unconstitutional because it might force people who may or may not have exceeded the speed limit to drive slower.

Quote:

“The chances that the Bush program will be upheld are not none, but slim,” Professor Sunstein said. “The chances that this judge’s analysis will be adopted are also slim.”

Well, this one is half right. This decision cannot get past the standing issue to argue the merits of the case. Such a case is coming and while I think any such case is a lock at the District level (if you look hard enough you can find a liberal judge somewhere that will interpret the sky as green or the sun as "not going to rise tomorrow) it is hit and miss at the appeals level (most likely in the 9th Circuit, least likely in the eastern ones), it is a sure loser at the Supreme Court (I'm guessing 5-4 or 6-3) given the Court's composition.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE