  Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 1269 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 69.129.146.186 |
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14 393611/ | ||
Messykitty Member Username: Messykitty Post Number: 68 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 24.21.198.33 |
Of course, Anna digs Taylor. Taylor Rules! | ||
Detroitej72 Member Username: Detroitej72 Post Number: 125 Registered: 05-2006 Posted From: 66.184.3.44 |
This is a hard ruling to pick a side. On one hand, if there is another terrorist attack, people will sceam "why didn't the govt. do enough to prevent it". On the other hand I belive Jefferson (or was it Franklin?)said "those who would trade temp. security for liberty deserve neither security nor liberty." And to all persons of the right leaning persuasion, how would you fell if Clinton used these powers to wiretap for terrorists? | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 595 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.227.219.108 |
Let's see, She is ruling against the very activities that prevented 10 planes from blowing up last week. She is a complete and utter douchebag! Her ilk will continue to pull this kind of crap until we have another 911 and then they will say it wasn't their fault. You can put a name on the reason for the next terrorist attack: Anna Diggs Taylor May she burn in hell | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 596 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.227.219.108 |
See, that wasn't hard to pick a side at all Detroitej72 | ||
Psewick Member Username: Psewick Post Number: 47 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 70.235.110.46 |
"She is ruling against the very activities that prevented 10 planes from blowing up last week." How did warantless searches against Americans help uncover the UK plot? I encourage you to read more about the ruling. | ||
Livedog2 Member Username: Livedog2 Post Number: 970 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 24.223.133.177 |
I can't figure out why so many Americans hate America and want to continue living here. I guess it's because they can carry on with their hateful ways by fighting us from within. But, mark my words her day will come one day and she will have to answer for her decisions somehow, somewhere! Hopefully, up agaisnt the wall, so to speak!! Livedog2 | ||
Eric Member Username: Eric Post Number: 523 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 69.246.29.185 |
Yeah, what douchebag God forbid we have due process. | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 597 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.227.219.108 |
Quote: "How did warantless searches against Americans help uncover the UK plot? I encourage you to read more about the ruling." ______________________________ ___________________ I encourage you to read more about the terrorist plot from last week then you will know the answer. | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 3562 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 72.25.177.194 |
But Livedog - her ruling flies in the face of GWB - so which side are you on? | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 598 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.227.219.108 |
No need for due process when they blow your ass up | ||
Livedog2 Member Username: Livedog2 Post Number: 971 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 24.223.133.177 |
I should have smelled it right away with this hateful, racist and sexist decision!
Detroit Free Press  Livedog2 | ||
Psewick Member Username: Psewick Post Number: 48 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 70.235.110.46 |
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (4th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution) If Bush wants to secretly spy on Americans without a warrant, then Congress has to amend the constitution (which I encourage everyone to read). | ||
Thecarl Member Username: Thecarl Post Number: 936 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 69.14.30.175 |
if i'm being wiretapped, i feel sorry for the poor sucker who has to listen to my boring calls. i think the wiretapping scandal exposes the inner guilt, and fear of being caught, felt by many americans. | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 599 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.227.219.108 |
Hey Psewick, Don't read it on an airplane, or in a skyscraper for that matter. | ||
Thecarl Member Username: Thecarl Post Number: 937 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 69.14.30.175 |
psewick, how about eminent domain? government for sale. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 6278 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 70.236.198.22 |
Unintentionally sat with her and another woman for lunch at Sala Thai a year or so ago...now I understand why most everyone was genuflecting when they passed the booth. That conversation got MY wiretap listeners spinning on their toes... | ||
Thecarl Member Username: Thecarl Post Number: 938 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 69.14.30.175 |
while getting a black eye as a result of stampeding wild elephants on the fourth of july during a hail storm, followed by one baby zebra. | ||
Livedog2 Member Username: Livedog2 Post Number: 972 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 24.223.133.177 |
I'm on neither side -- there's not a nickels worth of differences between the democRATS or the rePUBICians. It's chose your poison -- arsenic or hemlock! But, when those ragheads have us all against the wall to take the oath to ali or whoever then we'll hear the crying about rights. I never could figure out why they pray to Muhammad Ali five times a day. I didn't know they were big boxing fans. Of course, you better not ask and you better not tell because you won't even make it to the wall. Livedog2 | ||
Ray1936 Member Username: Ray1936 Post Number: 756 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 207.200.116.139 |
I'm with thecarl on this one. Only phone calls I get are sales pitches; only calls I make are to Mom once in a while to make sure she's okay. Anyone wants to tap my phone, it's ok with me. | ||
The_rock Member Username: The_rock Post Number: 1362 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 68.42.251.225 |
Anna Taylor Diggs--- We used to call her the Bader Ginsberg of Fort Street. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4167 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
"But, when those ragheads have us all against the wall to take the oath to ali or whoever then we'll hear the crying about rights. I never could figure out why they pray to Muhammad Ali five times a day. I didn't know they were big boxing fans. Of course, you better not ask and you better not tell because you won't even make it to the wall." What a complete and utter dick you are, Livedog. | ||
Livedog2 Member Username: Livedog2 Post Number: 973 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 24.223.133.177 |
Was it something I said, Lmichigan? Or was it the way I said it? Maybe you don't like my name? Please like me, it's important for my well being for you to like me. Here, I'll even walk your dog for you!  Livedog2 | ||
Ravine Member Username: Ravine Post Number: 333 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 75.10.24.187 |
If the government can blatantly disregard our Constitution, and violate our right to privacy WITHOUT A WARRANT, then the foundation of our freedom has been compromised and the terrorists, in effect, tally up a big victory, as they will have dramatically altered the State of our Union. I know that sounds so trite, but I believe it. Ray, my cell calls are innocent enough, too (calls to The Little Woman to see if I should stop at the grocery store on the way home,) but there is a principle involved here, and I don't want our government to have the option of conducting itself in even a slightly totalitarian or fascist way. I would resist that even if we DIDN'T put soulless infidels like Bush in office. Also, why wage war on the other side of the planet to "defend our freedom and way of life," if we're going to allow our own government to piss all over both? Och, Irishmafia, sure 'n' yoore a disgrace to the bluhd, you are, laddie. | ||
Livedog2 Member Username: Livedog2 Post Number: 974 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 24.223.133.177 |
We live in the real world not the hypothetical world of theories. Once the bullets start flying the theories, hypotheticals and what ifs go out the window. Ever hear of something called 9/11? How about the principle of doing a little wrong now for the sake of a larger principle and right later for the greater good. Livedog2 | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 603 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.227.219.108 |
Ravine, I didn't have much use for the terrorists in the IRA that we produced either...so I don't try to tie me in there. As I think of it, I believe that I was inappropriately profiled when I went to the Emerald Isle as a Catholic Irish-American. Pity that! The bottom line is simple. We have to allow our guys to gather the information that they need to nail these dirt bags before they kill you, the little lady and my kids. The farce about phone calls being monitored by big bother is the bizarre paranoia of a confused bunch of leftists who, as much as they dont understand it, fail to realize that our country (and yes that includes our president), is not the enemy. You may hate everything that George and Christians and the right and conservatives have to say about politics in this country. Get over it and find somebody that is attractive, intelligent and, most importantly, electable next time. In the mean time, people are trying to kill you and I and our kids. Quit pretending that they aren't or they will succeed. | ||
East_detroit Member Username: East_detroit Post Number: 687 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.212.169.194 |
How about not? If they want to wiretap, they still can... all they have to do is ask the FISC for permission. | ||
Ron Member Username: Ron Post Number: 271 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 70.212.76.99 |
My concern is not that we have tapped phones without warrants in the name of "fighting terrorism," despite the fact that there are ample existing tools to do so. (See the foreign intelligence surveillance court)(Phones can even be tapped without a warrant provided that an application is filed within 72 hours, I believe) My concern is that this sets a horrible precedent that can then be used in other contexts. Just as a worst case scenario, the government taps the phone of Irish_Mafia because he criticizes the government's actions when a Dem wins the presidency, for example. They don't want you "undermining" the morale of our citizens by criticizing governmental actions. The question is not what is being done by the government in the war on terror, but what precedent is set to be used when someone is in control that you don't agree with. That is what is scary about Bush's policies. | ||
Ravine Member Username: Ravine Post Number: 334 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 75.10.24.187 |
The bullets are already flying. There is nothing hypothetical about any of these issues. Give a government like this one the option of "doing a little wrong now," and you set a legal precedent that opens a door through which a later, even more pernicious, government can slide all manner of abuses. But then, I gather that you are getting off too much on rubbing out the "ragheads" to be bothered with thinking through any of these matters. | ||
Livedog2 Member Username: Livedog2 Post Number: 976 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 24.223.133.177 |
Is it "rag heads" or "ragheads"? I'm always confused by that one. Maybe I should go over to the “Detroit Connections”, “Lose or Loose” thread where the real experts on the English language reside to get a reading on the proper way to spell it! Well, at least I didn't call them "Camel Jockeys" that's progress, wouldn't you say? Livedog2 | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 231 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 68.62.6.138 |
wow...I usually hate it when I hear other people trying to play the race card, but... I was watching CNN earlier, and you could just hear the Republican commentators working to make certain that everyone understands that this judge is a black woman, as if to say that her opinion in the matter doesn't carry as much weight because she is a black woman... They were like... "Well, this Judge is known to be very liberal, this Judge from Detroit, and she mainly quotes the opinions of other liberal judges, this liberal Judge from Detroit does. Did I mention she is from Detroit, and that she's liberal? Veeeerry liberal(wink wink)." lol (Message edited by thejesus on August 17, 2006) | ||
Vas Member Username: Vas Post Number: 595 Registered: 01-2004 Posted From: 71.227.91.150 |
A VOTE FOR FREEDOM! | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 1270 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 69.130.18.100 |
Hitler was elected to power. In Germany and German occupied territories during his governance the mistreatment of Jews, other minorities, and dissidents was not illegal.
