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.
Does that mean that they couldn't "interfere" even with a warrant? I haven't had a chance to read the ruling yet.
You're a paranoid libertarian idiot! Read the whole ruling and don't address me again.
Detroit...aweful close to Dearbornistan.
Cool. I hadn't seen that. Do you have a cite?
The intelligence of this judge is not surprising, since she was appointed by Carter.
Of course not, and I didn't imply that I did.
I would not object to any reasonable pursuit of terrorist activity by any administration, and I would object to any abuses for political or personal reasons.
The idea that you must support both or oppose both is absurd. Recognizing the legitimate national security reasons that the interception of international phone calls is acceptable does not mean that you can not object to abuses of that same power.
"Either you are extremely naive, or you have an agenda that is so warped that it is more important than our safety."
What did Jefferson have to say about 'trading a little liberty'?
If the Gov't wants to change FISA, change FISA. Don't break the law because you don't like it. This Gov't simply has no respect for law or the Constitution. And people who are all 'i'm okay with that' simply shame their forebears who fought and died to secure those rights.
The Office of the President is a *creation* of the Constitution, he swears to *defend* it, not 'break it if I think it's ok'.
--R.
Found the part that you posted in 219
Contrary to Defendants’ arguments, the court is persuaded that Plaintiffs are able to establish a prima facie case based solely on Defendants’ public admissions regarding the TSP. Plaintiffs’ declarations establish that their communications would be monitored under the TSP.7 Further,
Plaintiffs have shown that because of the existence of the TSP, they have suffered a real and concrete harm. Plaintiffs’ declarations state undisputedly that they are stifled in their ability to vigorously conduct research, interact with sources, talk with clients and, in the case of the attorney
Plaintiffs, uphold their oath of providing effective and ethical representation of their clients.8 In
addition, Plaintiffs have the additional injury of incurring substantial travel expenses as a result of
having to travel and meet with clients and others relevant to their cases. Therefore, the court finds
that Plaintiffs need no additional facts to establish a prima facie case for any of their claims
questioning the legality of the TSP.
I've heard and read various news sources that indicate that the initial lead on the plot was gotten by an intercept out of Pakistan by our intel. We then tipped off the Brits and they penetrated the cell.
Granted .. I'm not a lawyer .. but my take is they knew their case was weak and wanted the Court use other judement then just the law
Ohh, Ohh, I know...I KNOW!....(raising hand)
We as liberals are no longer allowed to think rationally thanks to BDS and are rendered as useful as teets on a Bull.
Vote for us!
/sarc
The president of the US has war time powers that can not be touched by anyone including the SCOTUS. These poweres go back since the inception of our union.
"Secondly, if this matter is of such immediacy that obtaining a warrant is not feasible, why not have Congress debate on the matter and forge a new law (or amend and existing one) that makes the process legit through oversight?"
What kind of law and what kind of oversight are you referring to?
"You're a paranoid libertarian idiot! Read the whole ruling and don't address me again."
And you're a ignorant coward who dislikes being corrected. I have read the whole ruling, hence I knew you were wrong. If you'd read the ruling before you posted the first time, you need some serious remedial reading lessons.
Oh, you also clearly have no respect for the Constitution.
--R.
"The president of the US has war time powers that can not be touched by anyone including the SCOTUS. These poweres go back since the inception of our union."
Yes, they're spelled out in the Constitution. The one that charges him to 'faithfully execute the laws', including FISA, and to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution'.
Nowhere does Article II give him the power to ignore either the laws or the Constitution when he feels like it.
--R.
Has Congress issued a formal declaration of war? I mean, since WWII?
Are you a lawyer? If so, what are your credentials and where did you receive your degree and where do you practice?
Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus (sp?) and FDR's Japanese internment camps...were these really within the bounds of the constitution?
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.