Posted on 08/18/2006 4:53:19 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
August 18, 2006 - 07:42
If not quite from the grave, the decision by one of Jimmy Carter's judicial appointees, striking down the NSA terrorist surveillance program, was an unwelcome blast from past. Call it Carter's Revenge. Malaise Redux. The spirit of Desert One lives.
That this was a political decision more than a legal one is evidenced by the intemperate language of the decision itself: "“There are no hereditary kings in America," harumphed Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the United States District Court in Detroit, in a case filed by the ACLU.
Naturally, the NY Times wildly applauded the decision, calling it "good news," lauding the opinion as "careful" and "thoroughly grounded." Engaging in some intemperate language of its own, the Times claims that Judge Taylor "has reasserted the rule of law over a lawless administration."
We can be thankful that this decision wasn't in effect over the last several months, else we might not be talking about a 'foiled' Islamist plot to blow up multiple airliners over the Atlantic.
NY Times/NewsBusters Carter's-revenge ping to Today show list.
Right on!
Right on!
;-)
Will the country survive the Leftist judges soiling the benches of the federal judiciary, the malignant legagies of LBJ, Carter and Clinton that we are doomed to suffer for decades? The federal judiciary will be the death of the USA.
Carter's first affirmative-action appointment demonstrates exactly why she was so appointed - an allegiance to and fawning for democrat party interests first.
"We can be thankful that this decision wasn't in effect over the last several months, else we might not be talking about a 'foiled' Islamist plot to blow up multiple airliners over the Atlantic."
I have seen almost nothing ab our role in this. Can anybody point me to an article?
The merits or demerits aside, I'm confused as to why you think Judge Taylor's ruling would have had any effect on the foiling of the multi-plane plot by the British?
British Intelligence (MI15) is not an oxymoron.
http://www.mi5.gov.uk/
Wondering the same thing.
Yeah, as soon as I saw that unprofessiona irrelevant harangue in the decision, I realized it was purely political.
Now go easy - he is probably just upset because he pissed himself again.
Can I say that? Hope so because when it comes to the pisshead peanut farmer it's the only thing that makes any sense about him - he pissed himself again.
He's the 'gift' that keeps on giving.
You need to better inform yourselves.
>>I'm confused as to why you think Judge Taylor's ruling would have had any effect on the foiling of the multi-plane plot by the British?
That's easy. MI5 and the CIA/NSA work very closely together, routinely sharing all information. Although such things are not confirmed officially, for obvious reasons, it has been widely reported that part of the intelligence gathering involved surveillance evidence from the US.
That would make a great tagline! This is not a victory for constitutional rights, it is a victory for CAIR, the ALCU, the Peanut Gallery and all those who would save the constitution by destroying it.
This is completely insane. This was not a judicial opinion. It was a political screed. It had no facts and it's wrong on the law. How can the Times say such things?
This is (perhaps) a little unfair to Jimmy Carter. It fails to distinguish between his malignancy and his incompetence.
Carter was very clear that the US President is empowered to engage in warrantless searches in the interests of national security. In signing FISA he made it clear that he was not ceding any Presidential authority as Commander in Chief.
None of this was even controversial prior to January 2001. So which constitutional amendment since then has changed the situation, I am not sure.
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.