Wow!

Just proof about the piece of paper.

Wow!! The 9th Circuit even.

Um, okay.

So, who here doesn't know we wiretap without warrants?

Oh shit, I think I just revealed a State Secret!!!

When the 9th Circus turns you down unanimously you know you're having a bad day.

It's apparently not the impeachable offense we've been told it is. Wait, Bush Co paid off the judges with a promise of Big Oil price gouging profits.

Posted by OohRah at 2007-11-16 09:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It's apparently not the impeachable offense we've been told it is."

Where do you get that Oohrah? They didn't rule on the legality of the wire taps - only that the case couldn't go forward. That is what is known as a pyrrhic victory. Bush wins on a technicality - the country loses.

So let me get this straight. Bush is guilty... of something. Whatever that is, the most liberal circuit court in the nation unanimously decided not to find against the defendant. - I assume that means things stand as status quo.

Whatever that is, the most liberal circuit court in the nation unanimously decided not to find against the defendant.

They decided not to proceed, based on the "state secrets" argument from the executive. This is far from any constitutional validation of what the Bush admin. may or may not have done.

Coop it kind of is. They validate his cloak of secrecy as constitutional. It means he can get away with just about any damn thing as long as he cloaks it in the state secrets clause.

Thats bullshit and almost all here know it. I almost worry that we have gotten to the stage where we are afraid to say anything because we could be wisked off to a secret prison.

"The wad's been shot."

Not totally. There is still some hope that the Constitution and rule of law will prevail. From the article-

"The victory was not absolute. The court sent the case back to a lower court to consider whether the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires the government to seek warrants for anti-terrorist wiretaps from a special court, preempts the state secrets privilege."

Ooh,

No it goes back to the lower court to retry and get a different ruling, one that will stand up to a hearing by a higher court.

I must admit I'm amazed the 9th Circuit would rule this way. Libs did their best to get the case heard in the most favorable venue possible, yet that dufus frat boy outwitted 'em again.



Posted by OohRah at 2007-11-16 10:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

However, after privately reviewing sealed information from the government, McKeown said on behalf of the three-judge panel, "We acknowledge the need to defer to the executive on matters of foreign and national security and surely cannot legitimately find ourselves second-guessing the executive in this arena."

We acknowledge the need...
to defered to....
on matters of national security....
cannot legitimately find ourselves.....
second guessing the president...

Wow, sounds like a indictment of GW`s policy to me...
Should of....
defered to the DR liberal elite....
for a proper ruling.....
Not!


the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, which operates in more than 50 countries, has been identified by the United Nations Security Council as belonging to or associated with Al Qaeda

What interest do you think this organisation has in defeating GW`s wire tapping program?
Can any of you liberal dumbasses tell me what is wrong with this picture?
We fight on two fronts, one in the ME and one at home.


rwd

Oohrah,

I disagree that our rights haven't taken a hit.

You may see this unprecedented power grab by the executive brance as fine, but I find it deeply troubling.

We have oversight for a reason, and the executive brance has stymied that oversight in the name of "national security".

I still contend that if National Security was a priority, more would have been done to secure our borders, ports and other soft and hard targets. More has not been done.

The Patriot act has not made us safer, the military commissions act has not made us safer, the war in Iraq has not made anyone safer and confronting Iran will not make us safer. Warrentless wiretaps do not make us safer and are completely unnecessary since under the old rules they had 72 hours after surveillance was initiated to seek the warrant.

I simply cannot believe that our security was at risk because they only had seventy two hours to seek a warrant AFTER they started the tap.

Just because you can invoke a "state secret" claim with regard to an illegal act, doesn't make it legal.

You may think this is fine. I don't and I never will. I will continue to speak out and fight against it in every legal way I can.

...if National Security was a priority...

If the Patriot Act wasn't written in the name of national security, then what was it written for? So the CIA could could spy on the Jones and figure out what they are having for dinner?

I simply cannot believe that our security was at risk because they only had seventy two hours to seek a warrant AFTER they started the tap.


GW went to secret wiretapping to eliminate the possibility of a judge dismissing it.
And to keep it secret and out of the NYT and others,so not to let the enemy know.
Got it now?


rwd

Just because you can invoke a "state secret" claim with regard to an illegal act, doesn't make it legal.


