Carter's Revenge: Times Trumpets Decision Striking Down Terrorist Surveillance

I have no idea what you're talking about other than trying to think through your own issues about government. Since neither Israel or the US are monarchies, Heads of State and Heads of Government can probably be safely used interchangeably. NOT so in the U.K.

As far as judges, and in the case of Israel, change does not happen so quickly. Israel has a parlimentary system of government and I didnt see anyone throwing Sharon or Rabin off the stage when they were doing things that everyone knew were just unbelievable. As they got older they got soft. That doesnt take away from what these warriers did in their prime but, as people get older, they sometimes think the way of the world is through peace instead of realizing, as when they're young, that most often peace comes from war- when your enemy roundly surrenders.

As far as judges, my only point was that as some of these power players get older they tend to get mush-headed, they all can be removed.

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.

Hard to believe the NYTimes won't mention that CAIR was also a plantiff in this suit. /sarcasm

>> I have no idea what you're talking about

That's pretty obvious. To use the terms Head of State and and Head of Government interchangeably is extreme ignorance. The fact that Israel and the US are not monarchies is wholly irrelevant to the discussion. In the US the Head of State and Head of Government are in fact the same, but that is nothing to do with the country not being a monarchy, as this is also true in Saudi Arabia.

In Israel they are not and never have been.

The fact that Israel is a Parliamentary system is precisely why change CAN happen fast. They reason you did not observe either Rabin or Sharon being brought down is that Knesset did not wish to do so.

Your comparison between judges and leaders - at least in democratic countries - is foolish. Judges are usually appointed for long terms, if not for life. So if they go senile it can be damaging, as has been said earlier. Political leaders in democratic countries do not have such tenure. In most Parliamentary systems they can be brought down in days - note, CAN, it is not necessary that they will be. Even in the US there are procedures for removing a President, and the terms are sufficiently brief that advanced senility is unlikely to develop during a single term.

It really is very simple. You made a foolish analogy and confused two constitutional functions. The easiest thing is to just apologise.

Instead you compound it with a rather asinine point about Israeli politics. I gather you think that Rabin and Sharon should both, at different times, have been removed from office. And the Knesset had the cheek to disagree with you. Tough.

>>Sorry but no. The DNC believes the polls which tell them everybody hates W and everybody is angry about the WOT. The affirmative-action judge is just following her party leaders.

You know, I really don't think you are right about this. Certainly some in the blogosphere think that, and it is possible that this judge did and does. I am pretty sure the DNC does NOT want to talk about the specifics of the GWOT, and certainly not about surveillance. They want to talk about how the GWOT has been 'mishandled' and how they would have more allies, but they would rather surveillance was not under discussion.

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.