Hmmm... the plaintiffs failed to show they were subject to the surveillence...

And who has been saying that since the Times reported this story... just your friendly neighborhood asshole that's who...

the dissenting judge said this:

saying he felt the plaintiffs were within their rights to sue and that it was clear to him that the surveillance program violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.


Shockinly, he's a Democratic appointment and the two that disagreed are GOP appointments.

Good luck in the Supreme Court libs...

Ah, but that's the point, isn't it?

They've set it up so that we'll never know, so how can we contest it?

so how can we contest it?

it would seem you can't.

They would have had a better chance if they had told the judge they were terrorists.

Seems to Me Republicans don't give a shit about the Constitution only that their party wins. They really don't care about AMerica now do they??

Larry

Rob-

Why does this story give you a right to gloat about anything? Republicans have set up a secret program that can't be challenged by anyone. The court didn't find that the program itself was legal, they found that nobody can challenge it because it is secret. A normal person who gave a shit about their country would see this as a bad thing, but because it's a victory against liberals, you celebrate it anyways. Pathetic.

The politicalization of Justice for profit is despicable and unconstitutional. But, in a BushCo world, Multinational Corporations and Political Co-Conspirators are above the law. Kill for Jesus. The more you kill the richer you become.

Seems to Me Republicans don't give a shit about the Constitution only that their party wins.

Larry, watch the Republicans suddenly find a new love for laws and the Constitution right after the Dems take the WH in 2008.

Note that the decision was not one of constitutionality but the standing of the party to sue.

Larry, watch the Republicans suddenly find a new love for laws and the Constitution right after the Dems take the WH in 2008.


Posted by northguy3 at 2007-07-06 02:29 PM | Reply

Yep that is how it usually works. Sad isn't it.

Larry

Note that the decision was not one of constitutionality but the standing of the party to sue.

Posted by DCinMA at 2007-07-06 02:38 PM

Not a surprise, frankly, when I read the initial complaint (which was the usual crappy work that the ACLU churns out) that was the first thing that leapt out at me. Like Class Action lawyers, the ACLU tries to get lawsuits filed immediately so that they get the press, and don't think about simple concepts like standing or even if the plaintiff has been damaged.

If they take a deep breath, take their time to find someone who has actually been tapped or surveilled in some fashion in violation of FISA, then this whole debacle will blow up in Bushco's faces.

Until then, from a legal standpoint they have no chance of maintaining an action in court, regardless of the party affiliation of the judge.

Psst, Rob: your gross partisanship is hanging out of your pants again. You're celebrating an event that makes a travesty out of your justice system: it's not about the law, it's about the party. Try to imagine yourself as a patriot, not as the party stooge that you are.

You might find it liberating.

LeftCoast-

Do you see any possibility of anyone ever being able to prove injury from this program and thereby establish standing?

Pancho-
I don't think he's capable of it.

Standing was a convenient excuse for the Reghuglican judges to avoid the obvious violations of the constitution that this case exhibited. Their logic about standing is ridiculous due to the secrecy of the program in the first place. Apparently, the right wing feels so confident in their usurption of the constitution that no pretense is even made now by the judiciary to rule on constitutionality. Sad day for America when a citizen doesn't have standing to question the secret spying on fellow citizens. These judges would have fit in very well in the Third Reich. They had judges who ruled on "law" too, and Germans, like Americans today, sat by and did nothing as their rights were eliminated.

And YES!!! The term NAZI does come to mind in describing these judges. I don't really care if some think that over the top...I think the time has come to begin calling a spade a spade and the right wing thugs who have taken over America do resemble Nazis whether it is polite to say or not. Time will tell if they are as evil as Prescott's old buddies but many of us fear that if their power is ever threatened they will.

Joe-

It is certainly possible, but finding someone who they have spied on (without access to NSA records, which are secret) who is innocent may be tough to find.

Some states have "private attorney general" statutes which could allow the ACLU to bring an action, but they are generally too dumb to figure out how to do that.

Why does this story give you a right to gloat about anything?

Because its an important program that was treasonously leaked by the NY Times while the liberals cheered and called for Bush's head.

Now a court of appeals has told everyone exactly what I've been saying all along. You have no idea whether this was used on you, and in all likelihood it was not. The only thing that makes people think this program was used on them is their overinflated sense of ego... Well thankfully the Appeals court just told all of you to get over yourselves, and where to go stick your silly lawsuits.

LeftCoast-

I was under the impression that "private attorney general" provisions were built-in to the statute which creates/authorizes the very program being disputed. In other words, the very act which created the wiretapping program would need to specifically state that average citizens had a right to bring suit to redress grievances they had with such a program. Is that incorrect?

Rob-

By no means is this a victory for America. It is, as I said, a victory for you because liberals happen to be on the right side of the Constitution on this issue, but on the wrong side of the standing issue. In other words, a technicality prevents this program from being struck down, and you are cheering for the technicality.

By no means is this a victory for America.

Sure it is... Terrorists will continue to be watched, you and I and the vast majority of Americans will go on with our lives, and if/when the gov't needs to look at us they will get a warrant.

Its just like the habeus corpus hysterics last fall (and every once in a while since then)... everyone was crying that Habeus was gone, and yet here we are over a half a year later, and people are still going to court, there are still juries, there are still judges... not just Bush and Cheney sending people off to jail.

If the program were struck down, we'd all be worse off, let's just hope the Supreme Court makes the same decision... God Bless Justice O'Connor... hope you're enjoying your retirement baby!

I'm glad you trust the government so much. I wonder if the program was meant to spy on Christians if you'd be as comfortable with who the government claims they are and are not spying on.

I wonder if the program was meant to spy on Christians if you'd be as comfortable with who the government claims they are and are not spying on.


when christians declare war on the United States and begin killing American citizens by the thousands, I would welcome such a program...

Finally someone stood up and refused to buy the shenanigans of anti-Christ ACLU.

That would make two of us, then, wouldn't it, Bobbie

no

But I have gotten inside your pointed little head

have you?

You're probably another poster here, someone no one paid attention to so you created this name to try and get some attention... these last two posts it worked... good for you big guy.

Bob_the_a_hole was clever and funny... this is just sad.

"""It is certainly possible, but finding someone who they have spied on (without access to NSA records, which are secret) who is innocent may be tough to find."""

