Bush is Two Times a Criminal [Barfer]

baltimorechronicle ^ | Aug 21, 2006 | DAVID LINDORFF

[ncountylee]

For the second time in two months, a federal court has ruled that the president is in violation of the Constitution. This time it's a federal court in Detroit that has ruled that President Bush has violated the Fourth Amendment against illegal search and seizure for his order to the National Security Agency to monitor the phone and Internet messages of Americans without bothering to obtain a court order based upon probable cause.

The first time, it was the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in late June that the president had violated the Constitution by asserting he had the power to ignore the Third Geneva Convention on Treatment of Prisoners of War--a treaty formally signed into law by the U.S. and made an integral part of the U.S. Criminal Code.

The important thing about these two rulings--and it is a point that the squeamish mainstream media have shied away from mentioning--is that they both are declaring the president to be a criminal. That is, he has been found in the first case to be in criminal violation of the Constitution, as well as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and in the second, he has been found to be in violation of U.S. and International Law.

Note that when someone has committed a felony--say a bank robbery or a case of assault and battery or of murder--and when a court has found that person to be guilty of the crime in question, that person is from that moment hence considered a criminal. The case may be appealed to a higher court, but in the meantime, judgment has been rendered, and a penalty assigned.

[ncountylee]

Lindorff is also a folk musician and plays the saw. Surprised that Carter didn't have this idiot in his cabinet.

[Liberty Valance]

David Lindorff

[rhombus]

http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/id1.html

[RexBeach]

I want someone to tell me about who has been injured by the White House surveillance program.

I'll bet Mr. Lindorff can't.

Putz.

[Liberty Valance]

LOL - my pic was pretty close!

[mkjessup]

If that silly f--k Lindork had actually read what Islamolover Judge Anna Diggs-Taylor put into her decision, and IF Lindork actually had the intellect to understand it, he would not be embarassing himself by writing garbage like this, but of course it's a pseudo-newspaper the "Baltimore Chronicle" which is only one step removed from the Super Giant grocery store fliers that get put into real newspapers every week.

By the way Liberty?

EXCELLENT pic of Lindork! Love it! :)

[rhombus]

I thought it was just a picture of him when he was younger.

[kevkrom]

Quickly noting the "merits" of the two decisions -- 1) on Guantanamo Bay, the USSC did not say that anything the Administration is doing is illegal, merely that it requires Congressional approval and oversight [personally, I disagree, but that's another thread]; 2) on the NSA case, this exercise in judge-shopping is destined for unanimous reversal in an appellate court -- even liberal bastions like the Washington post are essentially saying "we're not convinced of the legality of the program, but this judge is an idiot".

Note that when someone has committed a felony

So, notwithstanding the points above, the author then attempts to make a false sugue here, trying to link these administrative actions to criminal felonies. This is sloppy writing in addition to the sloppy recounting of facts.

[eastsider]

In October 2004, he was awareded a coveted "Most Censored Story of 2003" award by Project Censored (for his Oct. 16, 2003 story in Salon about the Pentagon's quiet efforts to gear up the machinery for a return to the draft).

And I'll bet he got honorable mention for the "Rove To Be Indicted" story.

[Muleteam1]

Who is the Baltimore Chronicle?

[Mrs.Nooseman]

ROFLMAO!!!

[Obadiah]

Here's a test. When the appeals court or the Supreme Court makes mincemeat out of this wacked-out decision let's see if David Lindorff of the Baltimore Chronicle is honest enough to write a mea culpa. Knowing corrupt leftists, I ain't holding my breath, but this piece shows just how dishonest liberals are. They care not for honesty and accuracy, they care only about perception, feelings, motives, in order to make their point.

It is now near common knowledge that this decision is a joke written with personal malice by a hack leftist, Carter judge. To write about it in any other context is just plain dishonest.

[tobyhill]

From their website.

"We are a Public Non-profit Newspaper. Your donation is essential to our survival."

With idiot writers like this clown it's no wonder they need donations for their survival.

[hophead]

"I want someone to tell me about who has been injured by the White House surveillance program.

I'll bet Mr. Lindorff can't. "

But it was the ACLU that sued ON BEHALF OF journalists and others. Christopher Hitchens was one of the plaintiffs with a few others and a handful of LAWYERS. They said they can't call overseas without the fear of being listened to.

[RexBeach]

I could say the same, and so could you.

No proof, no damage.