Thread: Vindication: Bush's Illegal Wiretapping is Shut Down

Originally Posted by Decker

DETROIT - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government’s warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14393611/

This is a good day. It's about time that dictatorial maniac was roped in. Before any choruses of "Activist Judge" start, read the opinion:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...A_Wiretaps.pdf

“By holding that even the president is not above the law, the court has done its duty,” said Ann Beeson, the ACLU’s associate legal director and the lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

A great day indeed!

ACLU = American Criminal Lovers Union


Anna Diggs Taylor is a Carter appointee. It's no surprise she landed on this decision. Conservative and Liberal watchdogs have been predicting this outcome for the last week or so.

No big deal though... her decision will most likely be overturned by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Originally Posted by Witmaster

ACLU = American Criminal Lovers Union


Anna Diggs Taylor is a Carter appointee. It's no surprise she landed on this decision. Conservative and Liberal watchdogs have been predicting this outcome for the last week or so.

No big deal though... her decision will most likely be overturned by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

hahahaha, criminal lovers. I like that.

So what if she's a Carter appointee. That's irrelevent. I can't wait for the appeal. I would love to see the reasoning used to overturn this decision. In fact I hope this goes to the supreme court. If you want to see bad law and judicial activist judges, look no further than that bunch who wrote the Bush v. Gore opinion. They pulled that one out of their asses.

Sadly, I don't think this means anything. If it were to go anywhere, it would end up in the supreme court and you know what they would do. I would mostly back the supreme court on most issues since I'm conservative, but like you, this wire tapping crap goes too far.

You know dg, Bush's identity as president is not important to me in striking this law down. It's no secret that I think he's a destructive president, but I wouldn't want FDR or Lincoln to have this power either. Our constitution demands checks and balances for proper function. Without them, the US devolves into a 2 bit dictatorship where fiat trumps law.

Originally Posted by Witmaster

ACLU = American Criminal Lovers Union

And Decker, I see you have time to post, but not to pick up the phone...

This is what makes America great, that a lower face on the totem pole can tell the head honcho "How dare you, sir!"

"I'm sorry, Mr. President, I don't dance." Jack Ryan

Wow. I am really relieved. Now I know for certain that Muhamad Hammas Bin Landen can call Afghanistan with impunity. That was really at the forefront of my mind.

Of course, I am sure this thrills a lot of partisan hacks, who cheer at anything that works out negatively for W.

Yet, something tells me that if another terrorist attack occurs which could have been prevented by this program, those same hacks will blame the conservatives. They'll get on the internet in droves and mock W's public speaking skills, as he addresses the nation in the face of a tragedy that liberal America aided.

I am sure warrantless phone taps are necessary to ensure national security.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

I am sure warrantless phone taps are necessary to ensure national security.

I agree to......supposively thats is what helped catch the UK ploters.

On a side note: Do you really think the CIA and NSA are just going to stop surveillence by way of phone tap?

How does the judge plan to enforce this? Do you really think the pres. is going to enforce it? I dont think anyone is standing over CIA/NSA operatives shoulders.

The ruling functionally futile.

Dale, I am sure you are an expert on national security. Knowing who is calling the middleast couldn't possibly aid in stopping an attack planned on American soil. You must be the head of the CIA.

Originally Posted by clemson357

Dale, I am sure you are an expert on national security. Knowing who is calling the middleast couldn't possibly aid in stopping an attack planned on American soil. You must be the head of the CIA.

I never said wiretaps weren't useful, just that a warrant doesn't seem to be too much to ask. I suppose problems with reading comprehension isn't too much of a surprise considering your vote is secured before even knowing who the candidate is.

Originally Posted by Decker

DETROIT - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government’s warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14393611/

This is a good day. It's about time that dictatorial maniac was roped in. Before any choruses of "Activist Judge" start, read the opinion:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...A_Wiretaps.pdf

“By holding that even the president is not above the law, the court has done its duty,” said Ann Beeson, the ACLU’s associate legal director and the lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

A great day indeed!

Originally Posted by clemson357

Wow. I am really relieved. Now I know for certain that Muhamad Hammas Bin Landen can call Afghanistan with impunity. That was really at the forefront of my mind.

Of course, I am sure this thrills a lot of partisan hacks, who cheer at anything that works out negatively for W.

Yet, something tells me that if another terrorist attack occurs which could have been prevented by this program, those same hacks will blame the conservatives. They'll get on the internet in droves and mock W's public speaking skills, as he addresses the nation in the face of a tragedy that liberal America aided.