Can they not debate the legality of the principle itself? I mean the actions or the program is either legal or not.
take away the lawsuit and a legal point of view is still required on the issue, no?

Can they not debate the legality of the principle itself?

Guess not...

I guess you must be under surveillance to take it to court to see if it is illegal for the government to do that.

I would bet the same rules will hold true when they shoot you in the head. Unless you are actually being shot in the head---you can't sue. Welcome to the republican future. They'll be sure to stay out of your lives--as long as they approve of who you fuck--who you marry---and when you have children.

The government can do anything, I don't need rights just keep me safe cuz I'm a frightened little child who needs the Daddystate to protect poor little cowardly me.
Signed,
The Cowardly Right

Whenever our constitution is dragged down into the sewer the terrorist win you fool.

Don't you get it ...this is WHAT THEY WANT!

Oh and BTW he who laughs last...

I would suspect that the ACLU will appeal this ruling to the supremes...good publicity and all...not to mention how significant it is to LIFE LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

Don't you get it ...this is WHAT THEY WANT!

That's just silly... they want us to convert to Islam or die. That's it...

Oh and BTW he who laughs last...

SCOTUS may very well side with terrorist protectors, but given the recent rulings it seems like a long shot. Alito and Roberts have proven they are staunch conservatives, Scalia and Thomas are the definition of conservative judges, and Kennedy has been siding more and more to the right...

Stevens is getting really old too...

The good news is that this holding is only good in the 6th Circuit until the Supreme Court rules on the issue. Thus, other jurisdictions can find that the other plaintiffs do have sufficient standing and can bring suit. Just watch the 9th and 2nd Circuits will split from this decision, amongst others.

HOW MANY TIME WOULD JAMES BOND HAVE BEEN SUED?

Taxman, the problem with that is that I think the standing problem is a legitimate issue. If you can't prove injury and redressability, you can't debate the Constitutionality of a government policy in a court of law. How will anyone ever satisfy the standing issue?

"They hate us for our freedom.""

Solution: Eliminate that freedom.

Who's tough on terrorists and who gives in to them????

Joe, let me readi Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation and get back to you as to taxpayer standing. I have printed it out and am going to read it this weekend, it is only 28 pages long.

Other than taxpayer standing, where a party is only indirectly affected by some action, the party may or may not have standing to challenge or seek redress for the action, depending on the degree to which the party is affected. It is my understanding that the circuits intepret these degrees differently; thus, while the injury must be "distinct and palpable," I think different circuits determine this differently.

Moreover, though a litigant must allege personal injury "fairly traceable" to the conduct and "likely to be redressed by the requested relief," it seems that some circuits will give more leeway when dealing with violations of constitutional rights by a governmental entity strictly based on the rational that courts want to avoid the exact situation that has arisen with this case - the vicious loophole.

Joe, it depends on the State. Here is CA there was a run on "private attorney general" filings, especially in the Class Action arena, until Prop 64 was passed which required that the Class Action Plaintiff actually be damaged by the complained of acts (which is, actually, a tightening of the standing requirements.)

Buffalo Bob, the first part of this is pretty much how standing has worked for over 100 years:

"I guess you must be under surveillance to take it to court to see if it is illegal for the government to do that."

While I know you were being sarcastic in the next paragraph, the point you make is germane: when someone is threatening to shoot you in the head, you do have standing to sue for assault, which covers the threat. The actual shooting is battery, which also gives you standing.

Since you don't know if you are being surveilled or not, you by necessity can't know whether you are covered by the statute. There are a number of National Security related statutes like this (i.e. prohibition against the CIA doing domestic investigations comes immediately to mind) where it is really tough to find out if you were a target. The FOIA came about to try to combat these types of situations, but even that can't get NSA level information.

just like in the Libby commutation--

What Bush did with the Libby commutation was to look the citizens in the eye, put up both middle fingers and basically said " This is my lame ass excuse, what are you going to do about it?" There is no incompetence, there is no lack of reality, they know exactly what they are doing and journalists like Milbank are letting them get away with it. Bush is accruing unprecedented power and doing it quite competently.

It is basically a Go Fuck Yourself America ruling...

"...when christians declare war on the United States and begin killing American citizens by the thousands, I would welcome such a program...Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-07-06 03:58 PM

I suppose the very christian Timothy McVeigh who killed hundreds doesn't count, R.A-hole???

Or is it that he only killed hundreds and not thousands that you won't 'welcome' such program.

Wrong side of History and Freedom, you are!

I suppose the very christian Timothy McVeigh who killed hundreds doesn't count, R.A-hole???

He killed in the name of Christianity? Or was it he was just a militia wacko, like the Ruby Ridge idiots...

Or is it that he only killed hundreds and not thousands that you won't 'welcome' such program

If one muslim committed one act of terrorism around 15 years ago and that's it, then we wouldn't be where we are, we wouldn't need a surviellence program and we certainly wouldn't need a war on terror.

Remember people, there are no spudid questions... just stupid people.

Remember people, there are no spudid questions... just stupid people.

Gong! Wrong again! Your own posts prove otherwise: there are stupid people AND stupid questions.

I suppose the very christian Timothy McVeigh who killed hundreds doesn't count, R.A-hole???

Mcveigh didn't have any connection to a religious group -- he was born Catholic but by his own admission was an "agnostic" and he claimed that the bombing was revenge for "Waco" and 'ruby Ridge".

A lot of people like yourself on the left are desperate to find some moral equivalence between Extrmist Muslims who kill thousands and thousands each year and Extremist Christians who kill almost none in comparison -- and so you feel the need to resort to spreading lies about the nature ofhte Oklahoma City bombing by saying McVeigh was a Christian extremist.

It's not true. And You know it is not true or should.

Remember people, there are no spudid questions... just stupid people.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-07-06 08:01 PM

Looks like it's double Shirley Temple night at Rob's house.

you know if a whole bunch of people started to call random numbers in Iran, Iraq and Pakistan you could cripple the NSA wire taping abilities.
It would essentially be a massive DOS attack

yeah steve.....lets all get together and do what we can to make it harder to keep us safe....that sounds like a great time for this weekend......wonder how many americans might die because of it...oh well so what....as long as we can have bash bush and have a little fun too..what difference does that make anyway?

what a putz......but lets make sure noone calls you unamerican.....oh noooooooooooo

These judges would have fit in very well in the Third Reich. They had judges who ruled on "law" too, and Germans, like Americans today, sat by and did nothing as their rights were eliminated.

