NSA Wiretap Program ruled Unconstitutional

[Miss Jasmine]

What is your point? Truman was not popular either during his presidency. I don't want the winner of the most popular contest leading our country right now, I want the one who will work to keep me safe and not listen to poll numbers, thank God that our president does not operate by studying polls like another president that put us in this position.

I want a President who keeps me safe AND recognizes that there are certain civil liberties that are protected by the Constitution and its amendments.

 

[cardaway]

I guess Bill O'Reilly doesn't cover this stuff.

Both funny and sad because it's true. One source, one truth.

 

[cardaway]

I want a President who keeps me safe AND recognizes that there are certain civil liberties that are protected by the Constitution and its amendments.

I would settle for one that does what is best for the country rather than cater to a small percentage of supporters. And some point you have to look at the polls and wonder if maybe the leader is the problem.

 

[ChrisFL]

What is your point? Truman was not popular either during his presidency. I don't want the winner of the most popular contest leading our country right now, I want the one who will work to keep me safe and not listen to poll numbers, thank God that our president does not operate by studying polls like another president that put us in this position.

its not a popularity contest, its the realization that eventually most democrats AND republicans cannot support the direction this country is taking, bypassing many things our constitution stands for in the excuse of "protecting us from terrorists".

How about they find the masterminds behind the terror attacks? How about they secure our borders?

I've still seen no spin from you all about the 800 laws that Bush has chosen not to abide by. Whats wrong? no way to defend that?

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Jack Cafferty on CNN was on fire today on this issue. http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/08/17/cafferty-on-the-nsa-ruling-bush-is-breaking-the-law/ Again, the case is well reasoned. Bush broke the law and violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. You need a warrant to get a wiretap. This is not controversial.

Many legal scholars think the judge's ruling was not well-reasoned and it will be overruled on appeal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6/08/17/AR2006081700650.html?nav=rss_politics

From the article:

Several dozen lawsuits have been filed around the country challenging the program's legality, but yesterday's ruling marked the first time that a judge had declared it unconstitutional. Experts in national security law argued, however, that Taylor offered meager support for her findings on separation of powers and other key issues.

"Regardless of what your position is on the merits of the issue, there's no question that it's a poorly reasoned decision," said Bobby Chesney, a national security law specialist at Wake Forest University who takes a moderate stance on the legal debate over the NSA program. "The opinion kind of reads like an outline of possible grounds to strike down the program, without analysis to fill it in."

To say President Bush "broke the law broke the law and violated his oath to uphold the Constitution" because of this ruling of one judge is preposterous.

 

[LuvDuke]

I agree with him on Osama. Terrorism networks seem to have become more decentralized over the years. If we focus too much on one person, we could be wasting resources that could be better served elsewhere in the war on terror.

Baloney! That man and his cohorts perpetrated the worst terrorist act on American soil and murdered 3000 people. And you want to let him get away with because you don't want to waste resources? So in other words, 3000 dead isn't worth anything to you. Of all the lame crap, this has to be the worst.

The 3000 victims of Osama Bin Laden deserve justice and that justice should come on a gurney with a needle sticking out of his arm. How any American president could walk away from that e is truly beyond me and, I would guess, many Americans.

You Bushies just continue to surprise and not in a good way.

 

[LuvDuke]

How far along does the plot need to be before action is taken?

What a fresh idea ............. waiting until someone commits a crime before you arrest them. Who woulda thunk it.

 

[sodaseller]

As allued to, this ruling from Judge Taylor was whole expected from those who knew her track record. A true Carter appointed liberal who was last in the news when it was discovered that she was attempting to get the landmark University of Michigan Law School affirmative action case into a courtroom that would be favorable to the university.

I guess she is more powerful than imagined then, since the United States Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan program at the law school level and its general practices at the undergrad level. She sure is out of touch!


Watch out for those talking pioints

 

[salmoneous]

1. We can't have the Patriot Act.

2. We can't profile people.

3. We can't wiretap.

4. We can't monitor and watch suspicous fund transfers.

5. We can't blockade our borders.

6. We can't go after illegal immigrants.

7. We have to offer the same due process to enemy combatants.


What can we do to protect ourselves?


It's the same people that fight the above causes that will complain when we get attacked again. It boggles the mind and upsets the stomach.

Serious question here Jim - do you honestly believe what you wrote above? Do you believe people there are people out there who want no wiretaps, no monitoring of financial transactions, etc? Or do you realize this isn't true, but were just exaggerating for effect?

 

[sodaseller]

There are no valid points to any argument you might pose.

You are mighty confident in your reasoning skills, for reasons that are well concealed to date

 

[sodaseller]

I must confess that's the first time I've heard that comment applied to this ruling. While the "Hate Bush" crowd is running around high-fiving each other, the judge's legal analysis has received pretty harsh treatment, even from conservatives that have questions about the program's legality and even some from the Angry Left that are certain of it. (I can't believe I'm actually linking to KOS):As allued to, this ruling from Judge Taylor was whole expected from those who knew her track record. A true Carter appointed liberal who was last in the news when it was discovered that she was attempting to get the landmark University of Michigan Law School affirmative action case into a courtroom that would be favorable to the university.

I went and actually read the decision before opining and I agree that it sidesteps some of the inherent power arguments. But don't be so sure about the USSC result. There is no doubt that Scalia, Thomas and Alito will vote in favor of Executive Power when exercised by a Republican. It is almost impossibl to imagine any consitutional limitation on Executive Power exercised by a Republican from those three. But the other six justices are not certain votes, especially because all ends of the judiciary have become alarmed over this Adminsitrations arrogation of power and dishonesty with the Courts, as evidenced by Luttig's scathing opinion in Hamdi, and you won't find anyone that was previously considered more reliable than he.

