Who's Side Are They On ??

[Guest BushBacker]

A federal DEMOCRATIC judge has ruled that wiretapping terrorist phone calls without court approval is illegal. What freakin side are these people on ??

If people die in another attack because we weren't able to track the bad guys, will the victims families be OK with it because their privacy rights weren't violated ??

[Guest Radagast]

A federal DEMOCRATIC judge has ruled that wiretapping terrorist phone calls without court approval is illegal.  What freakin side are these people on ?? 

  If people die in another attack because we weren't able to track the bad guys, will the victims families be OK with it because their privacy rights weren't violated ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First off, no judge has said we can't wiretap terrorist phone calls. She simply said that you can't do it without a warrent from a FISA court. Under those rules the Government has three full days to listen even before they file the papers with the court. The FISA court proceedings are held in secret and they have almost NEVER turned down a REASONABLE government request.

So, what's the problem? The problem is that BushCo seems to want to listen in on EVERYONE'S phone calls and read EVERYONE'S e-mail without approval from the courts or Congress. Why? If they don't know who they think the terrorists are to start with, listening to a million phone calls isn't going to help them.

Do you think we should just toss the Constitution into the garbage? Bin -Ladan is cheering you on. He would like America to turn into a dictartorship. Nothing would please him more.

The court has said that BushCo has violated the law.

He has done more than enough to warrent impeachment.

[Guest Guest]

A federal DEMOCRATIC judge has ruled that wiretapping terrorist phone calls without court approval is illegal.  What freakin side are these people on ?? 

  If people die in another attack because we weren't able to track the bad guys, will the victims families be OK with it because their privacy rights weren't violated ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That SIDE is the SIDE of the CONSTITUTION that establishes LEGAL ways of doing things.

NOBODY has said surveillance isn't necessary, the problem is that arrogant little cowboy who beliecves he's above the law and can do what ever he pleases. Then again, look at his predecessors who plotted break-ins and sold weapons to enemy states.

[Guest Guest]

.

He has done more than enough to warrent impeachment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He's also done so little it should warrant impeachment.

[Guest BushBacker]

That SIDE is the SIDE of the CONSTITUTION that establishes LEGAL ways of doing things.

NOBODY has said surveillance isn't necessary, the problem is that arrogant little cowboy who beliecves he's above the law and can do what ever he pleases.  Then again, look at his predecessors who plotted break-ins and sold weapons to enemy states.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, you're right. The victims families would be OK with it because it was done legally. They sure would be grateful the terrorists rights to privacy weren't violated.

[Guest Guest]

Yeah, you're right.  The victims families would be OK with it because it was done legally. They sure would be grateful the terrorists rights to privacy weren't violated.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

YOU are the typical neo-Nazi-con who claims to be such a flag waving patriot while you would trample all over the Constitution you'd claim we're fighting for you nitwit.

If it's TOO damn much trouble for the cowboy or anyone else to act within the law he should be arrested and prosecuted, otherwise WANKERS like you will build another Reich.

[Guest Loki]

First off, no judge has said we can't wiretap terrorist phone calls. She simply said that you can't do it without a warrent from a FISA court. Under those rules the Government has three full days to listen even before they file the papers with the court. The FISA court proceedings are held in secret and they have almost NEVER turned down a REASONABLE government request.

So, what's the problem? The problem is that BushCo seems to want to listen in on EVERYONE'S phone calls and read EVERYONE'S e-mail without approval from the courts or Congress. Why? If they don't know who they think the terrorists are to start with, listening to a million phone calls isn't going to help them.

Do you think we should just toss the Constitution into the garbage? Bin -Ladan is cheering you on. He would like America to turn into a dictartorship. Nothing would please him more.

The court has said that BushCo has violated the law.

He has done more than enough to warrent impeachment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As always, the logic here confuses me. Jamie Gorelick, of 9/11 Commission fame, while working for Slick Willie, said that case law allows for certain inherent presidential powers regarding international security. In the 90's, this was true. Now, those inherent powers have been discarded because . . . . well someone hates Bush. Get over it. He won. But, alas, I digress. I don't care if YOU listen in to my phone calls, simply put, I have nothing to hide.

Your champion of the judicial system should have recused herself. In the continuing efforts to create law from the bench, ( which is not a power given to the judiciary, but you already knew that, right???) trying yet again to overcome what the Democrats could not accomplish at the polls. And yet, all we ever here is about the Republicans abuse of powers, never the judicial branch.

I could be wrong, but I believe had Clinton never been impeached, there wouldn't be such bloodthirst to impeach Bush. What say you, hmmmm??? A promise to impeach Bush if returned to power in Congress, after forty years of majority rule and disgraceful failed policies, is exactly why the Defeatocrats lose in November, AGAIN!!!!

[Guest A proud american]

Yeah, you're right.  The victims families would be OK with it because it was done legally. They sure would be grateful the terrorists rights to privacy weren't violated.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you ever do any research before you do your postings. If you would take the time to read the Judges decision it's quite easy to understand. In her written decision she applied the legal principle that no one, even the President of the United States can violate the law simply because he believes he has the authority.