Posted by danni at 2007-07-06 03:12 PM | Reply | Flag
or maybe it was this.

maybe they looked back at history knowing that the history of the presidency didnt start in 2000..

maybe they read about a president using warrantless wiretaps in the late 30s an d early 40s who became the patron saint of liberalism and his name was fdr.....
just wondering if a little look back might have had something to do with it.

BLT-
The FISA statute was constructed thirty years ago in reaction to exactly the abuses you claim, and of course others that were more egregious that you omit due to the fact that you're a partisan hack and an authoritarian with little respect for the law.

thanks boyd and fuck you very much as well.......what you said doesnt mean jackshit about what I said......just more and more of the left refusing to even acknowledge that they are as hypocritical as anyone when it comes to issues like this......

marc rich pardon...forgotten about while railing against the libby commutation...

screaming about fired USA"s and forgetting about clinton firing all of them at once........

lincoln and habeus corpus but bush cant.

its the same old tired and boring story.......
but thanks for such a polite tete e tete on the issue..........putz

now thats out of the way....how about a discussion........you called it an abuse.....but why dont others call it abuse.......its just not even mentioned that others have done it...not in the national media and the only reason I knew about it was the book just out about fdr......and when charly rose heard this statement he couldnt get to a question on a different issue fast enough.

BLT-
I was just informing you that spying on Americans without a warrant is a felony.

Sorry.

It's just one of those pesky "law" things. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

maybe they looked back at history knowing that the history of the presidency didnt start in 2000..

maybe they read about a president using warrantless wiretaps in the late 30s an d early 40s who became the patron saint of liberalism and his name was fdr.....
just wondering if a little look back might have had something to do with it.

Posted by bushlovertwo

Maybe you can see beyond your nose, but I doubt it.

Boyd was pointing out that the FISA statute were passed after the 30's & 40's to address previous excesses.

But please do tell him Fuck you at least you spelled it correctly. And only confirms the obvious.

BLT-
re: "now thats out of the way....how about a discussion..."

Sure, but a "discussion" takes at least two. I responded to your "how about a discussion" post within two minutes, and now you are nowhere to be found, dude.

Boyd

The windmill needed oiling and the driving range needed the balls racked. A shame the 'country club' wouldn't spring with a cover on the tractor to protect the operators head.

I was just informing you that spying on Americans without a warrant is a felony.

Sorry.

Posted by Boyd at 2007-07-07 09:20 AM | Reply | Flag


yeah and my first response was for the pissant way that you "informed" me....save your sanctamonious tone for someone else....
as usual....my comment speaks more about the lefts reaction to current events so you see.......they may have passed a law but it doesnt change the fact that you and your side just ignore that history.

BLT-
We passed a law, not that laws matter to you.

BLT-
When you can convincingly reconcile breaking the law in secret for years with the rule of law, you just let me know.

Otherwise, it's been a hard day, and it's soo time for sleep.

they may have passed a law but it doesnt change the fact that you and your side just ignore that history.


I must say you are entertaining.

The excesses of FDR you want berated. They were addressed and corrected it the 70's and now you want FDR lambasted once again yet somehow used as a bases for justification of Chimpy's ignoring the current law, law not in place before the 70's.

Sanctimonious, no that would be Hypercritical in fact in your case caddy boy puling hypercritical.

they may have passed a law but it doesnt change the fact that you and your side just ignore that history.


Ignoring history would have been in not enacting FISA.

Ignoring FISA is ignoring the excesses of the past.

Ignoring Bush's contempt for the law puts you on the side of ignoring history, and the Law.

Truth of the matter is, you don't know whether Bush is ignoring FISA or not. For that matter, you don't even know whether domestic wiretapping is taking place at all. Worst of all, you can't prove that the domestic surveillance that IS taking place was done improperly, without a warrant.

But as soon as the Supremes, or a new Dem president, or Congress, makes domestic surveillance illegal, there should be no pretense about it: they will have just made the operational lives of terrorists much, much easier. All they need to do now to escape scrutiny is place a bulk order for 1,000 Verizon phones with American numbers, and in order to listen in the US has to run down and get a warrant. In the future, we won't even be able to do that.

Fair enough. You accuse the jurists, and me, of partisanship. I'll be looking forward to the Dem debates: Senator, if elected president, will you abolish the domestic surveillance program of terrorist suspects? Yes or no?

What's the problem with FISA, RisR?

You may be willing to trust Bush and Cheney's gang of thugs on this one, but given their track record so far there's nothing they say that should be taken at face value. They have lost the mantle of trust, without which no government in a country with strong democratic impulses can survive with its reputation or credibility intact.

Truth of the matter is, you don't know whether Bush is ignoring FISA or not. For that matter, you don't even know whether domestic wiretapping is taking place at all. Worst of all, you can't prove that the domestic surveillance that IS taking place was done improperly, without a warrant.

Yes we can, or did you forget that Bush has publically admitted these things himself?

RIR...

Why are you so disingenuously moving the bar? As far as I know, no one is against domestic surveillance, they are only against domestic surveillance without the oversight of the FISA courts which is the legal way of doing what you want!

Do you recognize and understand the differences?

Yes, I do. And you don't have any idea whether they're doing that or not. It's all just conjecture on your part, and the part of these particular plaintiffs--the government is spying, nobody really knows whom they're spying on so it must be . . . us!!!

Or, maybe not. I remember the suit brought by journalists who were trying to prove they were harmed by the law, because their sources wouldn't return their phone calls for fear of being listened in on. Oh well. If one of the results of this wiretapping effort--or lack thereof, who knows--is that terror suspects are less likely to pick up the phone and talk to their pals in Wisconsin or Atlanta, that's fine with me.

Let me ask you something: could you vote for a candidate, Republican or Democrat, who doesn't promise to abolish the NSA program? Because thus far I haven't heard Barack Obama say much on the subject, let alone introduce legislation to shut it all down.

