anything i WANT to say would prolly get me banned... just damn.
Posted on 08/17/2006 9:06:43 AM PDT by sinkspur
A federal district judge in Detroit has ruled that the Bush administration's NSA surveillance of phone conversations is unconstitutional.
Here, this is by one of the best legal minds in the country. He explains it far better then I can.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1685444/posts
Judge Not (NSA ruling-Mark Levin opinion)
I served in the US military. I also realize in wartime there must be operational secrets in order to obtain certain objectives. This "war on terrorism" isn't a real war though. Congress has not declared war. Terrorism is a tactic, a method of waging war, not a physical enemy. If you support the war on terror you are essentially supporting an open-ended war with a perpetual revocation of liberties and freedoms. What's more, if you support the way the Bush administration is running this "war on terror", you are supporting the chief executive's right to wage war and setup a police state without any over sight from Congress or the courts. Which, as far as I'm concerned, puts you closer to being a Stalinist than a Republican.
Yes. I sent Wolfie a nasty email about it too. Although I'm sure I'm on their .... drop in the never-read bit bucket ...list, so I'm certain my comments will go unheard and unnoticed by the liars at CNN.
That qualifies for the Dumbest Post of the Day.
Surveilling foreign terrorists and their contacts in the United States is hardly a "police state."
Not a lefty at all. I just refuse to eat the dungpie the Bush administration is serving up in the name of security. It seems like many folks voted for Bush in 2000 and left their brains in the ballotbox. I voted for Bush, but knowing what has happened, I wish I had voted Libertarian instead.
My question was to post #161.
Who was the opposing side...Santa Claus?
Gag me.
Far from having proven any violation of the law, Diggs-Taylor's opinion will likely be thrown out because those who brought the suit don't have the standing to do so.
How about ignoring FISA and violating his own oath of office? Besides, one of the problems with what Bush is doing is that WE DON'T KNOW who he is or isn't wiretapping. You have no idea if he's only going after foreign terrorists and their contacts. Talk about dumb posts. If there's nothing to hide, then why is Bush violating the law and hiding from oversight?
Well thank you for your service.
A Stalinist, huh? Isn't that special.
We can agree that there are more effective ways to wage the war on terrorists, but unless western society grows a very large pair and get's over it's squeamishness what we have is our current reality. You'd rather the courts dictate what the CiC can do in order to thwart terror operations? Pardon me if I have damn little faith in the wisdom or agenda of our current justice system.
I can see you aren't a fan of the President or his methods. Probably best we agree to disagree.
Which we do.
You look at the leaks out of congress, the CIA and the media and can ask this? Besides, I believe he agreed to more oversight recently that any other president has ever had to agree to.
Far from hiding, Congressional members of intelligence committees are briefed on a regular basis.
The Democrats objected to this program because they didn't think of it and because it is working very well.
We're at war, and courts have shown wide latitude to the CIC in conducting intelligence operations during wartime.
That is, when he can get past political opportunists like Diggs-Taylor.
I realize full-well that there is a large group of people out there, most of them Islamo-fascists, who want to cause harm to the US at home and abroad. I also realize we must fight these people, and considering FISA was initiated decades ago, it would be wise to adjust our methods. Where I break with the president is in his blatant disregard for oversight and the law. Now there is debate over whether or not he is breaking the law on a number of fronts. Obviously I believe he is. Hopefully the courts will find the truth and keep our liberties intact. After all, liberty is very precious to me and I don't want ANY administration taking it away.
anything i WANT to say would prolly get me banned... just damn.
I think any violations of the law, be they from the executive, the CIA or Congress, need to be prosecuted. Remember the "rule of law" many of us were championing back in 1998? It still applies today.
I hope an emergency appeal has been filed on this. Every minute this ruling stands it puts our lives in danger.
Diggs-Taylor granted the stay. I don't think the woman expects her decision to be upheld. She was making a political statement (the decision reads like a political document, with very little legal reasoning).
You mean to tell me it should be announced who is getting spied on? Are you THAT nuts?
Good...I was at work all day and only just heard about it.
Amen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.