As with truthers,some will never see the light.
Prove that it is illegal.
Prove it.
Or shut up.


rwd

Trees --

I still contend that if National Security was a priority, more would have been done to secure our borders, ports and other soft and hard targets. More has not been done.

Exactly why no one believes Bush and think his terror alerts are a joke.
IF he was truly interested in protecting us from terrorists he would not have a wide open 2000 mile long southern border and punish our border agents who do their job (Ramos and Compean). Bush would not facilitate the job of the foreign drug runners crossing over the border and -- MOST OF ALL -- Bush would not keep trying to cover up the fact that Muslim/Arab men have been crossing over the Mexican border (mixing in with groups of illegal immigrants so they could hide easier). U.S. Border Agents were warned to keep their mouths shut about that fact.

Bush "tough on terror"? Hah!

GW went to secret wiretapping to eliminate the possibility of a judge dismissing it.

IF he was truly interested in protecting us from terrorists he would not have a wide open 2000 mile long southern

It ain`t GW`s fault,get it straight,its the new and improved congresses fault.
You know,the one that came in with a mandate.
Right.


rwd

RWD

OF COURSE IT'S GWB'S FAULT!

Bush is the one who is in bed with the Mexican government and who had insisted his own Justice Dept. make an example of two border patrol agents who dared to try and stop an illegal alien drug runner caught here on our side of the border and put them in solitary confinement for 11 YEARS. I assume you are familiar with that well-known story.

BUSH WANTS OPEN BORDERS. Bush wants the NAU and open borders are part and parcel. Bush has sold out the safety and security of this nation for his globalist agenda. PROOF is on my side. In case you hadn't noticed -- Bush is PRESIDENT of the U.S. He is the one who gave the orders for ICE and the Border Patrol to not enforce immigration laws nor to protect our border. He has fought each and every time about a fence on the border and about any form of protection. Bush fought every time any border security was even mentioned.

BUSH has sold you out, RWD, you and the rest of this country so he and Daddy Bush (and Clinton and their corporatist pals) can push thru their NAU dream of a free trade hemisphere which means total elimination of our borders and our sovereignty.

Bush can't claim to be the "security President" but leave all the doors and windows to our house wide open. WAKE UP.

That dog don't hunt, rwd.


You may disagree,but look around you and see everything that can possibly be put into the public by prying eyes is.
Not to say that is a bad thing.
Just some things don`t need to be there.
I have been around long enough to see US policy shaped by polarizing public opinion.
I don`t need to read about a specific wiretapping case and see it followed thru with political knee jerk policy.
Americans need to understand this.

rwd

You know Chris,its not any presidents fault.
It is always the congresses fault when it comes to making (or not making) laws within our own borders.
The congress votes on a bill.
The president vetos the bill.
The congress overrides the veto.
That simple.
I take back my original statement about it being congresses fault.
It is the American peoples fault.
That is clear unadulterated fact.


Ok, back to fighting and bickering.

rwd

So where does the left go from here on this issue?

Same place they go since they have been the majority........no where.

Do nothing because they don't think they have the votes, it is all a secret, even the constitution.

rwd

You know Chris,its not any presidents fault.
It is always the congresses fault when it comes to making (or not making) laws within our own borders.

We're not talking about future bills being passed.
We're talking about a President who insists on NOT forcing the laws already passed. Big difference. Bush does not want current immigration laws enforced nor our border protected and secured. Sorry, but those laws are already on the books. It has nothing to do with Congress and/or future impending bills.

More illegals aliens (including thousands of Muslims from terrorist countries) have crossed over our southern border since Bush became President than under ALL other U.S. presidents combined. Explain that, especially since 9-11 occured on Bush's watch.

"Do nothing because they don't think they have the votes, it is all a secret, even the constitution."
Posted by moneywar

If Moneywar had even a shred of honesty, he'd admit the Rs laid down the parliamentary guantlet the day they lost the majorities. He's conveniently overlooking the current Republican mantra: If it doesn't pass Robert's Rules of Order, it doesn't pass.

If the Patriot Act wasn't written in the name of national security, then what was it written for?

