JUDGE: PRES. BUSH'S WIRETAP PROGRAM VIOLATES CONSTITUTION & MUST STOP
 

JUDGE: PRES. BUSH'S WIRETAP PROGRAM VIOLATES CONSTITUTION & MUST STOP
It?s a historic bout in the battle of the branches: the executive says it?s legal, but the judiciary says it?s not. It concerns the government?s domestic spying program ? the monitoring of Americans? phone calls and e-mail messages without warrants. Today, in a stunning rebuke to the Bush administration, a federal court ruled that the program is unconstitutional ? and must stop. In a decision, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, of the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division, struck down the NSA program, which she said violates the rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution. The judge?s 44-page memorandum and order also says the program violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) passed by Congress in 1978. Because of those things, the judge says the domestic spying program must stop. And then there?s this: in a stunning claim against the president, the judge writes that President Bush violated the Constitution, the decision saying, ?The President of the United States... has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders." The Justice Department says it will appeal.

Why does Judge Anna Diggs Taylor hate freedom so much? Is she a Taliban?

The Washington Post article this morning said that many people have criticized her ruling as being poorly reasoned and it's questionable that it will hold up on appeal. I haven't read her ruling, and I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if that's spin from the other side or if it really is a weak ruling that won't hold up on appeal. We'll see.

It can't be as poorly reasoned as Bush's argument: "It's legal but we can't tell you why".

I'm not saying it is. I certainly hope it holds up on appeal. It was the first good news I have seen in the press in a long long time.

Didn't they claim that the whole UK-to-LA-liquid-bomb scheme was uncovered because of the wiretapping of international calls?

And the tracing of money transfers and accounts. You can't win, spy and trace in order to stop the attacks and you are called a facist. But if an attack goes through, then the government isn't doing enough to stop the terrorists.

That poster is awesome.

Then you need to spend more time here:
http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/PhotoAlbum1.html

Wow. That's a fantastic site.

Almost. She's a Democrat. But you're not supposed to be able to tell.

Let's see....

Who wants to force their religious views on the entire nation, and make them law of the land, like the Taliban?
Who wants to force prayer in school, like the Taliban?
Who were against the ERA, wanting to keep women in their place as second-class citizens like the Taliban?
Who wants everybody in the country to tote around an AK47, like the Taliban?
Who would never stand for same-gender marriage, like the Taliban?
Who punishes you for opposing their agenda like the Taliban?
Who has a core following who are fundamentalist religious conservative extremists, like the Taliban?
Who doesn't care if their fellow countrymen live or die, like the Taliban?
Who bypasses diplmacy, in favor of violence, like the Taliban?

The repubicans, that's who!

Are you done chanting slogans? Like the Taliban?

This judgement is so palpably political as to be totally embarassing. Watch what happens to it on appeal.

A little dissent on the liquid bomb story.

hehe I like that site. I have never been entirely convinced of this particular plot. It smells fishy enough to use in a paella.

So, when you say the democrats are like the Taliban without saying a word to back it up, its okay, but when someone describes the ways the republicans are like the Taliban in response to your seemingly baseless accusation, they're chanting slogans?

Considering how the Republicans would probably (mis)treat her if she were to walk into the 'big tent', MaggieL is a fierce defender of the party.

Given a choice between their 'base' and the Log Cabin Republicans, it's not too hard to see which group will be thrown to the wolves.

Sometimes I wonder if she knows that the there is 1 amendment before the 2nd and 25 after it.

That being said, remember that, other than hunting, the reason for the 2nd amendment was the fear of too much government power, especially concentrated in one branch. Which is what the president is claiming Congress gave him with the simple authority to conduct a war, carte blanche overriding of the FISA laws and any checks on his power.

Nice. Respond to the form, and ignore the substance. I guess we know what that means.;)

Once past the selfishness, Maggie's a liberal. Oh, no - I did not say that.

I'd say the facism slogans are more like a liberal Rush Limbaugh. Totally wrong? No, but simplified past the point of usefullness or any real content.

NeoCons are the most like the Taliban.

That's far to general a use of the term NeoCon. We're not all mini-Bushes any more than all Germans were mini-Hitlers. There are plenty of rational voices, we just get drowned out.

A rational NeoCon? One that believes in the full use of the Contitution and Bill of Rights?
You really belive on exists?
NO illegal search and seasure under ANY circumstances?
Yeah, right.

Again, you're inappropriately using the term NeoCon. Now I'm not a purist NeoCon, I favor low US foriegn intervention, low immigration, private health care, and a much smaller government. A 'Bushie' would call for much bigger government and more US foriegn intervention.

The Left has never had an aggressive, obnoxious, go-for-the-emotional-regardless-of-the-facts asshole like Rush. Even Al Frankin doesn't match up to Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and the like. Isn't it nice to see something familiar from your opponent? :p

I just saw an editorial on Fox to the effect of 'not exactly legal but very necessary'? Huh? So a 72 hour free pass and eventual judicial review is an invitation to terrorism? There is even a bill to extend the 72 hours to 7 days. That's still not enough. F**k them.

No, they don't have one. They have legions of them.

Care to name any liberal who spews hatred like the conservatives I listed?

Therein lies the gross difference of opinion that makes your question unanswerable ... had you stopped at 'any liberal who spews hatred' there are 1,000 answers.

Like....?

You said "aggressive, obnoxious, go-for-the-emotional-regardless-of-the-facts asshole". I can tell you who comes to mind first, but you won't like it. :-)

You mean like this?

or this?

this?

Or even these, but the examples are dated.

