Unconstitutional? Go figure!

[rushmc 23]

Nine spin article but has anything happened here you did not expect?

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

[kallend 2,040]

Quote

Nine spin article but has anything happened here you did not expect?

Why do you think a guy who was part of the prosecution team for the Clinton impeachment is "spinning" an anti-Bush line?

Maybe you're wrong.

...

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Nine spin article but has anything happened here you did not expect?

Why do you think a guy who was part of the prosecution team for the Clinton impeachment is "spinning" an anti-Bush line?

Maybe you're wrong.

Come on, are you serious?

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

[kallend 2,040]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Nine spin article but has anything happened here you did not expect?

Why do you think a guy who was part of the prosecution team for the Clinton impeachment is "spinning" an anti-Bush line?

Maybe you're wrong.

Come on, are you serious?

ROFL

...

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

[hairyjuan 0]

neitzche: everything the state says is a lie

Dictionary of Cultural literacy(3rd ed)-Police State, any nation who uses the police and military under
threat of force to compel a citizens behaviour.


Col Archibald E. Roberts (USA Ret) We are moving from a Constitutional Republic into a Worldwide Totalitarian Dictatorship

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[rushmc 23]

Well stated article IMO

Terrorism Over Kingship –
43 Pages of Near Rant
Marion Edwyn Harrison, Esq


August 23, 2006 - How extraneously absurd can one get? Do we really need some judge to pontificate in an opinion (even if technically mere dictum - meaning not part of the holding) that: “There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution.” Ignoring the incorrect capitalization and grammar, one reads this sentence at page 40 of 43 pages, which pages, especially in relation to the norm for judicial opinions, border on rant. The document is the Memorandum Opinion of Senior Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, meaning Detroit. (A “senior judge” is retired but continues full-time or part-time to sit.)

Judge Taylor, a civil-rights activist in Mississippi and elsewhere, married (and divorced) the late Detroit Congressman Charles C. Diggs, Jr., moved from Washington, D. C. to Detroit in 1960, in 1979 was appointed to the Federal Bench by President Jimmy Carter. She has rendered as many controversial opinions over 27 years as any Federal trial judge whose name comes to mind. Whether any other opinion has been so poorly reasoned and so replete with errors of grammar, syntax and inconsistency is beyond the reach of this short column - a surprising phenomenon in that Judge Taylor is well educated.

Never mind that the Taylor decision if sustained upon appeal would nullify the (arguably minimal) efforts of the National Security Agency (“NSA”) to learn of potential terrorist attacks upon America and Americans. For example, as recited in the Taylor Opinion, the decision is designed to protect the privacy of two attorneys’ international telephone and e-mail contacts “with individuals who have alleged connections with terrorist organizations . . .” and of a journalist’s “international communications with sources who [sic] are suspected of helping the insurgents in Iraq.” (Opinion, foonote 7, page 13). The Taylor and American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) mentality fully exalts the pre-emptive importance of privacy when Americans are, or well might be, furthering the cause of terrorism.

The United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit and ultimately probably the Supreme Court of the United States will adjudicate the law. Few, if any, objective scholars appear to take seriously the Taylor Opinion, even were the holding to be sustained upon other grounds. As THE WASHINGTON POST, never accused as some rightist rag, noted, if somewhat condescendingly, “. . . Legal scholars said Taylor’s decision is likely to receive heavy scrutiny [upon appeal] and some criticized her ruling as poorly reasoned.” THE WALL STREET JOURNAL editorial is more scathing.

There is legislation pending in Congress which would address the principal alleged defect in the international anti-terrorist surveillance activity - asserted to be its lack of adequate statutory judicial-review procedures.

If the gentle reader would like a few superficial comments upon the Taylor Opinion, perhaps to wonder if emotion and frenzy overcame English grammar and syntax and factual accuracy, a few follow. Because this column is not a law-review note or similar publication, let’s forego legal analysis - but watch the last two paragraphs.

The first sentence: “This is a challenge to the legality of a secret program . . .undisputedly inaugurated . . .” Undisputedly? Then why litigation? At page 5, “ . . . the District of Columbia Circuit Court . . .” Slight problem: No such court. There is the District of Columbia Superior Court and the Court of Appeals. The reference is meant to be the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, one of twelve geographic Federal circuits, sometimes cited in abbreviated language if first correctly cited. At page 6 again appears the incorrect language. Thereafter, references to Federal courts are inconsistent. On page 11 we learn that not merely the Army, Air Force and Marines have major generals but, gee whiz, also the National Security Agency - to wit, “NSA Major General Richard J. Quirk . . .” On page 2 we see reference to “this Administration” which by page 14 becomes the “Bush Administration . . .” Enough of this pedantry. Let’s jump to page 43, the last, only to find a quotation: “As Justice Warren wrote . . .” Slight problem: There never was a Justice Warren; there was Chief Justice Earl Warren. The Opinion does not downgrade Chief Justices Fred M. Vinson or William H. Rehnquist but a reader seeking consistency or accuracy had better skip the Taylor Opinion.