If Moneywar had even a shred of honesty, he'd admit the Rs laid down the parliamentary guantlet the day they lost the majorities. He's conveniently overlooking the current Republican mantra: If it doesn't pass Robert's Rules of Order, it doesn't pass.

Posted by Danforth at 2007-11-17 12:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

So you can point out where I said that the Patriot Act wasn't written in the "name" of National Security?

Warrentless wiretaps do not make us safer and are completely unnecessary since under the old rules they had 72 hours after surveillance was initiated to seek the warrant.

Bloviating disingenuous outrage is much easier for Moneywar than actual honest, or even rational ideas.

Again, rational here. I don't share the same attitude as your party blindness and I am being disengenuous.

What is the Democratic majority doing about this? Are they writing new definitions as to state secrets? Are they writing new laws to wire tapping?

No, apparently they can only deal with one rock at a time and currently it is giving the republicans what they want for the war.

It is funny but these same party politics the democratic here hated by the republicans mantra is cast at me for being critical of the democratic party in the same hypocritical hacking from the democratic supporters themselves.

If they can't be critical about their party and demand action then they are no different than the republicans and this must hurt most of all.

If Moneywar had even a shred of honesty, he'd admit the Rs laid down the parliamentary guantlet the day they lost the majorities. He's conveniently overlooking the current Republican mantra: If it doesn't pass Robert's Rules of Order, it doesn't pass.

Danforth,

I kind of think I am being very honest, the one I question as far as honesty in short is the disdain for my evaluation of the democratic do nothings and the willfull excuses made to justify such.

I am the shithole because I demand something from my party.

No, the problem here is I am the flea on the democratic dog and carry a little bite because most here know I am a democrat. It does put a strain on the idea about the real security the democrats will have come election time because if the likes of me can vote them out then millions more can too.

This is about getting representation, not getting elected and the sooner you pandering democratic hacks realize this the better and stronger the Democratic party will be.

Putting the party in is not the issue, putting the individual who will support those they represent is the issue, I just wish it was a Democrat. Apparently not in this congress though.

" I don't share the same attitude as your party blindness and I am being disengenuous."

No, you're being disengenuous in that you're not admitting the realities of the situation: that is, Rs have laid down the law: If you can't get 60 votes, we won't even close debate. Moneywar revels in the ignorance of those who've never studied parliamentary procedure; those who pretend RROR has nothing to do with governance.

Lots of acronyms and do have to show my ignorance here....RROR?????? Can't seem to place that one.

Rock runners off road????

I don't revel in ignorance as much as you allow excuses for doing nothing.

This issue and many more should have been addressed from the first day they gained majority and you know it but are excusing it for fear of media minipulation by the republican party.

Well, sometimes just doing the right thing is taught in our schools and at home, but guess that is not a priority when fear of smear is near. As long as this fear mentality exists and no one takes a stand towards their party this will continue.

"RROR?????? Can't seem to place that one."

Robert's Rules of Order. If you knew anything about governance, you'd know RROR like the back of your hand. It's the backbone of parliamentary procedure, and whomever controls PP, controls everything: what comes to the floor...who chairs the committees...what agendas will be pursued....

"I don't revel in ignorance"

Of course you do: you don't know RROR---the main building block of politics---yet pontificate about governing, regardless. Most of your rants completely ignore the reality of counting noses on the congressional floor. Come back, Shane...come back to reality!

Yes, apparently your right Danforth, I know nothing about political governing because I didn't know your acronym.

Here's the point: the only numbers which count, for the next year & two months, are a) 41, to fillibuster in the Senate, and b) 34, to sustain a GWB veto in the Senate.

And only "a)" will count for 4 or 8 years beginning in 2009: one of the worst things these so-called Republicans have inflicted on this country will be an '08 Dem President, a Dem House, and a Dem Senate.

Heaven help us all.

"Yes, apparently your right Danforth, I know nothing about political governing because I didn't know your acronym."

You've been blaming Dems for their lack of governing without ever mentioning the record fillibuster action by the minority Republicans. That's disingenuous at best...or are you willfully misleading?

In fact when a search is done rror is the first on the list...........Not. Not even the second or third or fourth or even on the first 20 but it is the end all for anyone who knows governing.

