Tux of Borg Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 The warrantless wiretap program will never be abandoned. If it is as valuable as the intel officials claim, then they will find a loop hole to keep it around. Is this really any different than echelon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 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. 746214[/snapback] Don't forget that under FISA you could actually do the tapping first and then get it cleared with a warrant afterwards if time was really of the essence, but I guess when Bush claims wartime powers he doesn't feel he needs to clear anything or do the paperwork... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 18, 2006 Author Share Posted August 18, 2006 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] This is fun. Let me try! In Adler v. Duval County School Board, conservaitve groups such as the ADF, supported prayer in public schools. The ADF is a core supporter of the Republican party. ALSO let's take note of George Bush's support for prayer in the classroom. Therefore, the GOP is soft on separation of church and state. There, was my logic just as bad as his? Anyone? 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] Really? Where? Nothing I found when I did a google search of the Washington Post returned anything of the such. How, exactly, does one give it to a "liberal judge in Michagen on purpose"? Did the ACLU pay off David Weaver or something? The warrantless wiretap program will never be abandoned. If it is as valuable as the intel officials claim, then they will find a loop hole to keep it around. Is this really any different than echelon. 746253[/snapback] Beat me to it. By the way, I read the ruling, and for everyone who disagrees with it,please point out the faulty arguments for me, because the judge seemed to make strong, legally-based arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 How, exactly, does one give it to a "liberal judge in Michagen on purpose"? Did the ACLU pay off David Weaver or something?Beat me to it. 746296[/snapback] It is possible (common, even) to bring a suit in a court of choice, at a time which greatly increases the odds of getting it on a specific judge's docket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 This is fun. Let me try! 746296[/snapback] We also would have accepted "The GOP is soft on the US Constitution." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 18, 2006 Author Share Posted August 18, 2006 It is possible (common, even) to bring a suit in a court of choice, at a time which greatly increases the odds of getting it on a specific judge's docket. 746303[/snapback] Ah, aight. Didn't know that. Though I still don't know if its anything more then conjecture at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 Well let's see the words from the post say they "agreed to delay the action until Sept 7 hearing" and " Legal scholars said Taylor's decision is likely to receive heavy scrutiny from the US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit when the Justice department appeals, and some criticied her ruling as poorly reasoned." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 Shouldn't that be qualification No. 1 of any judge? 746213[/snapback] No question. I was citing that as a favorable quality. I do think there are reasons to dig for interpretation in the law -- a lot of judges will twist the law a bit to overrule a "will of the people" that proves to be more of a tyranny of the majority -- and I think we saw that with major civil rights cases. Even so, I'll agree that it's best when these rights can be grounded in and found within the law, instead of extracted from it, if that makes any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 18, 2006 Author Share Posted August 18, 2006 Well let's see the words from the post say they "agreed to delay the action until Sept 7 hearing" and " Legal scholars said Taylor's decision is likely to receive heavy scrutiny from the US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit when the Justice department appeals, and some criticied her ruling as poorly reasoned." 746314[/snapback] Agreeing to delay action until September 7th is nothing more then standard procedure I would think. To not do so would be to incur lots of legal fees, take up lots of time, for something that would have most likely been put off until then anyway. This has been going on for months, and it would be hard to find a reason to force them to immediately cease and desist rather then waiting for a date which is less then 3 weeks away. Its likely to receive heavy scrutiny on appeal? Isn't that what a friggin appeal is for? Some legal scholars say that the decision is poorly reasoned, but others didn't. Again, not a surprise when you are dealing with a case that so heavily divides the public. What I still haven't seen anyone say is exactly what is faulty with her reasoning. A critique of her ruling would be nice, rather then the crap that has been written on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 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] Considering that the question of whether these wiretaps are legal in large measure is a question of whether they fall under Congressional or Executive authority (or which portions fall under whose authority), it seems that the SCOTUS is where the question needs to be answered. It'll be interesting to see after the appeals are heard whether the SCOTUS decides to hear the case, and possibly create new gray areas, or let it remain in the gray area that it will still be in after the appelate courts have ruled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 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. 746214[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 What I still haven't seen anyone say is exactly what is faulty with her reasoning. A critique of her ruling would be nice, rather then the crap that has been written on the subject. 746324[/snapback] You need to hit the legal blogs for actual analysis not mired in MSM soundbites. Volokh Conspiracy has some good entries on this. Eugene Volokh is a law professor at UCLA, but there are a host of other law professors that submit content. Scroll down for related content, as there is some good stuff by Orin Kerr (George Wash Univ Law) and Jim Lindgren (Nothwestern Law) on the Fourth Amendment. SCOTUSblog has a good post by Lyle Denniston, and it was the first piece of analysis I saw on the ruling yesterday. They also have an NSA wiretap decision roundup that links to more analyses. Balkinization has three excellent posts from Jack Balkin and Marty Lederberg, the most recent by Jack explaining how Judge Taylor's somewhat sloppy opinion may actually be ingeniusly sloppy as a strategic setup for subsequent appeals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 Balkinization has three excellent posts from Jack Balkin and Marty Lederberg, the most recent by Jack explaining how Judge Taylor's somewhat sloppy opinion may actually be ingeniusly sloppy as a strategic setup for subsequent appeals. 746392[/snapback] If this is the case, then I'm sure you will appreciate the irony of an unelected judge who chimes in on Imperial Presidency, leaves behind a ruling that will intentionally be cumbersome to appeal on procedural grounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 746384[/snapback] Yes, her post was gloriously ignorant. But you're the last one who should be complaining about it; she was no more gloriously ignorant than you usually are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 And the Bushies haven't exactly been batting a thousand at the SCOTUS recently. What's a "Bushie?" Let's try to use our big boy words in constitutional debates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 People who actually think that Bush gives a living sh-- about what you have to say on the phone to your friends or family is absolutely retarded and need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid. The government does not care. They are not monitoring people that are not under umbrellas of suspision, and they are mainly monitoring calls that are to islamic countries. If you think that this is the first administration to tap phone calls and monitor emails then you are sadly mistaken. As soon as wire taps were invented, you better believe that the government was using them almost immediately. As a matter of fact, they were using them before you even knew that wire taps existed. So what is the difference between now and then? A Republican Administration. If people are going to live under this blanket of security that this country provides, then yes we must give up a couple liberties and freedoms in order to actually live under that blanket and actually keep that blanket of freedom. Let me ask you something? Do you think it is more effective to have a mole inside a terrorist organization, and then have the commander in chief reveal that they actually had an individual in the room when they were making terrorist plans, when the only people there besides the agent were all close friends, like Bill Clinton did? Not only do you run the risk of someone revealing who the mole is, but you also put that individual at risk of losing their life if they are ever found out. They make Republicans sound ignorant and careless about people lives, but the bottom line is that the Democratic party doesn't really give a sh-- either. Start thinking for yourself dammit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 If I would make a call to another country, I would expect the US or the other country or both to monitor the call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 If I would make a call to another country, I would expect the US or the other country or both to monitor the call. 747147[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 Don't forget that under FISA you could actually do the tapping first and then get it cleared with a warrant afterwards if time was really of the essence, but I guess when Bush claims wartime powers he doesn't feel he needs to clear anything or do the paperwork... 746260[/snapback] Papperwerk is harb wif all them big werds whut need ter be spelled aftur all y'all.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 Yes, her post was gloriously ignorant. But you're the last one who should be complaining about it; she was no more gloriously ignorant than you usually are. 746462[/snapback] Thank you, o Oracle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts