Unconstitutional? Go figure!

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

There are certain privileges associated with it. But, in practicality, the courts can only make him stop. Maybe he can be held in contempt for refusing to stop it.

True.
To that, I would add: if the acts rise to the level of "high crime or misdemeanor", the president can be impeached by the House of Representatives and tried by the Senate.

Edit: Oops! Just realized Likearock said the same thing. OK, he gets the credit.

[Andy9o8 2]

From the same article:

Quote

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the Bush Administration disagrees with the ruling and has appealed.

"We also believe very strongly that the program is lawful," he said in Washington, adding that the program is "reviewed periodically" by lawyers to determine its effectiveness and ensure lawfulness.

"Reviewed", as in, reviewed by independent counsel? No, "reviewed", as in, "reviewed" by assistant AG's who are ordered to "find" the program "legal". In other words, "reviewed" by the foxes in the henhouse.

Fucker. I really find him to be an embarrassment.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

No, "reviewed", as in, "reviewed" by assistant AG's who are ordered to "find" the program "legal".

Cite, please?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SkyDekker 1,465]

who cares about some stupid activist judge and a constitution? If George W says it is right, than it damn well is right.

[Jib 0]

Without taking sides, there is a larger security question of how to be able to defend secretive programs without disclosing how they work and putting the terrorists on notice. Remember when Osama found out he was being tracked by Sat-phone? They just find another way.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Go goggle the judge. She is a Carter apointee that has stepped in it before and has again now.

Ask this
Why did this get filed in Eastern Mich?
Why this judge?...

The issue isn't the phone taps, phone taps can happen without a warrant. There's a process to come out -after the fact- and get approval of the judicial. This issue was the exec didn't even want to do that (for reasons of nat security).

This judge also through out the ACLU case against the word search program based on the same Exec argument (nat security). This agrees with the exec branch position. So she sees a degree of difference here in which ones are a bigger violation.

the only difference is the first steps on the toes of the power wielded by the judiciary.

Clearly this isn't even a bit about privacy, it's about the exec incroaching on the duties assigned to the judicial.

I agree, separation of powers is very important. But we also see that the judicial is just as jealous of their powers as the other two branches and this will mobilize them. (as it should and did in this case)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Without taking sides, there is a larger security question of how to be able to defend secretive programs without disclosing how they work and putting the terrorists on notice. Remember when Osama found out he was being tracked by Sat-phone? They just find another way.

Hopefully the responsible judges don't make these warrants public knowledge. The existing process should be fine, the exec shouldn't do an end around it.

The selection of the responsible judges should be ensured (security clearance review to the proper level). That's how to make sure it's not a leak source.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Go goggle the judge. She is a Carter apointee that has stepped in it before and has again now.

Ask this
Why did this get filed in Eastern Mich?
Why this judge?

The SC will have the final say on this juditial attempt to take power.......

In the past, I've accepted your seemingly blind support of the current administration as driven by personal ideology and philosophy.

This, however, is just plain nuts.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[mnealtx 0]

So we've got a Michigan District judge telling the Supreme court "No, you were wrong in Tenet vs. Doe"... ought to be interesting to see how it all shakes out...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[GTAVercetti 0]

Okay, I am too tired to read legal documents. Could you clarify further? Tenet vs Doe appears to be about due pay for espionage during the Cold war.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

No, "reviewed", as in, "reviewed" by assistant AG's who are ordered to "find" the program "legal".

Cite, please?

Sure:


http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:tzG3uK-lTAIJ:www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-07-18-eavesdropping-probe_x.htm+reviewed+wiretapping+attorneys+OR+lawyers+%22justice+department+%22+program&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&lr=lang_en

Quote

President Bush personally blocked a Justice Department ethics probe of the government's warrantless anti-terror eavesdropping program, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales disclosed to Congress on Tuesday.
Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Bush refused to grant security clearances to the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), which had sought last spring to determine whether department lawyers who reviewed the classified program had acted properly. The office acts as the department's watchdog for ethical behavior.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:5xbJVVv-xXYJ:www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/18/politics/main1813753.shtml%3FCMP%3DILC-SearchStories+reviewed+wiretapping+attorneys+OR+lawyers+%22justice+department+%22+program&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=14&lr=lang_en

Quote

President Bush personally blocked a Justice Department office from investigating the role of department lawyers in creating and overseeing the NSA's warrantless eavesdropping program, according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Or, see for yourself. Google: reviewed + wiretapping + (attorneys OR lawyers) + "justice department " + program


So...in other words, not only was the fox "reviewing" the henhouse, but the White House purposefully thwarted official examination into the fox "reviewing" the henhouse.
And the sheeple barely bleat in protest.

[mnealtx 0]

From Totten:

"The service stipulated by the contract was a secret service; the information sought was to be obtained clandestinely, and was to be communicated privately; the employment and the service were to be equally concealed. Both employer and agent must have understood that the lips of the other were to be for ever sealed respecting the relation of either to the matter. This condition of the engagement was implied from the nature of the employment, and is implied in all secret employments of the government in time of war, or upon matters affecting our foreign relations, where a disclosure of the service might compromise or embarrass our government in its public duties, or endanger the person or injure the character of the agent."

The Supreme Court upheld the Totten rule in Tenet. Judge Taylor apparently believes the SC is wrong in that ruling, since her decision is directly opposite the one in Tenet - whether honest opinion or activism, should make an interesting case, provided 6th Circuit doesn't throw it out (which they likely will).

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Ah, I see... so you're assuming that the dept lawyers were ordered to call it good... you have no proof.

Thanks!

BTW, there's a term for those OPR folks that wanted to go dig through the files... it's called "uncleared personnel". If I were to allow uncleared personnel access to classified material, the LEAST that I could look forward to would be loss of my clearance, and quite possibly jail time.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Go goggle the judge. She is a Carter apointee that has stepped in it before and has again now.

Ask this
Why did this get filed in Eastern Mich?
Why this judge?

The SC will have the final say on this juditial attempt to take power.......

In the past, I've accepted your seemingly blind support of the current administration as driven by personal ideology and philosophy.

This, however, is just plain nuts.

Hmm, blind support (a liberal eletist comment) and just plain nuts (a well thought out rebuttal)

No reply needed

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Ah, I see... so you're assuming that the dept lawyers were ordered to call it good... you have no proof.

Yeh right. And I also just fell off the turnip truck yesterday. What could I have been thinking?

Baaaahh!

Ahem - if the common citizen has "no proof", it's because the White House blocked the investigation that would have provided the proof. How convenient.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Hmm, blind support (a liberal eletist comment) and just plain nuts (a well thought out rebuttal)

No reply needed

Dude. You JUST replied.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Hmm, blind support (a liberal eletist comment) and just plain nuts (a well thought out rebuttal)

No reply needed

Dude. You JUST replied.

OK, inteligent reply

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Do you also introduce supposition as evidence in the courtroom, counselor?

Since you didn't respond to my remarks about clearances, I take it that you have no argument against that?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Aside from impeachment, there must be some criminal liability, too. Otherwise, Ford wouldn't have pardoned Nixon.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

just plain nuts

Occam's Razor--one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

Quote

No reply needed

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

no reply needed

I disagree, the "plain nuts" tactic is revered world wide as a boon to intelligent debate. Used as a logical and, I must say, surgical strike against inferential arguments can result in the complete and utter destruction of a logical case constructive on research and logic.

It's a fine, upstanding tactic. 2nd only to the "liar, liar, pants on fire defense" made popular in the what is the meaning of life debates of the early 1990's.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[livendive 8]

Quote

So we've got a Michigan District judge telling the Supreme court "No, you were wrong in Tenet vs. Doe"... ought to be interesting to see how it all shakes out...

You'll have to be a bit more specific if you want me to understand what you're saying. ACLU was not (to my knowledge) involved in any secret espionage contract with the NSA, therefore their standing to to bring suit is not barred by Totten.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kallend 2,040]

Quote

From the same article:

Quote

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the Bush Administration disagrees with the ruling and has appealed.

"We also believe very strongly that the program is lawful," he said in Washington, adding that the program is "reviewed periodically" by lawyers to determine its effectiveness and ensure lawfulness.

"Reviewed", as in, reviewed by independent counsel? No, "reviewed", as in, "reviewed" by assistant AG's who are ordered to "find" the program "legal". In other words, "reviewed" by the foxes in the henhouse.

Fucker. I really find him to be an embarrassment.

Calling them foxes is to rate them too highly. Weasels in the henhouse is a better analogy.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[hairyjuan 0]

i'm no left or right wing extremist, but it ought to be blatantly obvious by now, THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG




Fromwww.hermes-press.com you owe it to yourselves and everyone else in the world to read the attachment, please

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[kallend 2,040]

Quote

Go goggle the judge. She is a Carter apointee that has stepped in it before and has again now.

Ask this
Why did this get filed in Eastern Mich?
Why this judge?

The SC will have the final say on this juditial attempt to take power.......

Interesting take from Jon Turley, who was assistant to Ken Starr during the impeachment of Clinton (and therefore can be presumed not a Democrat stooge).

The White House went into immediate attack mode, claiming Taylor is an activist judge appointed by a Democratic president (Jimmy Carter) and vowing to appeal the ruling all the way to the Supreme Court.

A Republican National Committee press release declared: Liberal judge backs Dem agenda to weaken national security.

Turley says such tactics are typical for the Bush White House.

"That's what's really distasteful," Turley said Thursday night on MNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann show. "This is not the first judge to rule against the administration. But every time a judge rules against the administration, they're either too Democratic or they're too tall or too short, or they're Pisces. I mean, it, you can, all this spin, this effort to personalize it is really doing a great injustice to our system. If you look at this opinion, it's a very thoughtful opinion. The problem is not the judge. The problem is a lack of authority. You know, when Gonzales says I've got something back in my safe, and if you could see it, you'd all agree with me, well, unless there's a federal statute in his safe, then it's not going to make a difference."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.