| ||
Vas Member Username: Vas Post Number: 596 Registered: 01-2004 Posted From: 71.227.91.150 |
Damn, I've never heard of the Mafia being so frieghtened of being blown up. Thanks for bring down the price of feul by not flying! | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 4265 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 71.193.193.49 |
Let it be clear that S. Martin and Anna Diggs Taylor live in Grosse Pointe Farms. That's hardly Detroit. We knew him as Marty although his first name is Stanley. jjaba went to WMU with Martin. He was as conservative as they come, raised in Berrien Springs, Mich. Somewhere along the line,. he became a Democrat and Member of the UM Board of Regents. Does the Rock know the family? And why was the case filed in this courtroom of Anna Diggs Taylor? jjaba, Westsider. | ||
Ravine Member Username: Ravine Post Number: 335 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 75.10.24.187 |
Thejesus, I get what you're saying. It figures that they tried to paint it as a "liberal vs. conservative," or otherwise polarized, issue. However, even conservatives should resist the willful molestation of our Constitutional rights by the government. | ||
Livedog2 Member Username: Livedog2 Post Number: 977 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 24.223.133.177 |
Jjaba, for the same reason that people try to find every reason in the world to bring suits in the Detroit courts because the people of Detroit find against business and award the largest settlements of anywhere in the country. It's called, "Sticking it to the man!" And, if anyone doesn't think it's a racial issue then I've got some swampland in Florida I'd like to sell you. Livedog2 | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 4267 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 71.193.193.49 |
Livedog2, ok, that may be true, but were there people in Michigan directly in the case? There's gotta be more to a case than a dartboard of finding a friendly judge. There is a concept of "judicial standing". Who in the case has the beef and where do they live or work? It would be sort of like asking a US Judge in Michigan to decide on FEMA in Hurricane Katrina. jjaba would recommend that you "stick it to the man" in New Orleans Courts for better results. jjaba. | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 4268 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 71.193.193.49 |
Livedog2, jjaba is in no way telling you what to write but the term "raghead" is unnecessary to make your point. Such a term only inflames and takes away from your points. Ethnic slurs are just out of bounds on a classy Forum. jjaba, with his opinion. | ||
Livedog2 Member Username: Livedog2 Post Number: 978 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 24.223.133.177 |
Jjaba, Your comment is noted and being taken under advisement. The only reason for that is my respect for you and what you stand for. Livedog2 | ||
Ravine Member Username: Ravine Post Number: 338 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 75.10.24.187 |
Yeah, I'm sure that respect for good, upstanding Arab-Americans is out of the question. | ||
Livedog2 Member Username: Livedog2 Post Number: 979 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 24.223.133.177 |
&$$*)*(&(^%(*%)_**%t^&*&)(()*_ +)*(^#@#@, Ravine? Livedog2 | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 605 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.227.219.108 |
JJaba, Taylor lives in GP. Score one for the West Side. Vas, I fly every week and was the week of 911. How about you? The Jesus, I understand your concern about the sensitivity of implicit religion. I believe your name is an invitation to a beheading by the terrorists of which speak. Ron, You make good arguments. They are questions that we should continue to ask. I am on the more aggressive side of this one though. The stakes are too high. East Detroit, Unfortunately, in theory you are correct. In reality both the actual time required and the bizarre political bent of people like Anna Bannana Ding Dong make that an unrealistic solution....of course they could get the signed approvals after the bombs go boom! | ||
Ravine Member Username: Ravine Post Number: 339 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 75.10.24.187 |
Well, now the dog is barking. Time to close the window. Good night. | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 606 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.227.219.108 |
Sleep well Ravine | ||
Detroitej72 Member Username: Detroitej72 Post Number: 133 Registered: 05-2006 Posted From: 66.184.3.44 |
When will America STOP THINKING in terms of left vs. right? Stop drinking the kool aid of your political party... When OUR NATION is at war, we must join together. After all the great Lincoln said a nation divided will fall like a house of cards. (I'm paraphrasing for the dumb folk) WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!! | ||
Jiminnm Member Username: Jiminnm Post Number: 1048 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 68.35.85.184 |
jjaba, the case was filed in Det becuase the ACLU knew it would would be kicked most everywhere else. The decision by Taylor is no surprise. In fact, it would have been a surprise if the decision came down another way. I expect the appeal to overrule the decision and the case to be tossed. The simple fact is that the ACLU had no standing to bring the suit. | ||
Livedog2 Member Username: Livedog2 Post Number: 981 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 24.223.133.177 |
Bingo, Jiminnm! You hit the nail squarely on the head. And, I hope you are right. Livedog2 | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4171 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
If you would have called someone a "nigger" everybody would have been up in arms, but I guess it's completely all right and proper to go out of your way to use "rag head" to describe Arabs. Does no one else here have any sensibilities? You've already discredit yourself with me, Livedog. You're not funny, you racists prick, you. Good luck with that. | ||
Smogboy Member Username: Smogboy Post Number: 3656 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 69.47.100.44 |
Am I to understand that a faceless forum where people can use every third derogatory term has merit? I'm not so easily duped. If people want to debate the ruling that's fine but the argument here has denegrated into childish name calling. Sigh. | ||
Ron Member Username: Ron Post Number: 272 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 70.212.110.201 |
I believe the case was filed in Detroit because we have the largest Arab population outside of the Middle East, and a good amount of the eavesdropping probably took place here. This is just a guess, made without looking at the jurisdictional allegations in the complaint. My step-father is an Iraqi-born, naturalized US citizen, and he, interestingly enough, supports Bush for going into Iraq, and has no problems with Bush tapping phones. We definitely disagree on this. But I said that to say that not all "rag heads" are terrorists, Live Dog. Don't fall into the stereotyping that you seem to stand so strongly against. | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 3572 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 72.25.177.194 |
From Best of the Web Today by James Taranto Carter Judge: Hear No Evil "A federal judge in Detroit on Thursday ordered the Bush administration to halt the National Security Agency's program of domestic eavesdropping [sic], saying it violated the U.S. Constitution," Reuters reports: Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said the controversial practice of warrantless wiretapping known as the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" violated free speech rights, protections against unreasonable searches and the constitutional check on the power of the presidency. The ruling marked a setback for the Bush administration, which had asked for the lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union to be thrown out, arguing that any court action on the case would jeopardize secrets in an ongoing war on terrorism. Last week the Detroit Free Press profiled Judge Taylor, noting that she "is a liberal with Democratic roots" who campaigned for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and was "rewarded" in 1979 with a judicial nomination. The paper adds: Even if Taylor harpoons the spying program, experts said, the decision likely would be overturned by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. "Given the composition of the 6th Circuit and its previous rulings in related areas, it seems more likely to favor national security over civil liberties if that issue is squarely presented," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia. "And that's what this case is all about." The Justice Department has already appealed. | ||
Sharmaal Member Username: Sharmaal Post Number: 899 Registered: 09-2004 Posted From: 68.60.139.244 |
Rag Head? Watch what you say. That is NOT how to make a point. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4172 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
You know what I find about the ridiculous comments attacking Judge Diggs? FISA already allowed warranted taps, and all the administration had to do was go before the court and they were almost instant. I think out of the thousands of requests only 4 or so were denied, which is why I don't see why Bush feels such an urgent need to subvert the law of the land, the Constitution. All Judge Diggs ruling says is that they have to stop the unwarrented wire tappings, not stop wire tappings. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. No branch of the government should go unchecked for whatever reason. That's one of our most basic core principles. Questioning Judge Diggs patriotism is the same sickening, old, and tired trick by those on the right to paint anyone that doesn't agree with them as somehow less American, or even a terrorist sympathizer. It's been used so much it's really starting to lose its sting. | ||
Psewick Member Username: Psewick Post Number: 49 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 70.235.110.46 |
I have an idea... How about the government wiretaps phones and collects data--but simply OBTAINS A WARRANT FROM A JUDGE? That would be...you know..."legal". | ||
Smogboy Member Username: Smogboy Post Number: 3667 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 69.47.100.44 |
Psewick- you speak the simplest of truths that somehow the Administration seems to miss out on. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 6279 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 70.236.198.22 |