Poor Tony Roma, none of his conspiracy theories or tortured flights of legalistic fantasies have panned out -- and the Bush Administration remains -- operating within the legally defined boundaries of the Constitution, and fighting the "war on Terror" with all the expanded powers that 'war time" presidents have historically enjoyed.

If we do get attacked by our enemies again on Bush's watch, it won't be because he shrank from putting in place the security initiatives he beleived were necessary to safeguard this nation.

In fact, Bush's greatest legacy might be all those structural changes he made behind the scenes that closed all those loopholes and weaknesses in America's intel community that had been so well exploited by Terrorists before 9/11.

Yes we can, or did you forget that Bush has publically admitted these things himself?

Posted by tonyroma
* * *

Are you saying that Bush admitted to spying on American citizens without a warrant?

Link, please.

In fact, Bush's greatest legacy might be all those structural changes he made behind the scenes that closed all those loopholes and weaknesses in America's intel community that had been so well exploited by Terrorists before 9/11

Yeah sure, the Mexican border proves that.

Yeah sure, the Mexican border proves that.

Really. News to me. I hadn't heard about Muslim terrorists crossing the mexican border into the country.

Link please Ray.

"In fact, Bush's greatest legacy might be all those structural changes he made behind the scenes that closed all those loopholes and weaknesses in America's intel community that had been so well exploited by Terrorists before 9/11"

What, exactly, would those be? Or is it a secret?

I'll be looking forward to the Dem debates: Senator, if elected president, will you abolish the domestic surveillance program of terrorist suspects? Yes or no?

How typical and indeed we don't know.

How about Bush abide by FISA.

My God how Radical, Abiding the Law!

What, exactly, would those be? Or is it a secret?

Well, I hope most are secrets -- the moment the public, you or I know about them, then they cease to be effective. The primary frontline of this war is arguably at the intel level -- with various initiatives and tactics aimed at preventing terrorist acts and identifying/capturing terrorists.

That we haven't been attacked on these shores since 9/11 is a huge success that cannot be overstated.

But to answer your question, the structural change which probably has had the greatest impact is in that part of the Patriot Act, which tore down the wall between the CIA and FBI put up by Clinton, and allowed them to share intel again.

As I understand it, Bush's orders allowed the NSA to collect the information, then within a certain time parameter petition the FISA court to continue the intercepts. But I would agree with you--let him get a warrant to continue collection against American citizens, but all the gloves are off whenever the party in question is NOT a US citizen.

So my question still stands: if Hillary or Obama do not explicitly say that they will discontinue the program, will they still earn your vote? Or are you similarly guilty of partisanship on this?

I find it incredulous that Bowa and RIR come here and make specious arguments without even bothering to know

Yawm, as usual Tony Roma is the only one who "knows" .

LOL

If only the whole world would just act and think the way Tony Roma wants it too--everybody would be so much happier.

Tony, when are you going to hang it up and realize that a "war Time" president enjoys expanded powers in the defense of this nation.

You don't get it do you..that unless it can be proved that Bush used the warrentless wiretapping progrtam to target political opponents instead of known terror5ists and their operatives -- then what he is doing is completely legal and within the powers of the "commander in Chief".

So you can cry and whine 24/7 about "FISA" ...but it is Bush who took an oath to protect and defend this nation, and it is Bush who will bear the responsibilty if this nation is attacked again -- and he is going to do everything in his power to prevent that from happeneing.

And that, more then anything else, is why I still support this president -- even with all his screwups -- because when all is said and done, he takes this war we are in seriously and realizes the real threat this natin faces.

That we haven't been attacked on these shores since 9/11 is a huge success that cannot be overstated.

Do you think Bush (and/or his minders) might be paying more attention to the PDBs after 3,000 people died on US soil during their watch? I mean, one should think something of that magnitude might get the attention of even someone as obtuse as The Decider.

"I hadn't heard about Muslim terrorists crossing the mexican border into the country.

Link please Ray.

Posted by Bowa"

They don't issue press releases when they cross the border, numbskull.

Remember when it was conservatives that didn't trust the "Big Brother" government? Now its your best friend since they told you to be scared, isn't it?

Posted by tonyroma
* * * *

I'll handle this one. Yes, I still don't trust the government much. But IMO it's the left that has the monopoly on being scared. It's the left that is terrified of global warming, of Social Security private accounts, of globalization of the economy, of large corporations, of health insurance companies, of tax cuts, of climate change, of NSA wiretaps, of Halliburton . . .
I'm not scared of much. But when countless Islamists all over the world want to see Americans dead, I'll take them at their word, and if they're telephoning their pals in the US, my government has a right to know why. If you disagree, fine. If Hillary or Obama disagree, I've yet to hear either of them say so. Which presents more of a problem for you next election cycle, than for me.

Please answer MY question: If Barack Obama decides to dodge the question on the wiretapping program, or in any other way doesn't come right out and say he'll shut it down, will you still vote for him?

Please answer MY question: If Barack Obama decides to dodge the question on the wiretapping program, or in any other way doesn't come right out and say he'll shut it down, will you still vote for him?

Posted by rightisright


And Abiding FISA is way to radical a concept.


*********************
but it is Bush who took an oath to protect and defend this nation
-Posted by Bowa

Actually the ONLY oath he swore was to defend the Constitution.

RIR...

Stop with the red herrings! No Democratic candidate is for stopping the surveillance programs! They all want them to continue with one small caveat: DO IT LEGALLY per the 1978 FISA Act. Do you understand?

If only the whole world would just act and think the way Tony Roma wants it too--everybody would be so much happier.

Tony, when are you going to hang it up and realize that a "war Time" president enjoys expanded powers in the defense of this nation.

And I want him to diligently do the same thing. I just want him to follow the Constitution and you don't seem to care. I guess his oath of office was just another little "quaint, outdated" formality, huh? What does that oath say Bowa? Does it say anything about protecting the nation, or does it mention "defending the Constitution" (ie. LAWS that make up this nation)? Did it ever occur to you that the Founders understood that without adherence to laws, the nation ceases to exist? Is there any language in the Constitution okaying breaking its laws for the protection of the nation?

Perhaps you should learn the difference and realize our laws PROTECT US, they don't make us weak like your logic is in defending lawbreaking for the sake of trying to be secure.

Actually the ONLY oath he swore was to defend the Constitution.

