Posted on 08/27/2006 5:22:28 PM PDT by FairOpinion
In a nutshell, Judge Taylor claimed that under our Constitution, Hitchens’ right to never have his overseas telephone calls intercepted without a warrant trumps the right of Americans not to be blown to smithereens.
The Constitution, however, says no such thing.
The truth is, Democratic Presidents long before Bush conducted warrantless electronic surveillance for national security reasons—and every time the issue was reviewed by a federal appellate court, the court ruled for the President.
In 2002, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review said: “The Truong court, as did all other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information…. We take it for granted that the President does have that authority.”
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
No. They shopped for a fellow fanatic and wrote up their little papers to "prove" otherwise.
Liberals think that the Constitution gives the power of decision in crises to the media.
Remember the NYT actually used that as a reason for revealing the info, that THEY thought it should be released, even if it's top secret.
In one sentence, the author has summarized the entire argument. The End.
So, are Hitchen's true colors showing? He's a big lib but has said the right things about being tough on the enemy. But where the rubber meets the road it seems that he's on their side.
bump bump bump bump
See below for more on this case.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article: "Bad Judges Make Bad Law."
Please see my most recent statement on running for Congress, here.
Okay...the President MUST curry enough favor with the media to exterminate our enemies to the maximum extent that they will permit. The infallible Gorelick wall remains embedded into the Constitution. Only the President personally can collect intelligence from foreign terrorists, and then only when physically in the presence of the terrorist. George W. Bush has proved a miserable failure. He even failed to stop a speeding plane before it crashed into the World Trade Center despite one nanosecond notice a thousand miles away. The second-term campaign certainly has proven a fatal mistake for his reputation, his presidency, and perhaps his beloved nation.
In fact, last I checked, the Gorelick wall devolved the responsibility for protecting the United Stats from enemies upon the Governor of Texas during Democratic Administrations. So Bush failed miserably as Governor of Texas in preventing the Khobar Towers, Dar es Salaam, and USS Cole terrorist attacks with the Texas Rangers. History will remember him as a disgraceful Texas Governor anointed to the Presidency by a rogue Supreme Court despite losing the election by negative five hundred thirty-seven Florida votes to al-Gore. He ranks easily as the worst President in American history, taking that title from Warren Gamaliel Harding, Richard Milhous Nixon, and Herbert Hoover; the American people even consider him morally inferior to megalomaniac Nazi genocidal dictator Adolf Hitler.
I'm unfortunately beginning to believe it. But I know that Bush's record soon will fall to Her Eminence President-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi and Her Eminence vice-President-in-waiting Hillary Clinton.
Seem that every cable network has its own 9-11 recap running now. Most of the real Al Queda action was during the Cliton administration. He and his band of idiots ignored a vast amount of intelligence. They wanted to make nice. Eight years of wishing the problem culminated less than nine months after Bubba left office. ALL of the fault got focused on the failures of the Bush White House.
Good intelligence that has produced real results has resulted in ZERO attacks here. Have the intelligence programs worked? Should an idiot liberal wacko judge dictate American safety? Security? NO.
Ah, but George W. Bush was never President before! Curbing Bush takes precedence over precedent. One might call it a super-precedent. Unless Senator Specter has already detected some other super-precedent, in which case curbing Bush would be above that also, an uber-super-precedent.
All these impeachable offenses will be proper again---as soon as a Democrat disgraces the White House again.
I just finished reading "American Prometheus," a biography of J. Robert Oppenheimer. During WWII, illegal wiretapping and surveillance of the top people working on the atomic bomb was commonplace. Many had outright communist sympathies and were constantly watched and bugged. I seem to recall we had a Dem president in that era, too.
Why is this issue not already in a true court? Why is this carter whore not yet in chains in jail?
you are on the money. No offense taken. The backstabbing in CIA was going on and the Garelich problem was facing the intel people.
Is it the same Hitchens ??
And .. the other part of it is the dems loathing of President Bush [because he won the election - when the dems were "entitled" to it] and this is their ploy to try to usurp Bush's authority away from him and give it to the Senate - which gives Congress more power than the President .. which is exactly what the moon-bat dems want.
Good idea. bttt
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.