You've been blaming Dems for their lack of governing without ever mentioning the record fillibuster action by the minority Republicans. That's disingenuous at best...or are you willfully misleading?

I am blaming the Democrats when they have the ability to govern without having a fillibuster, and you know it.

But don't let party politics get in the way of reality.

Please accept my sincerest apologies since it appears my deduction was wrong

Posted by goatman at 2007-11-17 12:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

Not even the second or third or fourth or even on the first 20 but it is the end all for anyone who knows governing.

Posted by moneywar at 2007-11-17 02:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

Do DR posters know things the 9th Circuit justices don't?

Posted by OohRah


probably the same thing that Wellstone/Coleman now know...it's better to be alive than fight the Bush machine:>)

I'm roasting a chicken.


I just got back to the rig. The new catering crew that is coming with us from Brazil back to the GoM is now on board and we are getting much better food.

I just talked to the medic (who has to be present when food comes on board) and he told me they just brought on a 140 pig that they are roasting for Thanksgiving. They also brought on 300 lbs of fresh oysters for t'giving. Sounds good!

Not even the second or third or fourth or even on the first 20 but it is the end all for anyone who knows governing.

Posted by moneywar at 2007-11-17 02:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

When the 9th Circus turns you down unanimously you know you're having a bad day.

It's apparently not the impeachable offense we've been told it is. Wait, Bush Co paid off the judges with a promise of Big Oil price gouging profits.

Posted by OohRah at 2007-11-16 09:29 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Why do You hate the 4th amendment so much??

Larry Mohr

Nahhhhhh not a damned thing OohRah. This is CENTRAL KANSAS we are talking about. It isn't like Eastern Kansas where You have at least Hills All we have here is flat flat lands. It's akin to a flat chested Woman. Not much to do here. I could go see the Apolo 13 lunar module again for the umpteenth time or the SR71 Blackbird for the umpteenth time. I don't know Probably go shopping I guess. Hard to say. How about You ??

Larry Mohr

Well, well, at least the 9th Cicuit Court known for its ultra liberal bias has ruled for national security. Maybe it is not that anti-America after all.

Minnesota elected a Muslim to congress and that very district is suffering economically. Georgia is feeling the presence of Hindus and the draught is not helping its water reservoir. California is turning liberal and godless and is always in debt.

ISOLATED INCIDENCES. JUST AN OBSERVATION.

"In fact when a search is done rror is the first on the list...........Not. Not even the second or third or fourth or even on the first 20 but it is the end all for anyone who knows governing."

Yes, it is.

Governance is ruled by the rules of governance. What we're seeing, and will continue to see, is a government run by procedure. Currently, the only power the congressional Republicans have is the fillibuster and the veto sustain. All Bush has to do is signal the R leadership, and an issue doesn't even close debate.

Virtually all your rants against the Dems center around your refusal to acknowledge this point.

"I am blaming the Democrats when they have the ability to govern without having a fillibuster, and you know it."

But the Dems never have the ability to govern without having a fillibuster: Republicans must agree as well. As long as they don't, the minority can, and in this case does, control the agenda.

Hilarious. Even when Democrats are in power, it's Republicans' fault that they don't do anything.

Never mind the fact that they spend more time trying to push through efforts to "condemn Rush Limbaugh" than they do trying to better our national policies. Just blame Republicans - it's a lot easier than substantively defending another do-nothing Congress.

Hilarious. Even when Democrats are in power, it's Republicans' fault that they don't do anything.

Exactly!!!

"Hilarious. Even when Democrats are in power, it's Republicans' fault that they don't do anything."

Well, it is when the sole reason a lot of things don't get done is Republicans won't close debate, yes.

"Never mind the fact that they spend more time trying to push through efforts to "condemn Rush Limbaugh" than they do trying to better our national policies. Just blame Republicans - it's a lot easier than substantively defending another do-nothing Congress."

I completely agree with you there. They've spent all their time pretending the Republicans aren't going to exercise their parliamentary options, the fools. But bettering our national policies? It might help if the Rs would go back to their demands of an up-or-down vote. Instead, anything Bush doesn't like never comes to a vote.

Not to mention beginning in January 2009, the Rs mantra will be obstruct, obstruct, obstruct.

"Exactly!!!"