Those who are crying the hardest against this decision are the overt Nazis. Those who are not crying anything at all are the potential COvert ones. Those crying FOR this decision...for the government to merely have to stay within legal limits while pursuing their JOBS...will be the ones in the razor-wired holding pens, unfortunately. We're on our way to Newspeak and Orwell's 1984 reality...I just never thought the populace would INVITE it in so willingly. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 214 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 69.136.155.244 |
The Washington Post is less-than-impressed with the content and tone of Judge Diggs's ruling: A Judicial Misfire - The first federal court opinion on warrantless NSA surveillance is full of sound and fury | ||
The_rock Member Username: The_rock Post Number: 1364 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 68.42.251.225 |
I can only assume the case was filed, as is any other case in the Federal system, under the "blind draw" system, and Judge Taylor was assigned rather than "picked" by the ACLU. And the individual plaintiffs were "parties in interest", meaning they had some direct envolvement with the subject matter that was the legal issue in the case. Although a "liberal judge", I personally felt she was a smart jurist and took her job and decisions seriously. As I understand the arguments before her, the Government did not put up a strong defense, arguing that they could not reveal "secrets"/methodology regarding the wire-tapping. So she really may not have had much choice. No doubt an appeal has been filed, "launced" as some "court analyst" phrased it last night. | ||
Ron Member Username: Ron Post Number: 273 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 70.212.92.65 |
The whole "liberal" v. "conservative" judge argument is really interesting to me. Conservatives continually rail against "activist" judges when decrying a decision that grants civil liberties to individuals. I find this to be the better practice. Just as in contract interpretation, in the event of an ambiguity, the contract is construed against the drafter. This is how the Constitution should be interpreted; when there is ambiguity, it should be construed in FAVOR of civil liberties rather than against. Give me an "activist" judge any day over one that is totally "INACTIVE," which lets the government do whatever it wants to the detriment of individuals. I agree, 1984 and Orwell, here we come! And the real patriots in this debate are the ones who are willing to be branded as "traitorous" by our own government when we criticize their illegal actions. The Bush Administration's position on these issues is ridiculous on its' face. It is: "What we are doing is legal and working, but we cannot tell you why because it would jeapordize 'national security.'" In support of its' argument that it is "working" is that we have not had another terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. Before that, we weren't attacked on US soil since Pearl Harbor, so what was in place then to prevent all these attacks? I just keep seeing blind men being led off of a cliff by this administration. "Just trust me, I won't steer you wrong!" I support and agree that no matter what, we need to do what we can to prevent terror attacks on US citizens everywhere, but what happens when this precedent is used in other ways? That is more of a danger to me. | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 3576 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 68.110.101.59 |
Nice try, Ron. "Judicial activism" seems to be a fairly recent phenomonen, While you and Gannon whine that 1984 is here, no one can seem to point out anyone whose rights have been violated. Barnes took a good stab at it where folks were wrongfully targeted - but oddly, they were public cases, and handled through our public court system. Apologies were made - hardly secretive or "1984" 2 situations come to mind. After hundreds of years, judges in MA found that our Constitution guarantees the right to gay marriage. Strange that no one saw it until now - and voters, legislators and lawyers alike are scrambling to make sure it doesn't happen again. Finally, the issue will be put to a vote of the folks in MA. You have a problem with that? The case of abortion rights is another interesting one. "A woman's choice" we're told. What about the woman in the womb? The day before her birth? "Off with her head" if Mom wants, say the judges. States' rights were stripped with this one - along with the will of the people. As this issue is repeatedly put to the voters (who repeatedly state by large majorities that they wish to limit the scope of legal abortion) judges bomb their wishes. I suppose this is what you refer to when you blather "I just keep seeing blind men being led off of a cliff by this administration." Care to name just one of your friends who've been damaged (let alone walked off a cliff) by this or any previous administration? Oh, perhaps you knew a woman or child blasted away by Janet Reno at Waco TX, but I digress. Give us a few names, or even one, OK? Not once has this president said "Just trust me" but we elect a president every 4 years - and get rid of them if the majority of voters don't trust 'em. Your whining is falling on deaf ears, save for Gannon and a few other hand-wringers here. But do keep trying. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 640 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 209.69.221.253 |
About those hair-gel bombers and all the devastation they were charged with planning, same story as the Ohio and Texas arrests, charges being dropped, no announcements being made, etc. ... The Hair Gel Terror Hype Hitting a Nerve By CRAIG MURRAY I appear to have hit a nerve with my call for a sceptical view of the alleged "bigger than 9/11" plot. In the UK, at least, the more serious wing of the mainstream media is beginning to catch up with the idea that all is not well here. Still, after eight days of detention, nobody has been charged with any crime. For there to be no clear evidence yet on something that was "imminent" and "Mass murder on an unbelievable scale" is, to say the least, rather peculiar. The 24th person, who was arrested amid much fanfare yesterday, has been quietly released without charge today. Breaking news, another "suspect" has just been released too. The drip, drip of information to the media from the security services has rather dried-up. The last item of any significance was that they had found a handgun and a rifle--neither of which could have been in any use in the alleged plot. If you were smuggling undetectable liquid explosive onto a plane, you would be unlikely to give the game away by tucking a rifle into your hand baggage. As with the murder some years ago of the uncle of the suspect held in Pakistan, it remains a possibility that there could be some criminal activity here involving a few of the suspects, which is not terrorist linked. As the Police immediately told the press about the guns, it is a reasonable deduction that it remains true that they still have found no bombs or detonators, or they would have told us, particularly as they haven't charged anyone yet. They must be getting pretty desperate to announce some actual evidence by now. This brings us to one particuarly sinister aspect of the allegations--that the bombs were to be made on the plane. The idea that high explosive can be made quickly in a plane toilet by mixing at room temperature some nail polish remover, bleach, and Red Bull and giving it a quick stir, is nonsense. Yes, liquid explosives exist and are highly dangerous and yes, airports are ill equipped to detect them at present. Yes, it is true they have been used on planes before by terrorists. But can they be quickly manufactured on the plane? No. The sinister aspect is not that this is a real new threat. It is that the allegation may have been concocted in order to prepare us for arresting people without any actual bombs. Let me fess up here. I have just checked, and our flat contains nail polish remover, sports drinks, and a variety of household cleaning products. Also MP3 players and mobile phones. So the authorities could announce--as they have whispered to the media in this case--that potential ingredients of a liquid bomb, and potential timing devices, have been discovered. It rather lowers the bar, doesn't it? This has a peculiar resonance for me. I spoke at the annual Stop the War conference a couple of months ago. I referred to the famous ricin plot. For those outside the UK, this generated the same degree of hype here two years ago. It was alleged that a flat in North London inhabited by Muslims was a "Ricin" factory, manufacturing the deadly toxin which could kill "hundreds of thousands of people". Police tipped off the authorities that traces of ricin had been discovered. In the end, all those accused were found not guilty by the court. The "traces of ricin" were revealed to be the atmospheric norm. Read more at http://counterpunch.org/murray 08182006.html | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 4271 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 71.193.193.49 |
Thanks Rock, et. al. for their honest, straight forward thinking about the case. Privacy is a very big deal. With so many wireless conversations around, no wonder people are leery about Govt. snooping. When those guys were "caught" with 1,000 cell phones for "resale", it scares us. Yet, we like our rights to use the telephone. With so many wireless phones, the phonebook is getting really hard to use. Ever notice that? We value privacy and freedom of dissent in this country, yet want no more terror attacks too. The polititians are between a rock and a hard place, eh. And THEIR first order of business is re-election of candidate or party. jjaba, observer. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 234 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 24.169.224.43 |
The only judicial activism we have a problem with is that with which we diagree. And Ron, I agree with you...ambiguities in legislative or constitutional intent should fall in favor of the criminal defendant/citizen (Message edited by thejesus on August 18, 2006) | ||
Bongman Member Username: Bongman Post Number: 1220 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 198.111.56.128 |
Considering the Bush regime has ignorantly attempted to link the "war on terror" to drugs, cigarette smuggling, cell-phones, child abductions, music down-loading, jay-walking, ufo sightings, global warming, and jock itch, I think it was a good decision. | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 3579 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 68.110.101.59 |
Jjaba said: "The polititians are between a rock and a hard place, eh. And THEIR first order of business is re-election of candidate or party." But OUR first order of business is to maintain our safety and well-being - and our freedoms. It would appear that the prez is trying to do just that. I've not heard "vote for me" in any of it. I keep looking for a better idea, with some unity, from the other side. So far, nothing. But lately, even from the Jewish community on the "left coast", I hear "abandon Israel" while the prez stands by her side. Hardly a better idea from the left, IMO. | ||
