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.
I have no issue with the government wiretapping those who wish us harm. I have a problem with the government saying, in effect, "trust us", violating the law, and acting more like a Soviet-styled police state than a republic that holds liberty and freedom as among it's more precious virtues.
Who said that? Are you just pooting that out to cloud the issue?
Never said that. I am certain we have civilian and military assets, working with international cooperation, bringing these folks to justice (be that in death or otherwise).
It is confusing because the SC has struggled so much with the issue in the past. They used to analyze the 4th A cases with a property analysis, and whether a trespass was committed by the govt. But since the famous katz case, it uses a privacy analysis. That said, where one is does affect the expectation of privacy.
Let me give you the extremes. MOST 4TH A PROTECTION: Man tells wife (whispering under the covers (alone)) that he robbed the mini-mart last week. The police recorded it with a listening device they planted in his bedroom just because they don't like him. No evidence or reason to believe he committed the crime. OK, the exclusionary rule keeps out this evidence. The was no warrant, and no exigent circumstances permitted this surveillance (for a criminal investigation).
The other side of the scale. Man with heavy overcoat and sweatpants enters the Capitol building in July with a turban on his head, and a backpack two feet deep on his back. Police search the bag and find a nuke. No 4th A problem here. There was no expectation of privacy when entering the Capitol building. The search was therefore not a "search", thus no warrant was required.
Clear? Ya, me neither. OK, back to work.
Great post.
Oh please. The country is not "in grave danger" from terrorists. The only reason we even have this climate of fear is because the federal government has trampled the constitution and we let them do it.
We must connect the dots without collecting the dots.
Complete insanity.
HOw about connecting the dots withint the limits of law and oversight, to make sure we keep our government from using fear as a pretext for tyranny?
The judge is not only wrong about her judgment, but guilty of treason. WE ARE AT WAR AND DURING WARTIME, THE PRESIDENT HAS THE POWER TO DO JUST WHAT HE HAS DONE!
Also, the judge has just acted as though she had MORE power than the president AND the Congress.
A federal district judge in Detroit...
Dearbornistan, again.
Is he a muzzie?
Don't post from stupidity!
bttt
bttt
Now, there is no appraisal cap, but Perry couldn't get that in this special session. He has promised to bring it up in the regular session starting in January.
Strayhorn criticizes Perry for his spending, yet she never met a state program she doesn't like. And she thinks one of the major ways to fund Texas schools ought to be putting video poker machines in airports. Now, remember, Perry and the legislature were under a court order (which expired on June 1) to come up with an alternative to the property tax as the prime funding source for Texas schools.
Any candidate who suggests legalized gambling as one of those "primary sources" is not serious.
Strayhorn is hoping to ride into office on the back of opposition to the Trans-Texas Corridor. Her only problem is she has no alternative. Expanding I-35 into a virtual TTC would be hugely expensive and would drain the highway fund for the next 15 years.
And that's what you think they are doing. Sure you're on the right forum, buddy?
Ever try to manage anything where secrecy was imperative to success? Ever try to win an unbalanced war where the enemy has no restrictions whatsoever?
You really don't have to answer because I suspect you haven't.
First off, I'm no fan of Carter, but what difference does it make if he appointed this judge or not? Also, if the president has in fact violated the law, should he not be impeached? After all, I remember arguing in 1998 that Clinton should be impeached based on the fact he lied under oath. We cannot selectively apply the law to support those presidents we like on most issues and take down those we disagree with. The law is the law and must be applied equally to all.
Oh, and we are not at "war" with anyone. Congress has not declared it.
SNORT.
Thats funny. Saying we aren't at war is like saying you aren't a lefty.
I guess it's no accident it's across the lake from Canada's natural wasteland - Toronto.
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.