Zap, please explain how a President can defend the "Constitution" without Defending the nation.

Or were you being literal, and believe that the President took an oath to defend the actual document under glass in the national archives.

LOL

Or were you being literal

If only Bush took his obligations Literally, and abided FISA.

Then there wouldn't be an issue here and the surveillance with oversight would be going on. But no you wing nuts endorse his every power grab.

I just want him to follow the Constitution and you don't seem to care.

We are going around in circles Tony. I do care. And as I have said many times before, if it turned out that the warrentless wiretapping program was not being used in the context of the war we are in (against terrorists and their operatives) , and was used instead to focus on Bush's political opponents, then I would be at the head of the line calling for his impeachment.

But that just isn't the case.

So I think "Doth protest too much"...which is waht you seem to do most of the time.

Zap, please explain how a President can defend the "Constitution" without Defending the nation.

May I suggest you go to the nearest high school and take a remedial civics class. The Constitution is the "laws of this nation" which establishes everything that comes forth from adherence to these laws. It is order instead of chaos. Its a democratic republic instead of anarchy. It is a tri-cameral construct where each branch shares power equally over the others.

It isn't a monarchy nor dictatorship, where one meglomaniac declares himself and his branch of government to retain immense powers not answerable to the judicial nor legislative branches. Why do you think the power of making laws WASN'T given to the President? Why do you think the power to define laws WASN'T given to the President?

Why has Bush claimed these rights in defiance of our history and the very document that defines his power in the first place?

Stop with the red herrings! No Democratic candidate is for stopping the surveillance programs! They all want them to continue with one small caveat: DO IT LEGALLY per the 1978 FISA Act. Do you understand?
* * * *

Again, you've no evidence he isn't. Just a lot of speculation to the contrary, along with the completely predictable links to lefty blogs. Is Congress having hearings on the FISA law? Has your main man Obama asked for any?

* * * *

Is there any language in the Constitution okaying breaking its laws for the protection of the nation?

* * * *

I dunno. But Abraham Lincoln, I believe, had it right when he denied habeas corpus to US citizens who were trying to overthrow the government. You cannot on the one hand attempt to destroy the United States, and on the other reach out and avail yourself of its Constitutional protections. I see the distinction between a person suspected of robbing a bank, and a person suspected of trying to set off a suitcase nuke in Chicago. You don't, and that's fine. But I can see the argument that Lincoln made--and others--that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, whereby our enemies exploit our "nation of laws" to deliver truck bombs. Sorry. If that makes me un-American in your eyes, so be it. I feel it just makes me pragmatic.

Bowa...

Please point to the language in the Constitution that over-rides the 4th Amendment. It isn't there, and it never has been there. You just don't get it. Even the President of the United States is not above the laws of this nation. If he wants to wiretap anyone within these shores, he should follow the FISA laws because this is what the Constitution says! His war powers do not trump the Constitution since the Constitution is the SOURCE of his war power!

Are you even familiar with what the FISA laws dictate? Do you know they're secret, and in well over 5000 applications, the courts have only denied a handful? Why can't this law be respected for protecting our liberty as the President attempts to protect our shores?

I see the distinction between a person suspected of robbing a bank, and a person suspected of trying to set off a suitcase nuke in Chicago. You don't, and that's fine. But I can see the argument that Lincoln made--and others--that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, whereby our enemies exploit our "nation of laws" to deliver truck bombs. Sorry. If that makes me un-American in your eyes, so be it. I feel it just makes me pragmatic.

Brilliant point.

RIR...

Instead of asking me questions that highlight your ignorance, why don't you look for the answers to your own questions! I'm not going to recite endless quotations and facts for your edification. I'm not the one erroneously misrepresenting this topic.

Two sitting federal judges have gone on record saying "warrantless wiretapping" is illegal as Bush has done it and admitted as such. Both refer to the FISA Act as dictating the LEGAL methods for reaching the very same ends.

Why do conservatives hate the law so much?

If that makes me un-American in your eyes, so be it. I feel it just makes me pragmatic.

No. It's very American. That's what's so ominous about the future of this country. Liberties lost are rarely regained. History is repeating.

"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within."
-Will Durant

Another red herring! I guess Bowa and you like fish, correct?

The same ends can be achieved in the same timeframe by FOLLOWING THE LAW. If you'd care to cite an example proving otherwise, go right ahead. Your example above isn't even close to being one.

May I suggest you go to the nearest high school and take a remedial civics class. The Constitution is the "laws of this nation" which establishes everything that comes forth from adherence to these laws

Still doesn't answer the question Tony.

"Zap, please explain how a President can defend the "Constitution" without Defending the nation?"

For the purposes of the oath of office the "Constutution" and "the Nation" are interchangeable. You can't separate one from the other.

The President is the "Commander in Chief" and we are in war. As RiR quoted above, "the Constitution is not a suicide pact, whereby our enemies exploit our "nation of laws" to deliver truck bombs." and that is the way the SCOTUS would see it as well with regard to the warrentless wiretapping and other "outed" intel programs that the Left has deemed illegal.

Tony, Bush has history on his side on this -- you are trying to criminalize a program that even Diane feinstein has said was "impressive".

I am sure the democrats are looking under every rock for any proof that the warrentless wiretapping was not used as stated -- on international calls against known terrorists and their operatives -- and if they find it then you'll have a case.

Until then though, this initiative was implemented by the commander in chief during wartime, and it's exactly the kind of effective initatives one would expect from a President determined to protect this nation.

And as I have said many times before, if it turned out that the warrentless wiretapping program was not being used in the context of the war we are in (against terrorists and their operatives) , and was used instead to focus on Bush's political opponents, then I would be at the head of the line calling for his impeachment.

But that just isn't the case.


You can't Prove That!

That is why you need oversight. Not the case indeed with the most secretive administration we have ever had.

I GTG it's so much fun hearing excuses for President failure but my yard is now in shade.

No. It's very American. That's what's so ominous about the future of this country. Liberties lost are rarely regained. History is repeating.
* * * *

Uh huh. Well, if one of those cherished liberties involve being able to talk on your telephone with terror suspects without fear of being listened in on, hard to see how that's a bad thing.

