Posted on 08/17/2006 9:06:43 AM PDT by sinkspur
It should be done under the oversight of the courts, as FISA dictates.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the 6th Circuit already rule on this? I know there are four Federal Circuit Courts that have already affirmed the authority of the President to conduct warrantless searches for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence. Wasn't the 6th one of these four? I think the other three are the 4th, 9th, and 11th.
If this is the case, then this judge cannot overturn a higher ruling of her own court.
I don't think the 6th has ruled on the TSP. Jonathan Turley said on FOXNEWS that other judges will also rule this to be unconstitutional, and it will put the Bush White House into "crisis mode."
I think the more judges rule against surveilling terrorist phone calls, the more the GOP can use thes rulings as evidence that the GOP needs to be in place to ride herd on these quislings.
Be sure to finish your pitcher of kool aid.
ignore this ruling and ban the ACLU
Did you mind that Clinton's Eschelon program spied on Americans? Without benefit of a warrant and not during wartime.
Not in all cases - especially those relating to National Security. Otherwise it would be unconstitutional. The Attorney General took that position at the time.
I'm sure little Jimmy Carter is very proud of this nomination!
The ACLU shopped around until they found a judge to take the case. The first five courts turned them down. She's a
liberal democrap appointed by Carter. She'll be overturned.
I really don't think she understands that we are at war.
This is actually a BOON for us.
1) It has been stayed until heard on appeal, and it WILL be overturned. FISA has already ruled that what the NSA did was Constitutional.
2) It puts the WOT at the top of the news pages again, and again, the liberals look like terrorist sympathizers.
3) ACTIVIST JUDGES. Republicans can again use the foot-dragging of Dems in the Judiciary cmmtt in not getting judges appointed as an issue that brings out a lot of voters.
It makes a LOT of difference, who placed this judge on the bench where she now sits and just how incompetently. Even Dems are saying that her ruling is without substance.
Last time I looked, President Bush wasn't being sued by someone who had accused him of sexual assault, he never committed perjury in court, and so, your pathetic, benighted analogy is not only silly beyond words, but ill educated in the extreme.
Fine....we're not at war and haven't been at war once, since WW II; however, we HAVE engaged in war. Heck, call it PEA SOUP for all I care.
Pfui. Go over to DU. I do not have time for talking to ignoramuses who parrot the leftist line.
The president has absolutely ZERO authority to wiretap anybody without a warrant. He doesn't have it from the Consttution, and he doesn't have it through the AUMF.
"I don't care HOW long you've been here, It's obvious that you haven't learned anything, in all that time! Why don't you know that this exceeded the judges powers?"
I have learned that for some people the rule of law is arbitrary depending on party politics.
"It makes a LOT of difference, who placed this judge on the bench where she now sits and just how incompetently. Even Dems are saying that her ruling is without substance."
Her competence is not something I am going to argue one way or the other. I will say though, that the administration's warrantless wiretapping program is illegal. I don't care if the judge rides the short bus to her bench everyday, the ruling is correct.
"Last time I looked, President Bush wasn't being sued by someone who had accused him of sexual assault, he never committed perjury in court, and so, your pathetic, benighted analogy is not only silly beyond words, but ill educated in the extreme."
True. Bush's illegality is potentially much, much more severe.
"Fine....we're not at war and haven't been at war once, since WW II; however, we HAVE engaged in war. Heck, call it PEA SOUP for all I care."
Yes, we're fighting terrorism. I am in favor of that. I just want it conducted in a way that conforms to US law. If the Bush administration thinks the laws are not sufficient, then they should try and get Congress to change them, not toss the laws aside as though they are worthless.
The president is the commander in chief and is charged with immediate response to immediate needs.
The judge is without understanding and wisdom.
Dearborn, a sub of Detroit, has the highest population of arab-americans in the country and there are several cases pending in the court system where the sandmonkeys are being tried for ties to terrorist activities. The La Shish restaurant chain owner is currently under indictment but has successfully returned to Lebanon in order to "take care of family business" and its unlikely he will return ...."La Shish
Two Friday's ago I was downtown for a Tiger game and arrived not long after a pro Hizbolla, Pro lebanon, Pro Palestine, anti-Israel, anti_American rally was winding down in Grand Circus park in downtown Detroit........The hatred of Jews and America that remained with the people who were still there while the rally was ending was overwhelming and every American should take notice of what is going on in the Arab communities.............
Terrorists do pose a danger, no question. The serious matter at hand though is to what extent do we amend existing law to fight them. FISA dates back to the 1970's, so changes are in order (I think) to bring it current with technology. These matters are all things that should be debated and studied. The problem is, the Bush administration has taken it upon themselves to do whatever they want, with no authorization or oversight. That is unacceptable in a free society. I'm not even against monitoring calls between terrorists and nationals in the US... BUT, it is something that MUST BE CAREFULLY DONE WITH OVERSIGHT. It has to confine to the rule of law.
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.