Originally Posted by busyLivin

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

I never said wiretaps weren't useful, just that a warrant doesn't seem to be too much to ask.

You seem qualified to make that call. I am sure you know more about national security that the NSA and CIA. We'll all just take your word for it; and if you are wrong, what harm could it really cause?

Originally Posted by BigDyl

I've got bigger things to worry about like illegal video taping animal sanctuaries....

Originally Posted by clemson357

You seem qualified to make that call. I am sure you know more about national security that the NSA and CIA. We'll all just take your word for it; and if you are wrong, what harm could it really cause?

My qualifications are irrelevant, as are yours. For now, the only relevant opinion is the judge's, and his/hers is in line with mine.

Good. I don't see why a warrant is an issue. If the people that are being wiretapped are truly suspicious characters, then a warrant should be obtainable. The only reason I can see for spying on someone without a warrant is because you have no evidence to suggest they are doing something wrong.

Originally Posted by CowPimp

Good. I don't see why a warrant is an issue. If the people that are being wiretapped are truly suspicious characters, then a warrant should be obtainable. The only reason I can see for spying on someone without a warrant is because you have no evidence to suggest they are doing something wrong.

It shouldn't be an issue, but there shouldn't be any surprise that this administration has a problem with getting one.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

I never said wiretaps weren't useful, just that a warrant doesn't seem to be too much to ask. I suppose problems with reading comprehension isn't too much of a surprise considering your vote is secured before even knowing who the candidate is.

What we need is another J. Edgar Hoover.

Originally Posted by DOMS

What we need is another J. Edgar Hoover.

I got something for you to hoover...

Originally Posted by BigDyl

I got something for you to hoover...

Your carpet?

Do you not think they will get a blank search warrant signed by a judge to fill in as they see fit?? Happens all the time.
How things actually happen and are suppose to happen are two different horses. You got to see how the real world works and not the world on paper.

Originally Posted by dg806

Do you not think they will get a blank search warrant signed by a judge to fill in as they see fit?? Happens all the time.
How things actually happen and are suppose to happen are two different horses. You got to see how the real world works and not the world on paper.

So just because it can be circumvented, we might as well make it legal too? That doesn't make any sense. Any law can be worked around, and they are all the time. The law should still be there to enforce gross misconduct if need be.

Perhaps you weren't implying this, but that's what I gathered.

Originally Posted by clemson357

Wow. I am really relieved. Now I know for certain that Muhamad Hammas Bin Landen can call Afghanistan with impunity. That was really at the forefront of my mind.

Of course, I am sure this thrills a lot of partisan hacks, who cheer at anything that works out negatively for W.

Yet, something tells me that if another terrorist attack occurs which could have been prevented by this program, those same hacks will blame the conservatives. They'll get on the internet in droves and mock W's public speaking skills, as he addresses the nation in the face of a tragedy that liberal America aided.

You miss the point entirely.

This is about the integrity of the checks and balances in our constitutional government. The FISA law was enacted for the express purpose of making gov. spying somewhat accountable (to Congress via the Judiciary) after the watergate era. The law was designed specifically to guard against exactly what Bush is doing.

It's a matter of following the law. Everyone wants the US to spy on Al Qaeda. But do it legally. Otherwise we have a dictatorship. Yes/No?

It's damn shame you cannot see what a miserable presidency this man has wrought. Since the rule of law means nothing to you, there must be some stunning results from Bush's quasi-dictatorial rule to make you act as such.

Show me the laundry list of Bush's successes.

You can't. B/c the economy, the protection of our country from Al Qaeda, the protection of our citizens from domestic disasters, advocating torture//rendition//illegal invasions, constant subterfuge and lying--see medicare and SS., all show that Bush et al. has been a resounding failure.

His administration's failures are legion and his successes, marginal next to invisible.

Bush is seriously out of his depth. Those 'whiny hacks' to whom you refer simply call attention to what you know is true.

Originally Posted by Decker

It's damn shame you cannot see what a miserable presidency this man has wrought. Since the rule of law means nothing to you, there must be some stunning results from Bush's quasi-dictatorial rule to make you act as such.

Show me the laundry list of Bush's successes.

You can't. B/c the economy, the protection of our country from Al Qaeda, the protection of our citizens from domestic disasters, advocating torture//rendition//illegal invasions, constant subterfuge and lying--see medicare and SS., all show that Bush et al. has been a resounding failure.

His administration's failures are legion and his successes, marginal next to invisible.

Bush is seriously out of his depth. Those 'whiny hacks' to whom you refer simply call attention to what you know is true.

whiny hack