The Opinion also tells us several times that “the President is created by the Constitution . . .” Most people would have thought that parents create the baby who becomes President and that the Constitution created the Office of the President (Article II, § 1) or Presidency, not the President.

Never underestimate the learning ACLU litigation brings us - even biology.

Meantime, vastly more serious and more dangerous to national and individual security, don’t let it be a surprise that an Islamic organization is one of the plaintiffs in the case.

Perhaps it also would not be a surprise that Judge Taylor may have a conflict of interest. According to its website, she is Trustee and Secretary of the Community Foundation of Southeastern Michigan, which donated funds to the ACLU of Michigan, another plaintiff in the case.

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

[livendive 8]

Quote

Judge Taylor, a civil-rights activist in Mississippi and elsewhere, married (and divorced) the late Detroit Congressman Charles C. Diggs, Jr., moved from Washington, D. C. to Detroit in 1960, in 1979 was appointed to the Federal Bench by President Jimmy Carter. She has rendered as many controversial opinions over 27 years as any Federal trial judge whose name comes to mind. Whether any other opinion has been so poorly reasoned and so replete with errors of grammar, syntax and inconsistency is beyond the reach of this short column - a surprising phenomenon in that Judge Taylor is well educated.

All the article discusses is grammar and syntax, without discussing the reasoning and legal merits or weakpoints in the decision, (other than to say "they suck" in slightly less crass terms). If grammar and syntax are the most important parts of an opinion, perhaps the author could parse the first sentence quoted above.

Edit to add: Similarly, the author might want to try Google sometime. A query on "Maj. Gen. Richard J. Quirk III" reveals this list of Major General assignments, including

Quote

Maj. Gen. Richard J. Quirk III, assistant deputy chief of staff, G-2, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C., to deputy director, Signals Intelligence Directorate, National Security Agency, Washington, D.C.

Blues,
Dave

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

[hairyjuan 0]

anyone who wants a copy of this document, that this rant is all about can send me a physical address. The copies i offer are certified copies of record from Connecticut 1835, another one from 1854, with the original 13th amendment intact, and copies of the ratification documents from States of the Union, at that time.


IF YOU WANT TO WHINE ABOUT 'UNCOSTITUTIONAL', THE NSA ACT ITSELF IS WHERE TO START! A government that spies and lies to its people is EVIL. peace and love to all

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Edit to add: Similarly, the author might want to try Google sometime. A query on "Maj. Gen. Richard J. Quirk III" reveals this list of Major General assignments, including

Quote

Maj. Gen. Richard J. Quirk III, assistant deputy chief of staff, G-2, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C., to deputy director, Signals Intelligence Directorate, National Security Agency, Washington, D.C.

Blues,
Dave

Maybe not so crazy... the author is correct. (see emphasis above)

The General is in the Army, stationed TO NSA... he is NOT an "NSA Major General"...

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

[Zenister 0]

Refering to him by his Rank and assignment is common practice (particularly when being mentioned to someone outside his organization)


for example an Army General assigned to a Joint Task Force IS a JTF General even if his branch is US Army (or other country)

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Refering to him by his Rank and assignment is common practice..

for example an Army General assigned to the Joint Task Force IS a JTF General even if his branch is US Army.

Find me those rank charts for NSA and JTF, would you please?

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

[Zenister 0]

i'm sure i could dig up the command structure if you are really interested..but you are just being pedantic

if we are BOTH in the Army.. NOT assigned to the JTF saying "Army General" is meaningless with respect to his position and duties.. JTF General is more useful and accurate, as a JTF General has access to assets and resources a 'regular' Army General does not.

the same applies to any Organization.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[rushmc 23]

Looks like you are the expert.

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

[livendive 8]

Quote

Maybe not so crazy... the author is correct. (see emphasis above)

The General is in the Army, stationed TO NSA... he is NOT an "NSA Major General"...

Yes, and a Navy Captain named James Bevel, stationed to the USS California can be accurately called USS California Captain James Bevel.

Anyhow, there is a person with such a name, he is a Major General, and he is part of the NSA. "NSA Major General Richard Quirk" accounts for all three of those conditions (person, rank, organization). To nitpick that is pretty childish and a little dishonest. Could it have been clearer? Sure. But I understood what was meant, and I bet you did too.

Blues,
Dave

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