Wiretapping ruled unconstitutional

[Chilly]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/17/dom...suit/index.html

 

Just an FYI. I haven't read the ruling yet, but its linked in that article.

[PastaJoe]

Let's see how quickly the Republicans jump on this to say Democrats are weak on security. If the president wants the authority to do warrentless wiretaps, he should ask Congress for the authority, otherwise use the FISA court which was set up for this situation. Since it has been ruled unconstitutional, the president has been breaking the law, and therefore should be held up for impeachment if he doesn't cease and desist. That's the real issue, even though Republicans will try to distort it.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Let's see how quickly the Republicans jump on this to say Democrats are weak on security.  If the president wants the authority to do warrentless wiretaps, he should ask Congress for the authority, otherwise use the FISA court which was set up for this situation.  Since it has been ruled unconstitutional, the president has been breaking the law, and therefore should be held up for impeachment if he doesn't cease and desist.  That's the real issue, even though Republicans will try to distort it.

745692[/snapback]

 

Take note that all the groups who brought this suit are core supporters of the Democratic party. Also take note that the Democrats were leaping for joy over this. ALSO let's take note of John Edwards' and John Kerry's support for the limprwrist Ned Lamont in Connecticut. Yeah, the Dems aren't soft on security.

 

[VABills]

Take note that all the groups who brought this suit are core supporters of the Democratic party. Also take note that the Democrats were leaping for joy over this. ALSO let's take note of John Edwards' and John Kerry's support for the limprwrist Ned Lamont in Connecticut. Yeah, the Dems aren't soft on security.

 

746010[/snapback]

Also, take note that it was given to a liberal judge in Michagen on purpose. And note that even the appellate court is already chastizing her for the reason in it. And take note that even the Washington Post, my uber liberal newspaper, pointed out that this was basically a BS decision and would be quickly overturned.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Also, take note that it was given to a liberal judge in Michagen on purpose.  And note that even the appellate court is already chastizing her for the reason in it.  And take note that even the Washington Post, my uber liberal newspaper, pointed out that this was basically a BS decision and would be quickly overturned.

746042[/snapback]

 

Yep, they brought the tired liberal dog-and-pony show in front of one of the noodliest judges they could find, and got the result they wanted.

[UConn James]

This is kind of a big issue with a potentially big impact on the Constitution as to the defining which rights the govt must not cross in the name of protection. Is it that bad to want it to make its way to the SC?

 

This is the a step in that process.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

This is kind of a big issue with a potentially big impact on the Constitution as to the rights the govt must not cross in the name of protection. Is it that bad to want it to make its way to the SC?

 

This is the a step in that process.

746052[/snapback]

 

it won't make it that far. my bet would be it gets smacked on appeal.

[KRC]

it won't make it that far. my bet would be it gets smacked on appeal.

746054[/snapback]

 

Even if it gets smacked on appeal, there will still be a push to have this taken to the SC. Whether the SC actually hears the case is another story, but the push will be there, regardless of the outcome of the appeals(s).

[Moose]

These cartoonists often have an interesting perspective.

[PastaJoe]

Take note that all the groups who brought this suit are core supporters of the Democratic party. Also take note that the Democrats were leaping for joy over this. ALSO let's take note of John Edwards' and John Kerry's support for the limprwrist Ned Lamont in Connecticut. Yeah, the Dems aren't soft on security.

746010[/snapback]

 

Did you expect the rubber-stamp Republicans, who are "limpwristed" when it comes to protecting our Constitutional rights, would bring a suit challenging the White House? And being against the continued "stay the course" policy in Iraq is not being soft on security, it's being smart. Fortunately the majority of Americans are finally paying attention to details and not broad generalizations and realizing that Iraq was not and is not the focal point on the war against terrorism.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Did you expect the rubber-stamp Republicans, who are "limpwristed" when it comes to protecting our Constitutional rights, would bring a suit challenging the White House?  And being against the continued "stay the course" policy in Iraq is not being soft on security, it's being smart.  Fortunately the majority of Americans are finally paying attention to details and not broad generalizations and realizing that Iraq was not and is not the focal point on the war against terrorism.

746068[/snapback]

 

Let me guess, you voted for McGovern?

 

It's smart to want to bil out of Iraq and let it turn into an all-out civil war with bloodletting on a scale that would make bosnia look like a boy scout convention? GENIUS, I say! GENIUS!

[Johnny Coli]

Take note that all the groups who brought this suit are core supporters of the Democratic party. Also take note that the Democrats were leaping for joy over this. ALSO let's take note of John Edwards' and John Kerry's support for the limprwrist Ned Lamont in Connecticut. Yeah, the Dems aren't soft on security.

 

746010[/snapback]

I see...

A judge in Michigan deems Bush's warrentless wiretapping unconstitutional because it violates two Amendments, FISA and the seperation of powers doctrine, and you come away with "The Dems are soft on security."