Suppose the NSA is listening in on a terror suspect in Africa, and they are taping his phone calls. Uh oh!! A phone call is placed to a phone with an American number. Is it an American citizen? Or is it just somebody with an American phone? How do you know? How do you know who to get the warrant for? What if it's a company phone, and the company is American, but which has a lot of foreign employees? What then?

I suggest this compromise: the FISA court is given a list of terror suspects, American or not. And they approve wiretapping on ALL calls to and from such groups, or not. Would that make you happy? Because that would suit me. If the US has an interest in knowing, for example, who an Al Queda cell in Montreal was talking to, why should we have to go out and get a warrant on a case-by-case basis? Just record away. I simply don't understand why US interest in a given phone conversation disappears when one of the nodes happens to be in the US at the time. In fact, our interest should be piqued at that point. So do you have a problem with that?

I see the distinction between a person suspected of robbing a bank, and a person suspected of trying to set off a suitcase nuke in Chicago.

Bullshit again! Do you know there is no such thing as a suitcase nuke? Nukes are not small and they're not portable in the sense of one person carrying one by his/herself. Why create a false analogy to set up a scenario that cannot exist in this reality?

"Zap, please explain how a President can defend the "Constitution" without Defending the nation?"


He isn't defending the Constitution when he is Violating the Law! Simple enough, YES or NO?

Catch you all later...

Actually, there are nuclear devices small enough to fit into a large suitcase, or in the trunk of a car.

But since you're being deliberately obtuse, I'll rephrase:

"I see the distinction between a person suspected of robbing a bank, and a person suspected of trying to blow up the Federal Reserve Bank of New York with a dirty nuke."

Better?

For the purposes of the oath of office the "Constutution" and "the Nation" are interchangeable.

Thank you Mr. Framer and NO they are not interchangable. If they were it would have been worded defend the nation, it isn't.

Better?

Posted by rightisright

Better would be abiding FISA

Tony, Bush has history on his side on this -- you are trying to criminalize a program that even Diane feinstein has said was "impressive".

I am sure the democrats are looking under every rock for any proof that the warrentless wiretapping was not used as stated -- on international calls against known terrorists and their operatives -- and if they find it then you'll have a case.

I simply don't understand why US interest in a given phone conversation disappears when one of the nodes happens to be in the US at the time. In fact, our interest should be piqued at that point. So do you have a problem with that?

You two continue to miss the point. There isn't one criticism of the methods being used nor with the people they are being used against, as long as the judge in the FISA court has oversight and deems the surveillance proper in its context!

To me, this has never been about where the communications start or finish and all about having one solitary independant overseer in place to guard against abuse. Warrantless wiretapping doesn't provide any oversight whatsoever, and violates the law. Follow the law and there is no problem to the extent nor methods of surveillance, its that simple.

He isn't defending the Constitution when he is Violating the Law! Simple enough, YES or NO?

Catch you all later...


Posted by Zap
* * *

Actually, no. Would you have demanded the impeachment of Abraham Lincoln? How about FDR? Fact is, presidents have interpreted the constitution and the laws in ways that posterity viewed as . . . convenient . . . to their goals at the time. I shed no tears for anyone--American citizen or not--who is taking phone calls from terror suspects around the world. Maybe the conversation is innocent enough, time will tell.

RR
Your politics is as idealistic, naive and ignorant of history as your economics. FISA is the modern version of a Star Chamber, which kings used to bypass legitimate channels.

Only a nation with an extremely advanced nuclear program could manufacture warheads small enough to fit into a suitcase. Both the United States and the Soviet Union manufactured nuclear weapons small enough to fit into large backpacks during the Cold War, but neither have ever made public the existence or development of weapons small enough to fit into a suitcase. The smallest nuclear warhead manufactured by the USA was the W54, used for the Davy Crockett warhead which could be fired from a 120 mm recoilless rifle, and a backpack version called the Mk-54 SADM (Small Atomic Demolition Munition). While this warhead, with a weight of only 51 lb (23 kg), could potentially fit into a large suitcase, it would be a very tight fit. While the explosive power of the W54 -- up to an equivalent of 1 kiloton of TNT -- is not much by the normal standards of a nuclear weapon (the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II were around 13 to 15 kilotons each), it could still do tremendous physical damage to a structure (it would be many, many times more powerful than the explosive attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma in 1995, for example, with a yield of 0.002 kiloton).

The technology required to manufacture a nuclear warhead miniaturized to such an extent that it could fit into a suitcase restricts the independent development of "suitcase nukes" to only nations with highly advanced nuclear weapons programs which have performed many nuclear tests. wikipedia

Ever carried a 51 lb. suitcase before? And where would a terrorist get his hands on one, RIR, the local Army surplus store?

Follow the law and there is no problem to the extent nor methods of surveillance, its that simple.

Posted by tonyroma
* * * *

And, for the FOURTH time now, you've no evidence that the law wasn't followed. No evidence that these particular plaintiffs were listened in on, or, if so, that a warrant wasn't obtained. No evidence that the FISA court wasn't used. No evidence that there is wiretapping of American citizens in the first place.

Just a lot of speculation. You have a history of believing the very worst, and of believing anything at all you see on the internet. Thousands of eyewitnesses saw a plane crash into the Pentagon, but you choose to believe otherwise. There is no practical possibility of having rigged the World Trade Center with explosives, but that's what you believed actually happened. So you'll excuse me for feeling that your attitudes on these subjects seem a little difficult to accommodate.

Your politics is as idealistic, naive and ignorant of history as your economics. FISA is the modern version of a Star Chamber, which kings used to bypass legitimate channels.

Exactly, and a roster of judges handpicked by former Chief Justice Rehnquist, and we all know how liberal he was. I can't believe that the liberals are arguing for a rubber stamp oversight even allowed AFTER THE FACT. The government doesn't even have to go to FISA until after the surveillance is done in cases of immediacy. I just can't find a problem with this little rigged morsel of oversight.

Ever carried a 51 lb. suitcase before? And where would a terrorist get his hands on one, RIR, the local Army surplus store?

Posted by tonyroma
* * * *

Yes. In the Army, my duffel bag alone weighed over 100 pounds. My point was that there are small-sized nuclear devices, you said no.