So you would equate
with
Hmmm. Seems like Gingrich is attacking a group of people, where Jackson is attacking behavior.

This
is comparable to
No even close.

Again, criticism of ideas and behavior, not an attack on a person.

Waaaahhhh - remember what the republicans called Clinton.

Your third reference contained a bunch of anonymous quotes. They're really not attributable to a liberal. Karl Rove could easily have made those comments.

That's racist, and it sounds like Limbaugh, et al.

Try this, it seems pretty even-handed.

This phone tapping for no reason may be a good idea. It shouldn't be long before the government goes house to house, searching for firearms that might be used by terrorists.;)

Do you think Jackson's famous "Hymietown" quote was attacking "behavior"?

The current hatred-spewing comment from the left comes from Andrew Young, who in defending WalMart, said
The diplomatic Mr. Young was Ambassador to the UN.

The current hatred-spewing comment from the right comes from George Allen, who at a recent campaign appearance, pointed to an Indian-looking gentleman who was filming him, working for the opposition, and said
The "Macaca" reference was ill-defended once it was traced back to Allen's mother's roots, where the term is a deep ethnic slur. Personally I feel the "Welcome to America" comment is just as damning spoken to anyone brown.

Mr. Allen is a sitting Senator of the US and, prior to the comment, thought to be a possible candidate for the Presidency 2008.

Where did you get the idea that the wiretapping program was indescriminant?? It targeted ONLY calls that met a specific criteria 1)One of the callers must be known to have ties with or be in collusion with Al-Queda operatives, and 2) One of the callers must be outside of the U.S. That's it. The image that people seem to have of the White House listening to you chat with grandma is uninformed bullshit.

According to....? The affidavit? The judge?

I don't think that is what concerns people. The concern is that when a behavior is tolerated, it is encouraged both to continue and to escalate...

I don't care WHO it targeted if it wasn't signed off as legal by a judge.

I know I've said this before, but I'll say it again...
What makes a connection to Al-Qaieda?
If I buy a carpet from a middle-eastern rug salesman who's brother's best friend once prayed at the same mosque as a guy who once prayed at a different mosque that Bin Laden's cousin once prayed at... is that a valid connection? Could they then listen to my international call to my girlfriend who lives in the US?

Probably. You have to think as if your calls can be listened to, because if not the authorities local to you, every authority through which the call is routed is capable and has an interest in listening in.

The good news is that they have no interest in your chatter, in fact your chatter is terrible noise to them, because you're likely to talk about anything, which means your conversation is more likely to contain triggering keywords and phrases, without actually being useful.

Actually the chatter is probably downright painful, as I lose all male dignity while talking to her and force myself to act cute cause she knows I'm not like that and finds it hilarious.

That sure was hate speech, IMHO. So on the Democrat side, there's Jesse Jackson. On the repubican side, ther's Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Savage, Liddy, et al, some of whom have been around for decades.

Things like: being critical of the US government, for instance. We should probably avoid saying anything bad about the US government, because they might be listening, and if they hear something they don't like, we know they can make us vanish, with no explanation provided to anybody, and ship us overseas to be tortured, etc.

So . . . that isn't likely to chill free speech or participative democracy?

Not really. People who are that paranoid don't vote, because they're sure it'll get them on a list.

Every time I talk with my mom in Arizona, I make sure to throw in a few statements for the NSA... Wouldn't want them to get bored.:flipbird:

But, which part of what I said isn't actually happening?
Other than the specific content of the calls, which we don't know.

It's an article of faith that these methods are being used responsibly.

Almost all of what you said isn't happening. But if it's helpful to consider, you make a similar leap of faith just driving down the highway. The chances that you'll be shot by local cops in a case of mistaken identity is much greater than being tied into international terror because you said you hate Bush on a international phone call.

My friends are still all present and accounted-for.

If you remove the clearly speculative phone-call aspect of it, which parts of what I said aren't happening?

I can't prove a negative. Which parts of what you said ARE happening?

Just define what you meant by "almost all" . . .

Do you happen to be friends with former ambassador Wilson? This administration penalizes dissent or opposition. That's why I don't trust unsupervised phone survailance. You may not disappear, but Zey Haff Vays uff making you pay.

Well my guess is that only one of the things you mentioned is happening.

That wasn't exhaustive, it was a counterexample intended to show you're cherrypicking...not hard to do on either side.

This is a general, speculative point. We know that when "terror suspects" are involved, it is considered a case where the due process of law goes out the window, and we feel that is justified for the greater good.

My line of thought is: how flexible is the definition of "terror" . . .

Also: given a power such as this, how likely is it that it will be abused? If so, how long before it is abused? And in that case, will it be too late for us to be able to determine the difference, the veil of secrecy having been established by our current actions?

Spex, a special prosecutor was appointed to specifically to look into your theory, and it didn't even turn up any blowjobs. Never mind that Amb. Wilson is still with us, and untortured (he looked really good in that Armani at the Correspondents Dinner).

My opinion is that as long as people are alert to, and concerned about, violations of civil liberty, those violations are much less likely to occur. The real threat comes from the corners where we aren't pointing our flashlights.

We don't even know what's in those corners. Our best bet is to be educated, active, thinking, concerned people and then hope for the best.

Where does knocking someone as "paranoid" factor into that proactive plan?

EDIT :::answers own question::: The determination between real an imagined threats helps us respond where response is actually warranted... Weeding out the loonies helps to prevent others from being dis-credited?

If your dog barks at people he doesn't know, he is good as a watch dog.
If your dog barks at everything, he is useless as a watch dog.

The brightest flashlight also casts the harshest shadow and blinds your night vision.

I got a million of these