Sknutson Member Username: Sknutson Post Number: 672 Registered: 03-2004 Posted From: 67.114.23.202 |
When GWB said this on April 19, 2004, was he wrong ?
Well, he was right and wrong. Right about the requirement for the warrants, lying about actually getting them. Regardless of whether or not one feels these wiretaps are needed, no administration should be able to simply pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Follow FISA, or amend it. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 235 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 24.169.224.43 |
The funny part of this whole deal is that, by engaging in the NSA spying program, the Bush administration in basically admitting to the American public that it is too incompetent to protect the country without being able to violate the law. | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 4273 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 71.193.193.49 |
Bongman tells it like it tis. That was a Doozy. jjaba and Karl finally agree. Look what just happened to Joe Lieberman in Conn. The pols are shaking with this dirty little War on Terror now that 2,500 are dead, and we haven't won anything yet. All that money of our tax dollars for what? It's a VA Hosp. Annuity operation, that's what. They'll have work for another generation after this one. jjaba. | ||
Detroitej72 Member Username: Detroitej72 Post Number: 137 Registered: 05-2006 Posted From: 66.184.3.44 |
Who is an activist judge? 1. A judge who allows gay marriage. 2. A judge who allows a monument of the 10 commandments on a courthouse lawn. I guess it depends on which side your on, although both seem to be "activist judges to me. Funny how politicians throw that term around in regaurds to rulings they disagree with. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 2659 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.105.170 |
Funny thing how 10 years ago Republicans were screaming at how "big government" was trying to take away our constitutional rights, while Democrats were more complacent... Now Democrats are screaming at how "big government" is trying to take away our constitutional rights, while the Republicans are complacent... And ya wonder why much of middle America doesn't think much of either party... and the "wing nuts" that form their outer fringes... | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 3596 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 72.25.177.194 |
From Best of the Web Today By James Taranto Digs at Diggs Yesterday's ruling in ACLU v. NSA (PDF), in which Judge Anna Diggs Taylor declared unconstitutional the government's terrorist surveillance program, has drawn predictable squeals of delight from the likes of the New York Times editorial page: With a careful, thoroughly grounded opinion, one judge in Michigan has done what 535 members of Congress have so abysmally failed to do. She has reasserted the rule of law over a lawless administration and shown why issues of this kind belong within the constitutional process created more than two centuries ago to handle them. By contrast, the Washington Post, a serious newspaper, proclaims its sympathy for the plaintiffs but describes the ruling as "neither careful nor scholarly, and . . . hard-hitting only in the sense that a bludgeon is hard-hitting." Reader Yaki Beja makes a good point: When you actually look at the ruling, there is very little cause for celebration. The only defense that the government presented in this lawsuit was a motion to dismiss it on the basis of the state secrets evidentiary privilege and on the plaintiffs' lack of standing. The judge dismissed the government's motion with regard to the NSA program, but accepted it motion with regards to the data mining program. The government didn't put up any of its big guns, opting to save its arguments for the higher courts. It's as if the visiting team walked off the football field, leaving just one 150-pound player to fend off the home team, which of course easily wins the game. And then the home crowd goes wild, cheering and clapping and patting themselves on their shoulders for the spectacular victory. How zany. Beja also points out that in order to prove that they had standing, the plaintiffs had to admit to having ties with suspected terrorists. To quote from Diggs's ruling (page 17): Plaintiffs here contend that the TSP has interfered with their ability to carry out their professional responsibilities in a variety of ways, including that the TSP has had a significant impact on their ability to talk with sources, locate witnesses, conduct scholarship, engage in advocacy and communicate with persons who are outside of the United States, including in the Middle East and Asia. Plaintiffs have submitted several declarations to that effect. For example, scholars and journalists such as plaintiffs Tara McKelvey, Larry Diamond, and Barnett Rubin indicate that they must conduct extensive research in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, and must communicate with individuals abroad whom the United States government believes to be terrorist suspects or to be associated with terrorist organizations. In addition, attorneys Nancy Hollander, William Swor, Joshua Dratel, Mohammed Abdrabboh, and Nabih Ayad indicate that they must also communicate with individuals abroad whom the United States government believes to be terrorist suspects or to be associated with terrorist organizations, and must discuss confidential information over the phone and email with their international clients. One wonders if these declarations would be sufficient for the FISA court to grant warrants to tap the plaintiffs' phones. | ||
Mtm Member Username: Mtm Post Number: 55 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 68.43.29.171 |
According to several news sources, late last year, when Congress was working on revisions to the Patriot Act: "GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. "I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way." "Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution." "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" scary, huh? | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 3599 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 68.110.101.59 |
Yeah, especially since you don't cite a source - or is it from The Onion? Or maybe Dan Rather? But nice try. Perhaps you could quote something firsthand next time. And no - it isn't the least bit scary. | ||
Ron Member Username: Ron Post Number: 274 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 70.212.92.65 |
Our President, who's oath reads as follows: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." says that it is just a goddamned piece of paper (if true), and you don't think that is scary? Like I said, blind men off a cliff. (In case you didn't notice there Karl, you were the blind I was speaking of; only the blind typically at least know they're blind). Also Karl, for over 200 hundred years slavery and Jim Crow were legal and/or accepted; does that mean those decisions were wrong? I say, better late than never. (Not that I agree with gay marriage; to me, marriage is a religous matter, not a governmental matter, but that's my [personal beliefs). While I am not familiar with the examples Gannon cited, just because a Constitutional violation is remedied in public does not mean that it initially occurred in public. And the Government's entire defense in the instant case is, "what we are doing is necessary and working, BUT WE CANNOT TELL YOU HOW." Sounds like someone saying "just trust me" to me. Regarding the abortion issue, tell me what is the difference between someone saying "you cannot have an abortion," and someone saying "you have to have an abortion?" (The latter is a law in communist China). I personally do not favor abortion, I simply do not believe it is the government's place to tell anyone what they can do under the care of a doctor. I guess my position is that, while anyone in their right mind wants the government to do everything it legally can to prevent another attack on US soil, I try and recognize how that same precedent can be used in other situations where people see some threat, whether real or imagined, and the government can then infringe on other rights. Also keep in mind that you won't always like the person/party in power, and again, they can use these same precedents to accomplish things that you don't agree with. For instance, what if, at some point in time, Congress is taken over by a Muslim majority, and they want to mandate that the Koran be taught in public schools? It is also the hypocritical nature of the GOP that makes me upset. The have hi-jacked my Christianity for political purposes. As I saw on the Colbert Report, a congressman who sponsored a bill to require the 10 commandments to be posted in Congress could not even recite more than two of them. Is that really the type of people you want representing you? I guess it's "do as I say, and not as I do," huh? | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 3605 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 68.110.101.59 |
Ron, I think you've been reading too many far-left websites. As a Christian, I don't feel anything has been "hi-jacked" but you're entitled to your opinion. | ||
Ron Member Username: Ron Post Number: 275 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 70.212.92.65 |
Abortion, gay marriage, Terry Schiavo (sic), Ten Commandments in public buildings, Christian Coalition, etc. While I may personally agree with the GOP's position on some of these issues, it is simply not the Government's place, and in fact flies in the face of the very tenets of Christianity, to force these issues on anyone. The whole concept of Christianity is that each individual has the CHOICE to accept Christ or not. It is not for the Government to tell them to. There is a natural balance to everything, and all great empires have fallen. Ours is only several hundred years old. How long was the Roman empire, close to a thousand years (I really don't know off-hand, and don't feel like researching it right now)? But the point is, What happens then? While we won't be alive to see it, what about our ancestors? What kind of world are we creating for them? One where religion controls the government? And how is that any different than Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.? It is no different simply because we want our government to be run by a Christian majority. In order to appreciate the long-term effects of our actions today, think about the worst case scenario of that which is totally opposite to that which you support. That is why I am vehemently opposed to warrantless wiretaps. Of course we want terrorists caught, but there is an extremely non-burdensome system in place to achieve that, simply follow that system. The President is supposed to enforce the law, not break it. By publicly and deliberately flaunting the fact that he is not following the law Congress has put in place, Bush is doing more harm to our country than any terrorist attack ever could. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4174 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
Maybe this needs to be said again, as it's only been mentioned by me and one other, I believe, but the argument many are having here is really a non-issue. Again, very few people are saying that any president of the United States shouldn't have the means to use wire-tapping in war, rather that presidents shouldn't have unchecked rights, period. This is one of the basic tenants of our government. This isn't even to say that the power of the executive shouldn't be expanded in times of war. I think most agree that a president should have a right to expand their power in a war. But, again, no president EVER, Blue or Red, should be able to do anything unchecked. All people like me are asking is that President Bush uphold the Constitution by getting the QUICK warrants he needs to wiretap. Again, ALL he has to do is ask for a warrant under FISA in which warrants are almost always granted and instantly. Why does he fill the need to tell the American people and the Constitution "Fuck Off"? What part of "uphold the Consitution" does this man not understand? You want to wiretap? Fine. But do it by the easy laws put into place for you to do this type of stuff, for the love of God. This isn't a war between no wire taps at all, and unwarranted wire taps at any price necessary. This is a war between legal/warranted wiretaps if he so feels the need, and unwarranted wires taps "by any means necessary." Those that trade freedom for the false sense of security deserve neither. You don't have to be Blue or Red, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat to see that this is a Constitutitional crisis of the highest degree. Though, this may go on for months or years, hopefully the Constitution wins out and makes sure that no other president EVER can do this schitt again, and especially in the dubious name of "security." Seriously, let's actually put the political rhetoric and partisanship aside for just one minute to recognize that this means danger to our entire political process and democratic experiment. This is a Constitutional crisis. (Message edited by lmichigan on August 18, 2006) | ||
Ron Member Username: Ron Post Number: 277 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 70.212.92.65 |
Ditto | ||
65memories Member Username: 65memories Post Number: 275 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.251.224.180 |
Well, now that we got all that settled. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 1271 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 69.130.18.100 |
so say the Dems win this next election round - will the House be bringing charges? | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4176 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
Probably. And really, why shouldn't they? Clinton was impeached for much, much less. There are only a few presidents in American history deserving of an impeachment. Dubya (Nixon 2.0) is one of those. If King George doesn't deserve an investigation (into numberous aspects of his reign, in fact), than who? | ||
Docmo Member Username: Docmo Post Number: 62 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 170.232.128.10 |
Lmichigan, GWB didn't perjure himself to a federal grand jury. Plus, he has enough sense not to shoot semen all over an intern's skimply little dress and lie to the masses about it. This post is incredibly frightening. You liberals will defend our precious civil rights to the downfall of this democracy. We are at war. We are being attacked. There are cells, today, planning mass destruction of civilians within this country. Open your eyes. We have been at war since 1979 and the US Iranian Embassy siege with its protracted hostage crisis. Idiots like Judge Taylor give the terrorists easy rein to plot their destruction of innocent citizens. Al Queda and the like don't give a rat's ass about your civil rights. While GWB is waiting after being forced to obtain a warrant to tap the phone conversation of a known international terrorist contacting a suspected terrorist here, they hang up the phone and implement their mass destruction. Idiots!!!!!! Read this anonymous letter regarding this war and the destruction and suffering we all will end up enduring. This WAR is for REAL ! To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII). The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means. First, let's examine a few basics: 1. When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us: * Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; * Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983; * Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983; * Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988; * First New York World Trade Center attack 1993; * Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996; * Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998; * Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998; * Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000; * New York World Trade Center 2001; * Pentagon 2001. (Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide). 2. Why were we attacked? Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter. 3. Who were the attackers? In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims. 4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%. 5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful? Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see http://www.nazis.testimony.co. uk/7-a.htm ) Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others. Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die? 6. So who are we at war with? There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting. So with that background, now to the two major questions: 1. Can we lose this war? 2. What does losing really mean? If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions. We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean? It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is: We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them. We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them. They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished. The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast! If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else? The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost. Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win. So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win! Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation. President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently. And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then. Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head. Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause. Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently, the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held. Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them. Can this be for real? The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can. To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle asRomeburned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in theUnited States, but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense. We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world! We can't! If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated. And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world. This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read. If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar? Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power. They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"? I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it. After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world. Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and that includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world! Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our "leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too. There are those that find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE! | ||
Bongman Member Username: Bongman Post Number: 1224 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 198.111.56.128 |
We are not at war. | ||
Docmo Member Username: Docmo Post Number: 67 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 170.232.128.10 |
It's a good thing for all of us, Bongman, that the British disagree with you. Their wiretaps likely saved thousands of US, British and other civilian lives. Denial that there is a fanatical, yet, highly organized and widespread, movement bent on the destruction of our individual lives and our precious way of life is incredibly foolish. It is this put your head in the sand mentality which will, undoubtedly, lead to worsening attacks by these coordinated fanatical Muslim groups. It sure seems like War to me. | ||
Barnesfoto Member Username: Barnesfoto Post Number: 2350 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.246.29.74 |
One more time, with feeling.... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (4th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution) | ||
Bongman Member Username: Bongman Post Number: 1227 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 198.111.56.128 |
"That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort." ------------------------------ ---------------- ...and your gov't has asked you to do what since 9-11 ? Buy a car ? | ||
Humanmachinery Member Username: Humanmachinery Post Number: 15 Registered: 07-2006 Posted From: 172.132.220.197 |