As to where the person in question might get one, that's irrelevant. The Soviets made them by the dozen, and it's hard to imagine that it hasn't occurred to someone to try to purchase one. After all, how many people would have guessed that they would try to take flying lessons all over the country, then on the same day, take over some airplanes, and crash them into our largest commercial district, and into our capital? It seems unlikely until it happens, after all.

Your politics is as idealistic, naive and ignorant of history as your economics. FISA is the modern version of a Star Chamber, which kings used to bypass legitimate channels.

* * * * *

Wait a second. I thought going along with FISA was a good thing. I've never heard of the Star Chamber, but now FISA is something out of Harry Potter?

I guess I'm just not as sophisticated as you, Ray. In your world, we'll just let the jihadists run amok, and we'll let our silver investments and gold certificates carry us through.

LOL. And I'm naive.

Gotta go, playing racquetball today. Enjoyed it much.

LOL. And I'm naive.

RiR, the basic disconnect is that they don't believe we are at war.

Believe you me, if a democratic president instituted similar warrentless intitiatives (and Clinton did targeting drug dealers in the inner city) the liberals and democrats wouldn't say boo.

The difference is that neither would the Republicans. Because we know the "war on Terror" should not be partisan

LOL. And I'm naive.

Big time, RR.

Believe you me, if a democratic president instituted similar warrentless intitiatives (and Clinton did targeting drug dealers in the inner city) the liberals and democrats wouldn't say boo.

Why are you being so obtuse today? Do you understand the difference between our points of view?

Bush: Warrantless wiretaps, because we've got to catch the bad guys, and we've got to get them now.

Constitutionalists: Wiretap whomever you like with one caveat: Either before or after (in cases of exigency) have a SECRET JUDGE in a SECRET COURT make sure that you're not doing it to people without any reasonable suspicion that they're involved in what you state they might be.

There is the difference between the viewpoints. If you cannot see that the same ends are met both ways, but the law is followed in the second, then you do not understand why the law was enacted in the first place. Without oversight, the Executive becomes above the law, regardless of its objective. Every American should cringe at the thought of it.

RiR, the basic disconnect is that they don't believe we are at war.

Not true. The war is between the Washington establishment and the citizens of America, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Do you understand the difference between our points of view?

I do. You ignore the historical reality of the expanded powers of a wartime president. I do not. Both RiR and I , have tried to explain it to you -- citing Lincoln and FDR for example -- and you just ignore the argument.

We are at war Tony. That is the most relevant point in the entire argument. That you fail to grasp that, led me to make the assumption that you do not believe we are at war, nor do you believe that Bush is a "wartime President".

In the context of a nation at war, the particulars of a statute passed in 1978 take a back seat to what is required to defend the nation in 2007.

Consequently, you don't have a case unless you have evidence that the statute was superceded so that the President could target political opponents instead of terrorists and their operatives.

I do. You ignore the historical reality of the expanded powers of a wartime president. I do not. Both RiR and I , have tried to explain it to you -- citing Lincoln and FDR for example -- and you just ignore the argument.

And I've asked you to show me where in the Constitution these exact rights are enumerated and YOU can't! Does the Constitution mean what it says, or does it mean what the President's say that it does? Where does it give the President power to declare himself the Supreme Court and decide which laws are relevant and which he doesn't have to follow? Where does it exempt him from laws passed by Congress and signed into law by another President?

FDR and Lincoln claimed powers not stated in the Constitution. This does not mean that they're right, it only means that Congress and the Courts let them get away with their specious arguments without challenging their legality.

Consequently, you don't have a case unless you have evidence that the statute was superceded so that the President could target political opponents instead of terrorists and their operatives.

This has never been the case in my entire argument. The 4th Amendment does not apply to just political opponents of the President. It applies to everyone. The FISA Act was put into law to protect all citizens from unwarranted intrusion by government. That is all we ask. We do not ask the government to stop using surveillance to protect us, just that they follow the applicable laws in doing so.

You've yet to make one point as to how FISA inhibits the government's ability to gather intelligence. Would you like to try, or is your entire point meaningless since this is the only argument let on your table?

FDR and Lincoln claimed powers not stated in the Constitution. This does not mean that they're right,

It means they were right at the time. And did what was necessary for a "commander in chgief" to do during wartime.

It means that their actions helped to establish the precedents which have helped to create the expanded powers of a wartime president that while not specifically stated in the Constitution are implied in the role of the President as "Commander In Chief".

You've yet to make one point as to how FISA inhibits the government's ability to gather intelligence. Would you like to try, or is your entire point meaningless since this is the only argument let on your table?

Tony, you don't get it. Bush decided that FISA impeded this particula program and that is all that counts. He's the "commander in Chief" during wartime. And historically, the President has been given a wide berth in the way he prosecutes a war.

Again, you don't seem to understand that we are at war, and that by all accounts the warrentless wiretap program was only used in the prosecution of that war.

Tony, you don't get it. Bush decided that FISA impeded this particula program and that is all that counts. He's the "commander in Chief" during wartime. And historically, the President has been given a wide berth in the way he prosecutes a war.


Translation: Bush can do anything he wants and I will defend him. Because I am a moderate.

Tony
Bowa is fucked up. You're wasting your time with him.

Tony, you don't get it. Bush decided that FISA impeded this particula program and that is all that counts. He's the "commander in Chief" during wartime. And historically, the President has been given a wide berth in the way he prosecutes a war.

Again, you don't seem to understand that we are at war, and that by all accounts the warrentless wiretap program was only used in the prosecution of that war.

Posted by Bowa at 2007-07-07 03:37 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

There is a way to get things accomplished the the LEGISLATURE. you want to ammend FISA then go to Congress like You are supposed to. You really need to THINK about what You support Lokisfur because supporting any President that Circumvents the United States Constitution (Without fully suspending the whole shebang) Needs to leave the Country because they are not fit to shine the shoes of ANY TRUE AMerican.

Larry

Translation: Bush can do anything he wants and I will defend him. Because I am a moderate.

No IN, that's not my position at all. And if you read my posts you would know that.

I beleive that a wartime president should be given great latitude in the way he prosecutes the war and defends this nation. However, if my "commander in Chief" betrays that trust and turns his wartime powers into a chance to target opponents for political gain then he should be impeached.

In fact, if anything the opposite has happened -- It has come at great political cost to President Bush to exercise his wartime powers in the prosecution of the war.