Judges traditionally defer when an Adminsitration claims national security, but as Luttig detailed, thiw Administration has been caught lying to the Courts too often on such matters. But still, justices are aware that their decisions will bind future Admins as well, so they may suck it up for now to leave the general power intact for future administrations

 

[TheDoctor]

To say President Bush "broke the law broke the law and violated his oath to uphold the Constitution" because of this ruling of one judge is preposterous.

Wrong again. Joe, it is not just one ruling. http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/breaking-law-has-consequences.html

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (.pdf), the Supreme Court -- as Marty Lederman was the first to note -- rejected the Bush administration's principal defense for its violations of the Geneva Conventions not only with regard to military commissions, but generally. By holding that Common Article 3 of the Conventions applies to all detainees, and a failure to treat detainees in compliance with Common Article 3 constitutes "war crimes," the Supreme Court effectively found that Bush officials have authorized and engaged in felony violations of the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. sec. 2241), which makes it a federal crime to violate war treaties such as the Geneva Conventions. That is why the administration is busy at work trying to change that law so as to retroactively legalize their conduct -- because the Supreme Court all but branded them war criminals, and the consequences of that can be severe.

And now, a federal court in Michigan -- the first to rule on the legality of the President's NSA program -- just rejected all of the administration's defenses for eavesdropping in violation of FISA, effectively finding that the administration has been engaged in deliberate criminal acts by eavesdropping without judicial approval. And as I documented previously, Hamdan itself independently compels rejection of the administration's only defenses to its violations of FISA. Eavesdropping in violation of FISA is a federal crime, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine (50 U.S.C. 1809).

Thus, judicial decisions are starting to emerge which come close to branding the conduct of Bush officials as criminal. FISA is a criminal law. The administration has been violating that law on purpose, with no good excuse. Government officials who violate the criminal law deserve to be -- and are required to be -- held accountable just like any other citizens who violate the law. That is a basic, and critically important, principle in our system of government. These are not abstract legalistic questions being decided. They amount to rulings that our highest government officials have been systematically breaking the law -- criminal laws -- in numerous ways. And no country which lives under the rule of law can allow that to happen with impunity.

Joe the Supreme Court has held in effect that bush and cheney violated the war crimes act. Way back when the bushies were considering the policy on Guantanamo and ignoring the Geneva Conventions, they were warned that this may be violations of the War Crimes Act and decided to go forward anyway.

 

[Mugg Mann]

And who do you quote? Where do you get those numbers??? Good greif....

Yes, you're completely right. Those numbers are sad. That is what you meant, isn't it?

First here's the source; it's a compilation database of all major polls-

http://pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm

Here you go;

After 9/11 - Current poll - Low mark this year
Zogby 82 35 31
CBS 90 36 33
Pew 86 37 33
Newsweek88 38 35
Gallup 90 37 31
Fox 88 36 33

 

[richiebaseball]

First here's the source; it's a compilation database of all major polls-

http://pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm

First question from this Zogby poll;

Overall, how would you rate President Bush's performance on the job . . . ?

In the latest poll 35% say excellent/good and 65% say fair/poor.

Why are fair and poor grouped together? If you think someone is doing a fair job, is that the same thing as doing a poor job? And for those of you that think the President is doing a poor job (come on don't be shy, I know you're out there) would it be okay if you were lumped in with the "fair" crowd?

I'm not knocking the polls. The President enjoys a low approval rating and for many reasons he deserves it. As a bonus to liberals, it will make him easier to beat in 2008. I'm just wondering why the answers are grouped that way.

 

[ChrisFL]

First question from this Zogby poll;



In the latest poll 35% say excellent/good and 65% say fair/poor.

Why are fair and poor grouped together? If you think someone is doing a fair job, is that the same thing as doing a poor job? And for those of you that think the President is doing a poor job (come on don't be shy, I know you're out there) would it be okay if you were lumped in with the "fair" crowd?

I'm not knocking the polls. The President enjoys a low approval rating and for many reasons he deserves it. As a bonus to liberals, it will make him easier to beat in 2008. I'm just wondering why the answers are grouped that way.

he'll be really easy to beat in 2008, because his term is over

 

[richiebaseball]

he'll be really easy to beat in 2008, because his term is over

I'm giving even odds that liberals can find a way to screw up even a sure thing

 

[ChrisFL]

I'm giving even odds that liberals can find a way to screw up even a sure thing

Unless someone better comes along, Im voting for McCain if he runs

 

[richiebaseball]

Unless someone better comes along, Im voting for McCain if he runs

I would consider McCain. If the liberals would let a moderate out of the primaries, there are several I would consider. Gov. Tom Vilsack or Sen. Evan Bayh for example. I would love to see Gov. Bill Richardson run.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Wrong again. Joe, it is not just one ruling. http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/breaking-law-has-consequences.html Joe the Supreme Court has held in effect that bush and cheney violated the war crimes act. Way back when the bushies were considering the policy on Guantanamo and ignoring the Geneva Conventions, they were warned that this may be violations of the War Crimes Act and decided to go forward anyway.

I was just discussing the one NSA ruling as was your post that I was responding to. So, no, I'm not wrong.


BTW, your paragraph says may (emphasis mine). The White House has legal counsel, too. Lawyers and judges disagree all the time. Once a definitive ruling was made, then the White House adjusted accordingly. It makes sense to me. I'm glad the White House is being aggressive against terrorists and terrorism.

 

[ford family]

What a fresh idea ............. waiting until someone commits a crime before you arrest them. Who woulda thunk it.

Come on, listen to yourself, we are not talking about robbing the Post Office, we are talking about blowing up planes full of innocent people. You have to arrest them for the intent, not in the act.

ford family