Court Backs Terrorist Surveillance Program

[Truthmatters]

Votes dont matter only procedure matters.

You see the intent of the framers was to have procedure determine who was elected not the people.

 

[red states rule]

Votes dont matter only procedure matters.

You see the intent of the framers was to have procedure determine who was elected not the people.

when Dems lose elections - they rant how the election was stolen

when they win elections - the voice of the people were heard

 

[red states rule]

A case seeking to challenge the Bush administration's domestic wiretapping program was dismissed yesterday as the plaintiff's "...could not show injury direct and concrete enough to allow them to have standing to sue...". Why couldn't they demonstrate this? Simple, actually...The list of those surveilled remains "classified".

And this is the crux of the situation. The Bush administration can hide its illegal activities behind the veil of "national security" thus denying any possibility of judicial review or the ability of Americans to challenge the legality of the surveillance of phone calls and e-mails.

To violate the law and hide that violation behind a wall of secrecy, then declare that wall unbreachable by the the the Judicial or Legislative branches...If this doesn't fall into the category of "High crimes and misdemeanors", what does?

For the full story, go <a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/07/washington/07nsa.html?_r=1&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=print>HERE</a>.

A bad day for libs, is a good day for America.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Her conflict of interest for one thing

Thursday, August 24, 2006
Why do judges make it easier for their critics?
The NYT has an editorial about the controversy that has boiled up connecting Judge Anna Diggs Taylor to the ACLU, the party she summarily handed a victory to in ACLU v. NSA.

t would have been prudent for her to disclose any activity that might conceivably raise questions about her ability to be impartial. Regrettably, it was left to a conservative group, Judicial Watch, to point out her role as a trustee to a foundation that had given grants to a branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, a plaintiff in the case....

Judge Taylor’s role at a grant-making foundation whose list of beneficiaries includes groups that regularly litigate in the courts is still disquieting — and, even worse, it is not all that unusual for a member of the judiciary. The most important lesson here may be the wisdom of re-examining the sort of outside activities that are appropriate for sitting federal judges.
I don't understand why judges don't steer clear of anything that can be used against them like this. Well, to dredge up yesterday's paper -- the one with my op-ed in it -- I don't understand why judges don't swaddle their opinions -- whether result-oriented or not -- in very professional, neutral-sounding verbiage. Why make it easier for your critics?
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/08/why-do-judges-make-it-easier-for-their.html


How do you like your crow BP?

An op-ed lacking ANY supporting evidence DOES NOT constitute proof of anything beyond the op-ed writer's <i>opinion</i>.

 

[Bullypulpit]

A bad day for libs, is a good day for America.

Your Potemkin village patriotism is showing AGAIN. That you could continue to support actions by an administration which clearly fly in the face of federal law and the Constitution shows just how little you understand or appreciate either.

 

[red states rule]

An op-ed lacking ANY supporting evidence DOES NOT constitute proof of anything beyond the op-ed writer's <i>opinion</i>.

So you deny the fact she has NO ties to the ACLU - the group that brought the case?

Liberal Judges hearing cases brought by liberal groups

Is that fair to you BP?

 

[red states rule]

Your Potemkin village patriotism is showing AGAIN. That you could continue to support actions by an administration which clearly fly in the face of federal law and the Constitution shows just how little you understand or appreciate either.

Is it patriotism to cheer the fact the Court rejected the lefts attempt to block the US government from listening to terrorists phone calls?

You see, I want America to defeat the terrorists, and way they can - not play nice with them and fight a PC war

 

[red states rule]

more on Judge Digg's links to the ACLU

According to her 2003 and 2004 financial disclosure statements, Judge Diggs Taylor served as Secretary and Trustee for the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan (CFSEM). She was reelected to this position in June 2005. The official CFSEM website states that the foundation made a "recent grant" of $45,000 over two years to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the wiretapping case. Judge Diggs Taylor sided with the ACLU of Michigan in her recent decision.
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2006/08/22/judge-anna-diggs-taylors-aclu.php


still say it is all opinion BP?

 

[Bullypulpit]

So you deny the fact she has NO ties to the ACLU - the group that brought the case?

Liberal Judges hearing cases brought by liberal groups

Is that fair to you BP?

Still unwilling to accept that she found the Bush administration's domestic spying program illegal under according to federal statute? Poor boy, watching so much FOX Noise has cause your brain to turn to mush.

The <i>non-partisan</i> Congressional Research Service concluded, <a href=http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf>in a 44 page report</a>, that the Bush administration really didn't have a legal leg to stand on.

<blockquote>The Congressional Research Service's report rebuts the central assertions made recently by Bush and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales about the president's authority to order secret intercepts of telephone and e-mail exchanges between people inside the United States and their contacts abroad.

The findings, the first nonpartisan assessment of the program's legality to date, prompted Democratic lawmakers and civil liberties advocates to repeat calls yesterday for Congress to conduct hearings on the monitoring program and attempt to halt it.

The 44-page report said that Bush probably cannot claim the broad presidential powers he has relied upon as authority to order the secret monitoring of calls made by U.S. citizens since the fall of 2001. Congress expressly intended for the government to seek warrants from a special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before engaging in such surveillance when it passed legislation creating the court in 1978, the CRS report said. - <a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/06/AR2006010601772_pf.html>The Washington Post</a></blockquote>

 

[Bullypulpit]

Is it patriotism to cheer the fact the Court rejected the lefts attempt to block the US government from listening to terrorists phone calls?