Livedog2: Allah is silly and pointless? I feel sorry for Jesus. He used to go out drinking and rabble-rousing with really cool peeps. Now he has to settle for Pat Robertson and Dubya. Religious fundimentalism an ugly deal any way you slice it, and the U.S. is hardly a nation of secular humanists these days. Docmo: Al Quaida have an infinitely huge financing network, but are not nearly as organized as people would like to believe. That is the difficulty in dismantling them. It's mostly just a system of money laundering, with no plan of action or chain of command. And attempting to undermine the powers of the judicial system will not prevent terrorism, it will only consolidate the overreaching powers of the executive branch, which are turning this country into a military dictatorship and a police state. State power loves having an enemy for the people to hate, because it stands in the way of any meaningful debate or advancement of civil liberties. I don't need to read the news to know that Dubya is violating the constitution and drunk on his own power. I've accepted it as a fact long ago. Here's an interesting article from the Cato institute, a Libertarian think tank. For those of you who care, the Libertarian party has been drifting closer to the conservatives for the last decade or so, and to see their major players come out against Bush is quite a revelation. http://www.cato.org/pub_displa y.php?pub_id=6330 But hooray for Judge Taylor. At last, the Constitution is upheld!! I hope to see it go to the Supreme Court, so that Dubya can ignore it. You see, it doesn't matter what the Supreme Court says. If wiretapping is found to be illegal in the U.S., so be it. DHS will just have one of the other member countries in the ECHELON Program do their spying for them. Yes, they've already found a way around the 4th ammendment. Fuck the Constitution, our government's powers are global. Evidently it's not "unConstitutional" for a foreign country to spy on us. http://www.gn.apc.org/duncan/e chelon-dc.htm http://www.aclu.org/echelonwat ch/index.html http://news.zdnet.co.uk/intern et/0,39020369,2107557,00.htm | ||
Docmo Member Username: Docmo Post Number: 69 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 170.232.128.10 |
Barnes, The critical passage in our precious 4th Amendment is "unreasonable searches or seizures". Those of us who do not Blame America First contend that searching a person on US soil who is making and receiving calls with known international terrorists is not unreasonable. Thankfully, our government continues with this critical program while the appeals process plays out. | ||
Eric Member Username: Eric Post Number: 525 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 69.246.29.185 |
Domoco you're wrong the Presdent doesn't have wait for wiretaps. They can listen for 72 hours before getting a warrent.What's unreasonale is goverment having to offer no proof to a court that the search is legitmate. You do realize that this county was founded on the principle of checks and balances? Are saying you that you want abosulry no check on this authority? | ||
Docmo Member Username: Docmo Post Number: 70 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 170.232.128.10 |
Man, you guys must really get your britches in a bunch watching 24. I just wish we had a real Jack Bauer working for us. I can't you imagine how you libs would react to his techniques? | ||
Detroitej72 Member Username: Detroitej72 Post Number: 138 Registered: 05-2006 Posted From: 66.184.3.44 |
Thats right, always have to accuse someone who doesn't agree with you of being a liberal. Why don't you just run along and listen to your Rush because you obviosly can't think for yourself. BTW, I am a Libertarian. | ||
Tortfeasor Member Username: Tortfeasor Post Number: 464 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 69.209.185.98 |
Karl - One correction to an article you posted above: since a party cannot raise new issues on appeal, the government is stuck with the arguments presented to Judge Taylor. The government did, however, raise several defenses, so it will be interesting to see how the appeal is handled. Docmo - A reasonable search and seizure under American law is one that is supported by probable cause. In order to insure the existence of probable cause, we require officers to take their information to a neutral, detached magistrate to request a warrant. Typically, this process is ministerial in nature, but it helps to protect against unreasonable searches. A little history lesson -- this process was adopted as a reaction to the warrantless searches of the Star Chamber in England, some of which are discussed in Judge Taylor's opinion. There was some discussion above regarding standing issues. An organization, such as the ACLU, has standing to challenge a law on behalf of its members. If you read the first few pages of Judge Taylor's decision, you will get a better idea of why there was standing here. Essentially, lawyers, journalists, and others were hamstrung when their clients, informants, and others refused to communicate with them because of fear of the warrantless wire taps. In my opinion, the biggest problem with Judge Taylor's opinion is that it is too broad. There are much narrower grounds upon which she could have reached the same decision. Such a narrower decision would have been more solid and would have a better chance at withstanding scrutiny. | ||
Docmo Member Username: Docmo Post Number: 71 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 170.232.128.10 |
 | ||
Docmo Member Username: Docmo Post Number: 72 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 170.232.128.10 |
Detroitej72, Thought my post 71 would make you feel warm and fuzzy. BTW, libs stands for both liberals and Libertarians on this national security issue. Docmo | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 2665 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.105.109 |
Ya know Docmo is right... we are at war... and we should trust our government to do what is in our own best interest... Which is why I think the US government should start a registry for all gun owners all across America. After all since we can trust the US government with our personal phone calls, why shouldn't we trust them with the knowledge of where all the guns are. That way they can keep tabs on which guns might get accidentally get sold to terrorists or terrorist wannabees. If someone bought say 50 guns in a given day, well then all the bells and whistles should go off. Now I know that not everyone will cooperate with this idea, so maybe the government should require the gun store owners to hand over their sales information for say... the last 5 years. That way they can check to make sure that maybe they didn't go to the wrong people. And those folks who own guns longer than that, should voluntarily give the information to the government (the government could start a "it's your patriotic duty to do so" campaign to try and get more gun owners to register). After all it would be in everyones best interest to do so! Although guns cannot be brought into airplanes, they certainly can make their way into schools, shopping centers, subways, theatres and other public areas. This could alleviate one of the problem areas of our "new war"! And the government can be trusted with this information. After all if we let them eavesdrop into our personal conversations, what's the big deal about knowing how many guns we own? It might save some lives in the ongoing war on terror! | ||
Docmo Member Username: Docmo Post Number: 73 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 170.232.128.10 |
Gistok, Great idea. I think you've got me pegged wrong. I fully support strong and effective gun control. The NRA hiding behind the 2nd Amendment's right to bear arms without any controls is just as bad as the people here who claim the Government should not have unrestricted monitoring of incoming calls from known terrorists. If I owned a gun, I would gladly provide any and all information the Government asked for. Oh, and before you start feeling too paranoid, the Government is not randomly monitoring your personal calls. Of course, if you take a call from Ayman al-Zawahiri I would suggest you start looking over your shoulder. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 2668 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.105.109 |
Docmo, I wasn't really intending this towards you personally. But I was intending it this way... "just how far do we trust our government?" And where do we draw the line? That is a difficult question to answer. But since guns are a weapon of choice among terrorists, how far are Americans willing to go towards giving up some of their rights when it comes to guns? If the NRA is a against such a scenario, then aren't they just as culpable as Anna Diggs Taylor in hindering the war on terror? These are difficult times with difficult questions that need to be answered. | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 300 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 68.60.181.41 |
Docmo, are you aware that 24 is a television show? A made up show? | ||
Docmo Member Username: Docmo Post Number: 74 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 170.232.128.10 |
Gistok, I tend to agree with your questioning the culpability of both Judge Taylor and the NRA. While Judge Taylor has tried to tie our hands in the War on Terror, the NRA and their political clout has tied the Government's hands in effecting gun control measures which could have, undoubtedly, saved thousands of lives over the years. Who knows? While the terrorists have tended toward bombs and other weapons of mass destruction (airplanes), it sure would be easy for a group of terrorists to garner a large supply of guns and reign terror. We all remember the terror brought about by Lee Malvo & John Muhammad with a couple of guns. | ||
Docmo Member Username: Docmo Post Number: 75 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 170.232.128.10 |
Oldredforette, Are you aware that 9/11, the Bali club bombing, the Spain train bombings, the London subway bombings and the recent British-US Airline bombing plots are real life? Real people dying. Real people burning up. Real terrorists bent on the destruction of our way of life. Just like 24. Too bad we don't have all the tools Jack has. Too bad our real life pain and suffering is exactly the same as the made up television show. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4179 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
My post was scary, Docmo? I find your posts so much more frightening. When citizens, without a fight, voluntarily start giving up their rights than we're in dangerous times. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Al Queda can bomb us until they are blue in the face, the ONLY thing that can ever destroy America is when America starts disconnecting from the very tenants it was founded upon. WE are the ONLY ones that can kill our democracy out of overreaction to outside threats. All the terrorists have to get us to do is to start overreacting so we dismantle, on our very own, our democracy piece by piece. Again no president should EVER be placed into a position where the only check on their power is their own conscience. Our Constitution strictly forbids that. Why don't you get that all the president has to do under FISA is get a warrant for a wiretap, and after that fact at that? I don't know how much more easy they could have made it. Why does the president feel the need to say "Fuck it. Consitutition? We don't need no sticken' Constitution." It would be different if his powers were severly restricted, but damn, he's free as a bird with this. The only thing I can put together is that he has no regard for the Constitution, and this is not the first time he's shown it. I'm not being unreasonable, you and the president are. You're asking far too much, or something far too important. (Message edited by lmichigan on August 19, 2006) | ||