And, typically, convenient avoidance of the fact Republicans are fillibustering at record rates.

"anything Bush doesn't like never comes to a vote."

Do you have any proof? Numbers? Articles about all the substantive bills democrats are trying to pass that can't get a vote?

Danforth-

Your observations on the parlimentary tactics that the GOP is engaging in are well taken, but the fact remains that the Dems are doing nothing to try to work with the other side of the aisle. Since they control all the committees (thereby controlling what legislation hits the floor for votes) they have an obligation to try to get enough of the minority to cross over to support what they are trying to do. However, all Reid and Pelosi do is grandstand and pander to the anti-war left, which is going to get them nowhere. I think it is disingenuous, at best, to blame the GOP for exercising its parlimentary rights against proposed legislation that they have told the majority, in advance, that they strenuously oppose.

Tip O'Neill was a master at doing this, but Reid and Pelosi don't have a fucking clue.

"I think it is disingenuous, at best, to blame the GOP for exercising its parlimentary rights against proposed legislation that they have told the majority, in advance, that they strenuously oppose."

Then it's also disingenuous to blame the Dems, when it's the Republicans who are consistantly "exercising its parlimentary rights".

"...Reid and Pelosi don't have a fucking clue."

You'll get no argument from me on that.

Your source is a youtube link? I'm at a library and can't watch a video right now.

Is 52 a lot? A little? How many is normal? Did the democrats make any efforts to overcome the filibusters by convincing Republicans that the issue was important or that their stance was correct? Or did they just whine and cry every time the Republicans didn't want to do things their way?

"Is 52 a lot? A little? How many is normal?"

They're on pace to break the record.

"Did the democrats make any efforts to overcome the filibusters by convincing Republicans that the issue was important or that their stance was correct? Or did they just whine and cry..."

Mainly whine and cry.

And live out a lie: they promised to bring up "clean bills" while campaigning, and have done nothing of the sort...the jagoffs. They deserve every failure they've achieved.

Still, the current Republicans' idea of bipartisanship is the Dems doing what the Rs want.

They didn't find against anything. The decided ,b>not to hear the case at all, it's a big freaking different thing but sadly with the same result.

The only ruling the 9th circuit made was the ruling to not hear the case at all. This ruling has zero bearing on the legality of warrantless wiretapping.

Posted by TreesGoneWild

tre, you lost. Go on with your life.

"tre, you lost."

You're joking, right? Are you actually not aware of the difference between refusing to hear a case based on security concerns and hearing the case and ruling it legal?!?

I can agree with that, Danforth. I think the problem of a do-nothing Congress is the fault of both parties. And we have nobody to blame but the people who continue to elect these morons. Our Congress has been like this for a while, but it looks like it's getting worse.

"it looks like it's getting worse."

You're right. It's completely devolved into procedural processes, and with increased Dem numbers coming in 2009 (just the preponderance of Rs having to defend seats will cause that) and a possible Dem president, unless the Dems get 60 in the Senate, expect A LOT more of the same. The main R tactic will be what they decried not too long ago: the filibuster.

Of course, if Dems get 60, katy bar the door! (And Katy, hold on to your wallet.)

"They deserve every failure they've achieved"

Perhaps the biggest failure is they've "governed" with one goal in mind: gaining larger majorities and the WH in 2009. Not what's best for the country, just what's best for the Democratic party.

You're joking, right? Are you actually not aware of the difference between refusing to hear a case based on security concerns and hearing the case and ruling it legal?!?

Posted by Danforth

Damn, I'm sorry. YOU WON!!!!!!!!!!

So, now that you have won, I guess all the wire taps will end. They arn't realy wire taps, they are intercepting radio waves to and from foreign countries.

What you are saying is we can't scan the airways to find out what the enemey is up to. Do you realize how dangerous that is to the US?

I believe in the constitution as much if not more than most but if someone wants to kill me, I think I have the responsibility to protect myself before they do.

If you believe 911 was an inside job then I guess you don't believe there is a threat from other parts of the world.

I can't wait to hear the uptight uber-cons when a dem gets the WH.

I can't wait to see how fast they claim Hillary is abusing her power, and make claims that the tractor-pull results were tainted because someone listened in on them.

Let's see how fast they change their tune.