[Johnny Coli]

Even if it gets smacked on appeal, there will still be a push to have this taken to the SC. Whether the SC actually hears the case is another story, but the push will be there, regardless of the outcome of the appeals(s).

746060[/snapback]

And the Bushies haven't exactly been batting a thousand at the SCOTUS recently.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I see...

A judge in Michigan deems Bush's warrentless wiretapping unconstitutional because it violates two Amendments, FISA and the seperation of powers doctrine, and you come away with "The Dems are soft on security."

746085[/snapback]

 

Yes.

 

As unsavory as the program is, it's necessary. Now there's going to be a window of time that our enemies are going to know exists in which they can now communicate with their friends within our borders.

 

Sound security thinking, that.

 

[KRC]

And the Bushies haven't exactly been batting a thousand at the SCOTUS recently.

746088[/snapback]

 

...but...but...but, I thought that if Bush gets his nominees on the court, then they will just rubber-stamp anything the Administration wants. Don't tell me that the Dems lied to me.

[RuntheDamnBall]

...but...but...but, I thought that if Bush gets his nominees on the court, then they will just rubber-stamp anything the Administration wants. Don't tell me that the Dems lied to me. 

746106[/snapback]

I don't know what all the Dems said about Roberts, but I think he's going to be a pretty sound judge. I've been working lately on a forthcoming PBS doc on the SCOTUS and he's interviewed in it. It seems like he makes/looks for a very reasoned basis in law for every decision he makes.

[KRC]

I don't know what all the Dems said about Roberts, but I think he's going to be a pretty sound judge.  I've been working lately on a forthcoming PBS doc on the SCOTUS and he's interviewed in it.  It seems like he makes/looks for a very reasoned basis in law for every decision he makes.

746109[/snapback]

 

I know it was a big campaign issue (not Roberts, but SC justices in general).

[cromagnum]

Let me guess, you voted for McGovern?

 

It's smart to want to bil out of Iraq and let it turn into an all-out civil war with bloodletting on a scale that would make bosnia look like a boy scout convention? GENIUS, I say! GENIUS!

746075[/snapback]

I would support a slow redeploy to afghanistan to combat the re-emerging taliban and al qeada in the southern part of the country...I believe, not positive, that the U.S. will maintain permanent military bases in Iraq to secure the bush administrations initial investment for iraqi democracy and to protect the valuable resource in the ground and MAKE DAMN SURE iraq sells oil under the american petro dollar monetary policy, that saddam had wanted to change to the euro in 2000....After the iraq invasion in march 03, the american petro dollar was secured in iraq at the cost of many millions to iraqi's in the food for oil program as the euro was stronger and now iran is threating to switch to the euro as well as chavez in venezquela who supplies close to 40% of the imported oil in the U.S. and they are now on the enemy list..Also of note, was saudi arabia contemplating the euro.

 

And beating to death the re-emerging Taliban and Al Qeada in afghanistan and still confronting the insurgency civil war in Iraq and confronting Iran might be easier without having to place 150000 troops in Iraq in harms way of a iraqi shiite insurgency fueled and armed by Iran with dirty bombs, bio and chem bombs, IED"s assualt rifles, RPG's and missles fired into Israel, the strait of hormuz under siege and saudi arabian oil fields sabotaged....

 

And adding troops to americas southern border to prevent terrorist from slipping in with the millions of illegals and Detonating WMD's in american cities..

 

Since the 70's the american petro dollar was instituted by OPEC....

Japan holds 900 billion american dollars in reserves to purchase opec oil.

China holds 650 billion in american assets to purchase opec oil.

But thats another topic...

 

Get a fuggin warrant if you want to eavesdrop on me....That a constitutional right that has been protected for 100's of years and many soldiers lives have fallen to protect americas constitution that the Bush administration want's to BURN to do what can allready be done with FISA....Just saying as an american.

[GG]

It seems like he makes/looks for a very reasoned basis in law for every decision he makes.

746109[/snapback]

 

Shouldn't that be qualification No. 1 of any judge?

[blzrul]

Let's see, what do you think is more effective?

 

1) Putting a mole into a suspected terrorist organization, getting confirmation of activities in time to get legal wiretaps focused on key suspects, which yield enough information to actually BREAK UP a terrorist plot?

2) Have the ability to do warrantless wiretapping on anyone and everyone in America, thereby creating all sorts of chatter for organizations to weed through, resulting in memos that no-one reads and quite possibily missing a terrorist plot?

 

I'll take the first case every time, because it's proven to work. The second? Well the Administration SAYS it's foiled plots but can produce no evidence whatsoever that it's the truth. In fact Cheney is running around lying and claiming that it was the wiretapping that broke up the UK plot...uh yeah but without the MOLE, you dumbass, how did they know whose wires to tap?

 

When you can get a legal wiretap within 24 hours there is no reason to do it without a warrant...certainly the evildoers take longer than that to hatch their plots, so perhaps a little more legwork up front would be worthwhile. Then we'd get actual evildoers instead of morons with thousands of cellphones.