Docmo Member Username: Docmo Post Number: 76 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 170.232.128.10 |
Lmichigan, How do you think Lincoln led the Union to victory? How do you think FDR led us to victory? Those two great Commanders-in-Chief routinely restricted constitutional rights. GWB is doing nothing more than other presidents in a time of national crisis. Lincoln and FDR responded forcefully to critical situations. You may hate GWB, but you cannot deny he is responding forcefully as Commander-in-Chief to critical national security events. The author of the post below critiques all of these presidents for using their executive powers to restrain our civil rights in the name of national security. GWB is the equivalent of devout civil libertarian in comparison to Lincoln. I say thank God Lincoln and FDR and now GWB took the powers into their own hands and preserved our nation. A powerful and effective executive branch is vital to winning a war. Letting some Federal Judge from Michigan or some Congressional Committee manage this war is idiotic. L, following your tunnel vision it would have been better that a weak executive was president during the Civil War. One who hid behind the Constitution rather than win a civil war. Personally,I am happy I don't need a passport to visit Florida. I am happy that swastikas are not hanging around Campus Martius. I hope that our $5 bills don't end up being redesigned with a likeness of Al-Zarqwahi in Lincoln's place. Critics of the Bush Administration’s domestic measures in the War on Terrorism often claim that the erosions of the Bill of Rights we see today are unprecedented. Although President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft are indeed stretching the envelope in many ways, to call their policies unprecedented is to ignore history. For every civil liberty currently being violated and for every amendment in the Bill of Rights currently being ignored, there is a long and rich legacy of similar abuse. More violations of the Constitution probably occurred during Abraham Lincoln’s four years as president than during any other cohesively defined era in American history. Many have pointed out that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to jail war protesters, shut down hundreds of newspapers that disagreed with his war, established a draft for the first time in American history (except in the seceded South, which had a draft a year earlier), instituted restrictions on firearms, and sent troops to violently suppress the New York draft riot. He also used the war to push through the "American System," a program of de facto nationalization of the transportation industry via massive subsidies to corporations that would agree to build "internal improvements" – railroads, waterways, and canals. The victory of the Union in 1865 not only established that, contrary to popular political theory in the antebellum era, the federal government was completely supreme over the states; it also established that a president could do literally anything he could get away with, no matter how many liberties were suspended, innocents jailed, and people killed in the process. It is, in fact, almost silly even to refer to "Constitutional rights" during the Lincoln Administration. Even historians who obsessively admire the sixteenth president sometimes admit that his regime was dictatorial (though, of course, they regard him as having been a benign despot). During the War Between the States, the Bill of Rights wasn’t eroded or compromised; it was ignored completely. (Message edited by docmo on August 19, 2006) | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4183 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
I stopped reading after this: "L, following your tunnel vision it would have been better that a weak executive was president during the Civil War. One who hid behind the Constitution rather than win a civil war." Hiding behind the Constitution?! WTF!? Is is just some advisory document to you, one which the executive should feel free to pick and choose from on what they want to follow? Our Constitution is so flexible enough that no president should EVER feel the need to step beyond it to protect this country. Again, FISA gives the executive the power AFTER THE FREAKIN' FACT EVEN to wiretap with warrants. Why the incredible need to overtly malign the Constitution? Any American with half an understanding on balance of powers sees that this is a blatant and complete violation of it. How many more times does it have to be said that no branch of government should ever have the right to check itself? "Just trust me," and with this president of all presidents, doesn't fly, nor should it. The moment we start to voluntarily give up our most basic tennants for the "feeling" of security (as the administration has not been able to give us ONE example of why UNWARRANTED wire taps are needed to "protect" us) is the moment we start dismantling our democracy. Those that forsake their liberty for a sense of security deserve neither. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 3647 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.73.1.88 |
I keep coming to this statement in my mind:
Since this is a "Security Operation" and details are classified to the extant that revealing anything them about them is breaking Federal Law, how would we know? Because they told us they weren't doing it? | ||
Docmo Member Username: Docmo Post Number: 77 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 170.232.128.10 |
L, Read the post and see how Lincoln maligned the Constitution. Was it warranted--ABSOLUTELY. When an international terrorist phones someone here in the US I want the government to know about it. I want the government to not only intercept this message, I want them to immediately act. You want them to screw around. While you're at it, don't bother reading the WSJ editorial below. President Taylor A federal judge rewrites the Constitution on war powers. Friday, August 18, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT In our current era of polarized politics, it was probably inevitable that some judge somewhere would strike down the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretaps as unconstitutional. The temptations to be hailed as Civil Libertarian of the Year are just too great. So we suppose a kind of congratulations are due to federal Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who won her 10 minutes of fame yesterday for declaring that President Bush had taken upon himself "the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, itself." Oh, and by the way, the Jimmy Carter appointee also avers that "there are no hereditary Kings in America." In case you hadn't heard. The 44-page decision, which concludes by issuing a permanent injunction against the wiretapping program, will doubtless occasion much rejoicing among the "imperial Presidency" crowd. That may have been part of her point, as, early in the decision, Judge Taylor refers with apparent derision to "the war on terror of this Administration." We can at least be grateful that President Taylor's judgment won't be the last on the matter. The Justice Department immediately announced it will appeal and the injunction has been stayed for the moment. But her decision is all the more noteworthy for coming on the heels of the surveillance-driven roll up of the terrorist plot in Britain to blow up U.S.-bound airliners. In this environment, monitoring the communications of our enemies is neither a luxury nor some sinister plot to chill domestic dissent. It is a matter of life and death. So let's set aside the judge's Star Chamber rhetoric and try to examine her argument, such as it is. Take the Fourth Amendment first. The "unreasonable search and seizure" and warrant requirements of that amendment have their roots in the 18th-century abuses of the British crown. Those abuses involved the search and arrest of the King's political opponents under general and often secret warrants. Judge Taylor sees an analogy here, but she manages to forget or overlook that no one is being denied his liberty and no evidence is being brought in criminal proceedings based on what the NSA might learn through listening to al Qaeda communications. The wiretapping program is an intelligence operation, not a law-enforcement proceeding. Congress was duly informed, and not a single specific domestic abuse of such a wiretap has yet been even alleged, much less found. As for the First Amendment, Judge Taylor asserts that the plaintiffs--a group that includes the ACLU and assorted academics, lawyers and journalists who believe their conversations may have been tapped but almost surely weren't--had their free-speech rights violated because al Qaeda types are now afraid to speak to them on the phone. But the wiretapping program is not preventing anyone from speaking on the phone. Quite the opposite--if the terrorists stopped talking on the phone, there would be nothing to wiretap. Perhaps the plaintiffs should have sued the New York Times, as it was that paper's disclosure of the program that created the "chill" on "free speech" that Judge Taylor laments. The real nub of this dispute is the Constitution's idea of "inherent powers," although those two pages of her decision are mostly devoted to pouring scorn on the very concept. But jurists of far greater distinction than Judge Taylor have recognized that the Constitution vests the bulk of war-making power with the President. It did so, as the Founders explained in the Federalist Papers, for reasons of energy, dispatch, secrecy and accountability. Before yesterday, no American court had ever ruled that the President lacked the Constitutional right to conduct such wiretaps. President Carter signed the 1978 FISA statute that established the special court to approve domestic wiretaps even as his Administration declared it was not ceding any Constitutional power. And in the 2002 decision In Re: Sealed Case, the very panel of appellate judges that hears FISA appeals noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." We couldn't find Judge Taylor's attempt to grapple with those precedents, perhaps because they'd have interfered with the lilt of her purple prose. Unlike Judge Taylor, Presidents are accountable to the voters for their war-making decisions, as the current White House occupant has discovered. Judge Taylor can write her opinion and pose for the cameras--and no one can hold her accountable for any Americans who might die as a result. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4184 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