Oh and BTW Where is the declaration of War even with a Declaration of War the Constitution still is in play. You want to circumvent the Constitution then have Dubya Suspend the whole thing which is a seperate act in and of itself. Those are the facts of the matter.

Larry

Bowa...

First, we are not in a declared state of war. FDR and Lincoln were. Bush did not want a declared state of war to begin with.

Secondly, you still have not shown one word within the Constitution that enumerates the precise powers retained by the President during a time of war. There are no words stating that he can usurp the will of Congress and the courts for whatever purposes he deems vital to national security. The Constitution does not eliminate Congress' role nor that of the Courts merely for the sake of war. If this were true, then why does Congress have the power to defund wars, thus ending the President's claims?

You are arguing an extralegal reading of the Constitution and I'd like you to support it with more than your notions of what the President's powers are and exactly where they are derived from. You are a conservative. Conservatives believe that the Constitution means what it says, and unless you can find words giving the President the power to ignore the document itself, your point is in error. Laws are still laws and the President is not exempt from them nor the constitutional oversight roles given to the Courts and Congress.

Tony, I'm done -- If you seriously belive that Bush is not a wartime President while 160,000+ US troops are in harms way overseas then you are more in denial then I thought.

I've said all I can say on the subject -- we will have to agree to disagree. I think you're argument is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand and have explained why in numerous posts and threads.

I hope that you get your chance to have the issue resolved by the SCOTUS, but I doubt it will get anywhere near the Court as the powers of the President to act during wartime (declared or not) are given great latitude.

Dubya still must follow the constitution to the letter. UNLESS He wants to suspend the whole thing. He can not pick nor choice which portions He wants to follow or not. Either You support the US COnstitution which is the AMerican Bible or You do not. It is as simple as that.

Larry

Troops in harms way??? Oh my gosh! What idiot sent them there for no good reason? Bowa, you're a psycho.

Tony, I'm done -- If you seriously belive that Bush is not a wartime President while 160,000+ US troops are in harms way overseas then you are more in denial then I thought.

Bowa...

Its the Constitution you have a problem with, not with me. It states how to declare war. Has this been done per its dictates? No it hasn't, so why argue with me when the truth is your opponent?

Has America ever declared a constitutional war against a group of people? Are we at war against the nation of Iraq? Then who are we at war against? Terror? You can't declare war against a tactic. Bush is a wartime President because ignorant Americans including the Congress continue to believe his bluster instead of the words written in our Constitution.

Our troops are definitely in harm's way, but that doesn't define a legal constitutional war. A declaration does, and Bush does not have one. He has authority to overthrow Saddam and replace his regime, but he doesn't have a constitutional declaration of war with which to claim his extraordinary powers.

In all of this you still can't wrap your simple mind around a very easy concept: do all the surveillance necessary, but do it under the FISA laws. These laws do not limit or inhibit the government's ability to do anything. All it does is insure us that at least one person from outside the Executive deems that the necessity of such surveillance indeed has security implications covered by the law. Why would anyone want things any differently?

These laws do not limit or inhibit the government's ability to do anything.

With all due respect Tony, you don't know that.

Neither you or I know enough about the specifics of this secret program to know the reasons why the Bush administration constructed it the way it did.

With all due respect Tony, you don't know that.

Neither you or I know enough about the specifics of this secret program to know the reasons why the Bush administration constructed it the way it did.

Yes we do Bowa. The entire argument has been over going through the FISA courts or going around them. It has never been about the tactics themselves. It has only been about undertaking the surveillance with a likelihood of finding possible criminality and not using them for fishing expeditions not having to do with the precise law breaking being investigated by the government.

Why do you think the courts are secret to begin with?

Why do neo-cons hate our Constitution?
Why do neo-cons hate our freedom?
Do we fight them or wait till they start the Republican Taliban party, oh too late.

Los Angeles Times

Wednesday, 14 August, 2002

Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft's announced desire for camps for U.S. citizens he
deems to be "enemy combatants" has moved him from merely being a political
embarrassment to being a constitutional menace.

Ashcroft's plan, disclosed last week but little publicized, would allow him
to order the indefinite incarceration of U.S. citizens and summarily strip
them of their constitutional rights and access to the courts by declaring
them enemy combatants.

THE NEW DANGERS

A Presidential Executive Order, whether Constitutional or not, becomes law simply by its publication in the Federal Registry. Congress is by-passed. Here are just a few Executive Orders that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

Without Congressional approval, the President now has the power to transfer whole populations to any part of the country, the power to suspend the Press and to force a national registration of all persons. The President, in essence, has dictatorial powers never provided to him under the Constitution. The President has the power to suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in a real or perceived emergency. Unlike Lincoln and Roosevelt, these powers are not derived from a wartime need, but from any crisis, domestic or foreign, hostile or economic. Roosevelt created extraordinary measures during the Great Depression, but any President faced with a similar, or lesser, economic crisis now has extraordinary powers to assume dictatorial status.

I think Bush has already started to implement all of the above.

Seems to Me Republicans don't give a shit about the Constitution only that their party wins. They really don't care about AMerica now do they??

Larry

Posted by LarryMohr

absolutely.. fuck all of them. They deserve only contempt and a bitch slap.

I'm glad you trust the government so much. I wonder if the program was meant to spy on Christians if you'd be as comfortable with who the government claims they are and are not spying on.

Posted by JOE

the repub party use to be the party of keeping government out of your business.. now they are the party of contempt, corruption and watching every freakin' thing you do.. Enemies of the USA and the constitution all..

Again, you don't seem to understand that we are at war, and that by all accounts the warrentless wiretap program was only used in the prosecution of that war.

Posted by Bowa

yes we do you moron..Its war on the american middle class and the constitution..At least government is winning on those two fronts.

You chuds would give up all your rights for the perception to feel safe.. freaking pathetic.

Well, if one of those cherished liberties involve being able to talk on your telephone with terror suspects without fear of being listened in on, hard to see how that's a bad thing.


NO ONE wants that, butthole. Is it too much to ask hat the Bush admin FOLLOW THE LAW and get a warrant for the surveillance 72 HOURS AFTER THE FACT?

I guess so.

Sucks when ones do not have things turn out the way they want - does it not?