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.
You mean Dearbornistan?
I agree with this - the standing seems very contrived.
But she has ones heck of a CV ( an elite boarding school and two Ivies!), which for when she went to these schools, should have precluded her from being a lefty Dem. It also leaves out ANY affirmative action. This means that she came from a well off, well educated family.
First of all, thank you for an informative and thoughtful post. I had actually not read that, and it does seem to back up the administration's position that the wiretaps are in fact legal.
Indeed. You can't even WRITE, let alone issue, a warrant to look for patterns in communications, a warrant for the purpose of eventually finding unexpected patterns that might appear out of the blue, like, oh just for a wild guess example, like "liquids" mentioned along with "airplanes."
| "A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self- preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means." --Thomas Jefferson to John Colvin, 1810 |
Jackson's statement was, "The Court has made its ruling, now let them enforce it."
You're confusing Jackson with Stalin's remark about religion/the Catholic Church: "How many divisions does the Pope have?"
Just another idiotic judge who believes she is God.
You need to tell her about ... Hotmail!
Oh yoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo hooooooooooooo, Fjord and mr. carthage, come read THOMAS JEFFERSON'S WORDS! You know who he was, dontcha? And HE contradicts both of your positions, completely! :-)
LOL
LOL is right, at least you 'got it'!
Imagine that! A liberal democrat appointed by Peanut Carter ruling the way the liberal democrats at the ACLU wanted her to.
What a shocking surprise.
The liberals at the ACLU shopped around for this judge and got the ruling they wanted. Now they're going to get the slapping down by the appeals court that they deserve.
Meanwhile, the Bush administration just carries on with the duty of keeping us safe from Islamofacists.
I know which party I am voting for in the next election.
The judge will not be held accountable the day terrorists strike.
HawaiianGecko, thanks for that clear and lucid exposition of the law and legal precedents underlying the Executive's power in the matter of warrantless surveillance. That was excellent. I have copied it for reference in discussions with others.
FreeKeys, The Jefferson quotation you provided is the perfect frosting for HawaiianGecko's cake.
I have learned much here tonight.
Good Lord, the irony is thick beyond belief!
Thanks for pointing out that misattribution. It sure sums up the uber-statist case, doesn't it -- and it makes my blood run cold.
Santayana had it dead to rights.
"Thank God at least one federal judge feels there must be some restraint on the executive's powers, especially seeing as we are not in a period of war."
from President Bush's speech after September 11, 2001...WE ARE IN A PERIOD OF WAR....
"This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime"
Simplistically and totally in layman's words....You can't wait for warrants on phone calls that you haven't even heard yet. What do you ask for a warrant for the possible next 100 or so calls that might come? If you wait for a warrant, the calls/conversations of terroristic information that are made will be long over with. How do you track terrorists then??
If this is not a signal for the some of the single issue Conservatives obsessed by the Immigration issue and others supporting Libs like Lieberman to quit it and move their support behind GOP candidates, then i dont know what else would take.
The issue is JUDGES, and it is pivotal that Republican majority Control the Senate and the House.
The judge is a Carter appointee.
I think the administration wins on appeal.
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.