Exactly. There is no way to know, and no democratic government should ever simply ask their citizens to "just trust us." No president should ever be only accountable to themselves only, regardless of whether or not it be for 'security,' a term that has been made so incredibily broad under this administration it has largely lost its meaning. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4185 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
Docmo, You keep conveniently trying to paint me as someone who doesn't believe in wire taps. How many more times do I have to say that I'm for WARRANTED wire taps if the president feels the need to use them? You keep trying to make this an either/or. It's not, and you know it. You act as if Bush can't do illegal, unwarranted wire taps that we can't be safe. I'm not following your logic. You can keep screaming "terrorism" for all you're worth to try and drown out logic, reason, and necessary debate, but it's not working. | ||
Jiminnm Member Username: Jiminnm Post Number: 1059 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 68.35.85.184 |
Lmichigan, jams, et al, you presume that FISA is constitutional. What if it isn't? There is a legal argument that FISA is, in fact, unconstitutional because it attempts to limit powers granted to the President in the Constitution in his role as CinC. If so, those powers can only be limited by amendment and not legislation. I don't think the FISA constitutionality issue has ever been adjudicated, and there are other cases (all pre-FISA I think) that can be easily construed as such and finding broad presidential powers in regard to national security. I would give that argument at least a 50% chance of success. I still the standing issue could get the case booted if the appellate court, or the supremes, aren't incline to decide the merits. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 3648 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.73.1.88 |
And in24 Jack Bauer went up against the Vice-President who usurped the President who wanted to examine all of the truth before acting. The Arab-undefined agent was killed by a beating by a bunch of rednecks for no other reason than that? Bauer enlists his friends in the CTU to commit treason and defy their superior's orders coming straight from Washington? Shit, (it's OK GWB uses that word as well) Jack Bauer is a GD Liberal.... OK, he likes guns. | ||
Docmo Member Username: Docmo Post Number: 78 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 170.232.128.10 |
In Jack we trust! | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 1274 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 69.130.18.100 |
There is a statement in Judge Taylor's decision referencing United States v Falvey as the basis for the constitutionality of FISA "where the court upheld that FISA did not intrude upon the President's undisputed right to conduct foreign affairs, but protected citizens and resident aliens within this country, as "United States persons." The NSA is a civilian organization. | ||
Humanmachinery Member Username: Humanmachinery Post Number: 16 Registered: 07-2006 Posted From: 172.128.166.119 |
"How do you think Lincoln led the Union to victory? How do you think FDR led us to victory? Those two great Commanders-in-Chief routinely restricted constitutional rights. GWB is doing nothing more than other presidents in a time of national crisis. Lincoln and FDR responded forcefully to critical situations. You may hate GWB, but you cannot deny he is responding forcefully as Commander-in-Chief to critical national security events." Roosavelt threatened to pack the court with extra judges, but never did. The court, thus intimidated, stopped challenging the constitutionality of his programs. It was a regretable scene, and many of his programs didn't seem to help alleviate the depression. Lincoln was a much more dubious issue. He should have simply let the south succeed, freed all the slaves in the union, and ofered amnesty to any slaves who reached the North. The American Civil War resulted in the deaths of millions, the usurping of public power at the hands of corporations, and the destruction of states rights. Sherman's March to the Sea gave rise to a littany of war crimes, and the reconstruction era did nothing to advance the quality of life for poor blacks in the south, while presenting countless opportunities for graft and corruption. Worst of all, the Republican Party gave up on the Civil Rights movement during the Grant administration, and several issues vanished from public discourse for the next seventy years. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4198 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
Are you serious in your belief that the United States of America should be coexisting with Confederate States of America atthis moment? There are definitely some extremely regrettable things about that war (though, no one ever truly "wins" in war), but I think the country came out better for it, ultimately. It would scare me to think about what would be happening in the southern United States, today, if it were not for the Civil War, and how many more wars we would have had to fight between eachother as BOTH countries would have expanded westward. This is not even to mention what would have become of slaves and their conditions in the South, and how many skirmishes would be fought between bounty hunters and Northern soldiers on the borders as slaves would try inceasingly hard to flee north. The war was imminent, and it actually came close to being fought earlier. In fact, I'm surprised the North held off the war for so long. It's not a doubt in my mind that between the two evils, the Civil War was a much lesser evil, and I think almost everyone agrees. (Message edited by lmichigan on August 21, 2006) | ||
Humanmachinery Member Username: Humanmachinery Post Number: 18 Registered: 07-2006 Posted From: 172.128.166.119 |
Yes. The Confederacy could not have carried slavery into the 20th century, as it had no industry, and depended upon trade with England and the US for goods. Given the proper economic sanctions, the Confederacy's agricultural economy would have collapsed, and slavery would become an untennable situation, with a nation unable to maintain order in its own borders, let alone absorb new territory in the west. Haiti fell prey to such a revolt, and they were a colony of France at the time. Of course, France's economy was horribly backwards, but that's why England came to dominate the world, and not the French, Portuguese, or Spanish. Edit: And I often wonder if the insurrections of the KKK and White League in the Jim Crow south left poor black sharecroppers any better off than slavery, especially when the Union Army withdrew at the request of the American public's deaf ears and blind eyes. (Message edited by humanmachinery on August 21, 2006) | ||
Southwestmap Member Username: Southwestmap Post Number: 539 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 70.229.231.102 |
It turns out that the poor, lightweight scholarship of the Anna Diggs Taylor decision is making headlines. Even scholars who agree with the decision are embarrassed by the work. Somehow, I think this reflects poorly on Detroit. I would have hoped that a Detroit judge's decision would be respected and heralded, garnering more respect for Detroit as an important City From Saturday's New York Times: Even legal experts who agreed with a federal judge’s conclusion on Thursday that a National Security Agency surveillance program is unlawful were distancing themselves from the decision’s reasoning and rhetoric yesterday. They said the opinion overlooked important precedents, failed to engage the government’s major arguments, used circular reasoning, substituted passion for analysis and did not even offer the best reasons for its own conclusions. Discomfort with the quality of the decision is almost universal, said Howard J. Bashman, a Pennsylvania lawyer whose Web log provides comprehensive and nonpartisan reports on legal developments. “It does appear,” Mr. Bashman said, “that folks on all sides of the spectrum, both those who support it and those who oppose it, say the decision is not strongly grounded in legal authority.” The main problems, scholars sympathetic to the decision’s bottom line said, is that the judge, Anna Diggs Taylor, relied on novel and questionable constitutional arguments when more straightforward statutory ones were available. She ruled, for instance, that the program, which eavesdrops without court permission on international communications of people in the United States, violated the First Amendment because it might have chilled the speech of people who feared they might have been monitored. That ruling is “rather innovative” and “not a particularly good argument,” Jack Balkin, a law professor at Yale who believes the program is illegal, wrote on his Web log. Judge Taylor also ruled that the program violated the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. But scholars said she failed to take account of the so-called “special needs” exception to the amendment’s requirement that the government obtain a warrant before engaging in some surveillance unrelated to routine law enforcement. “It’s just a few pages of general ruminations about the Fourth Amendment, much of it incomplete and some of it simply incorrect,” Orin S. Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University who believes the administration’s legal justifications for the program are weak, said of Judge Taylor’s Fourth Amendment analysis on a Web log called the Volokh Conspiracy. Judge Taylor gave less attention to the more modest statutory argument that has been widely advanced by critics of the program. They say that it violates a 1978 law requiring warrants from a secret court and that neither a 2001 Congressional authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda nor the president’s constitutional authority allowed the administration to ignore the law. A recent Supreme Court decision strengthened that argument. Judge Taylor did not cite it. Some scholars speculated that Judge Taylor, of the Federal District Court in Detroit, may have rushed her decision lest the case be consolidated with several others now pending in federal court in San Francisco or moved to a specialized court in Washington as contemplated by pending legislation. Judge Taylor heard the last set of arguments in the case a little more than a month ago. The decision has been appealed, and legal scholars said Judge Taylor had done the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the plaintiffs, few favors beyond handing it a victory. On the other hand, they added, the appeals court is bound to examine the legal arguments in the case afresh in any event. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08 /19/washington/19ruling.html |