You see, I want America to defeat the terrorists, and way they can - not play nice with them and fight a PC war

You cannot defeat the terrorists by abandoning wholesale this country's moral and legal foundations...Unless, of course, that what you really want to see anyways.

 

[red states rule]

Still unwilling to accept that she found the Bush administration's domestic spying program illegal under according to federal statute? Poor boy, watching so much FOX Noise has cause your brain to turn to mush.

The <i>non-partisan</i> Congressional Research Service concluded, <a href=http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf>in a 44 page report</a>, that the Bush administration really didn't have a legal leg to stand on.

<blockquote>The Congressional Research Service's report rebuts the central assertions made recently by Bush and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales about the president's authority to order secret intercepts of telephone and e-mail exchanges between people inside the United States and their contacts abroad.

The findings, the first nonpartisan assessment of the program's legality to date, prompted Democratic lawmakers and civil liberties advocates to repeat calls yesterday for Congress to conduct hearings on the monitoring program and attempt to halt it.

The 44-page report said that Bush probably cannot claim the broad presidential powers he has relied upon as authority to order the secret monitoring of calls made by U.S. citizens since the fall of 2001. Congress expressly intended for the government to seek warrants from a special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before engaging in such surveillance when it passed legislation creating the court in 1978, the CRS report said. - <a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/06/AR2006010601772_pf.html>The Washington Post</a></blockquote>

It is funny to watch libs to keep pushing for the right of terrorists. These are the same people who would slaughter you and your entire family without giving it a second thought BP

Libs rant how Pres Bush is making the world a more dangerous place - yet it tis libs like you who are making it more difficult for the US government to do its one Constitutional duty - to protect the country from foreign threats

 

[Bullypulpit]

more on Judge Digg's links to the ACLU

According to her 2003 and 2004 financial disclosure statements, Judge Diggs Taylor served as Secretary and Trustee for the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan (CFSEM). She was reelected to this position in June 2005. The official CFSEM website states that the foundation made a "recent grant" of $45,000 over two years to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the wiretapping case. Judge Diggs Taylor sided with the ACLU of Michigan in her recent decision.
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2006/08/22/judge-anna-diggs-taylors-aclu.php


still say it is all opinion BP?

Can you provide independently verifiable proof that there was a conflict of interest? Until you can, it remains in the realm of speculation and opinion.

 

[Bullypulpit]

It is funny to watch libs to keep pushing for the right of terrorists. These are the same people who would slaughter you and your entire family without giving it a second thought BP

Libs rant how Pres Bush is making the world a more dangerous place - yet it tis libs like you who are making it more difficult for the US government to do its one Constitutional duty - to protect the country from foreign threats

You don't get it, and you never will...you don't want to. Naive ignorance, as we find in children, is understandable and forgivable. Willful ignorance is neither.

 

[red states rule]

You don't get it, and you never will...you don't want to. Naive ignorance, as we find in children, is understandable and forgivable. Willful ignorance is neither.

I find it more and more among libs - even adult ones

That is one difference between conservatives and liberals

WE made it out of adolescence

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I dont give a dam if the government monitors every phone call in america, to foreign countries, and within america, as long as they catch, prosecute, and jail forever, the terrorist basterds plotting to kill us. I'd rather sacrifice a bit of privacy, so ackmed, doesnt slit my throat, and youre not on a prayer rug. Obviously, some common sense to make sure innocent people dont go to jail, duh!!!!

I find it more and more among libs - even adult ones

That is one difference between conservatives and liberals

WE made it out of adolescence

 

[red states rule]

I dont give a dam if the government monitors every phone call in america, to foreign countries, and within america, as long as they catch, prosecute, and jail forever, the terrorist basterds plotting to kill us. I'd rather sacrifice a bit of privacy, so ackmed, doesnt slit my throat, and youre not on a prayer rug. Obviously, some common sense to make sure innocent people dont go to jail, duh!!!!

With the trillions of calls made in the US, the fovernment would have to employ thouasands to try and keep up

Libs should be thrilled at that many new union members being added to the government payroll

 

[actsnoblemartin]

im all for common sense, we can do anything, if we use common sense, it goes for anyone, including private sector and government.

but it cant be done, or illegal argument, to me is bullshit, because we cant afford to miss any info, that might save even one american life, or lives of allies.

With the trillions of calls made in the US, the fovernment would have to employ thouasands to try and keep up

Libs should be thrilled at that many new union members being added to the government payroll

 

[actsnoblemartin]

the new york times, publishes every secret the u.s. government has in fighting the war on terrorism, they are truly pathetic, the new york times.

You don't get it, and you never will...you don't want to. Naive ignorance, as we find in children, is understandable and forgivable. Willful ignorance is neither.

 

[red states rule]

the new york times, publishes every secret the u.s. government has in fighting the war on terrorism, they are truly pathetic, the new york times.

Well, the circulation for theNY Times has increased

Terrorist camps are now on bulk subscriptions - what better way to find out what covert operations the US government is undertaking to fight terrorism?

 

[Annie]

Well, the circulation for theNY Times has increased

Terrorist camps are now on bulk subscriptions - what better way to find out what covert operations the US government is undertaking to fight terrorism?

Where did the circulation increase? Every quarter I've seen has been a downward spiral.