There has to be a statute or law in place that gives him the authority and she made her ruling based on the fact there is none. He is attempting to use the same principle that Nixon used to bomb Cambodia. While it certainly made sense to do it the Congress never gave him the authority. Had he not resigned he would have been impeached, in part because of the bombing. Shortly after the judge ruled against the Bush Administration the Government got a stay pending appeal. Whether the full court will agree with her or not is yet to be decided. However Congress and the Senate can fix it by granting him the authority he needs under a slightly different context. As far as the program he is currently using, do you believe that you are a terrorist and therefore the Government should be monitoring your phone conversations or is it ok since you have nothing to hide. There are mechanisms in place that allows them virtually unfettered access to the FISA Court. The single most impoortant one is whats known as "probable cause". And you can accomplish that without knowing the phone calls of every person in America. Once you give up your fourth amendment right to a government that uses terrorism to justify their actions than you deserve no rights. Imagine what you would do if the FBI broke down your door at 2 in the morning because someone from the NSA overheard you tallking on the phone and heard you saying something negative about the government. You would be the first one to scream the loudest about your rights but yet you see no problem giving up those same rights and allowing your calls to be monitored. And, in case you didn't know, they were already listening to terrorist phone calls up to and including 9/11 and we all saw how well they did.

[Guest Guest]

As always, the logic here confuses me.  Jamie Gorelick, of 9/11 Commission fame, while working for Slick Willie, said that case law allows for certain inherent presidential powers regarding international security.  In the 90's, this was true.  Now, those inherent powers have been discarded because . . . . well someone hates Bush.  Get over it.  He won.  But, alas, I digress.  I don't care if YOU listen in to my phone calls, simply put, I have nothing to hide.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Try to understand what you write, YOU wrote:"case law allows for certain inherent presidential powers regarding international security."

This does not preclude:

CERTAIN powers NOT being allowed.

CERTAIN powers requiring a warrant, Congressional approval, or other qualifying factors.

[Guest Guest]

Do you ever do any research before you do your postings. If you would take the time to read the Judges decision it's quite easy to understand. In her written decision she applied the legal principle that no one, even the President of the United States can violate the law simply because he believes he has the authority.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Witness the continuing adulation of Nixon and Reagan, it's obviouse that part of the neo-Nazi-con creed is that the President of the US should be able to violate the law with impunity.

[Guest Patriot]

Do you ever do any research before you do your postings. If you would take the time to read the Judges decision it's quite easy to understand. In her written decision she applied the legal principle that no one, even the President of the United States can violate the law simply because he believes he has the authority.

There has to be a statute or law in place that gives him the authority and she made her ruling based on the fact there is none. He is attempting to use the same principle that Nixon used to bomb Cambodia. While it certainly made sense to do it the Congress never gave him the authority. Had he not resigned he would have been impeached, in part because of the bombing. Shortly after the judge ruled against the Bush Administration the Government got a stay pending appeal. Whether the full court will agree with her or not is yet to be decided. However Congress and the Senate can fix it by granting him the authority he needs under  a slightly different context. As far as the program he is currently using, do you believe that you are a terrorist and therefore the Government should be monitoring your phone conversations or is it ok since you have nothing to hide. There are mechanisms in place that allows them virtually unfettered access to the FISA Court. The single most impoortant one is whats known as "probable cause". And you can accomplish that without knowing the phone calls of every person in America. Once you give up your fourth amendment right to a government that uses terrorism to justify their actions than you deserve no rights. Imagine what you would do if the FBI broke down your door at 2 in the morning because someone from the NSA overheard you tallking on the phone and heard you saying something negative about the government. You would be the first one to scream the loudest about your rights but yet you see no problem giving up those same rights and allowing your calls to be monitored. And, in case you didn't know, they were already listening to terrorist phone calls up to and including 9/11 and we all saw how well they did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That far-left, Bush-hating judge will be reversed on appeal. The government can listen to my phone calls all they want, I have nothing to hide. Apparently, one of the side effects of drinking Kool-aid is paranoia. "FBI breaking down my door at 2 am" ?? Really !!

[Guest Guest]

Your champion of the judicial system should have recused herself.  In the continuing efforts to create law from the bench, ( which is not a power given to the judiciary, but you already knew that, right???) trying yet again to overcome what the Democrats could not accomplish at the polls.  And yet, all we ever here is about the Republicans abuse of powers, never the judicial branch.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But you support continuing efforts to create law from the Oval Office?

[Guest Guest]

  I don't care if YOU listen in to my phone calls, simply put, I have nothing to hide.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

George Orwell, meet Loki.

[Guest Guest]

As always, the logic here confuses me.  Jamie Gorelick, of 9/11 Commission fame, while working for Slick Willie, said that case law allows for certain inherent presidential powers regarding international security.  In the 90's, this was true.  Now, those inherent powers have been discarded because . . . . well someone hates Bush.  Get over it.  He won.  But, alas, I digress.  I don't care if YOU listen in to my phone calls, simply put, I have nothing to hide.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

YOUR logic confuses me. The issue has nothing to do with listening to phone calls, it has everything to do with an arrogant tunnel-visioned president who thinks he's above the law.

When it becomes accepted practice to let the president act with no concern for the law simply on his own say so you will know for sure America is doomed.

[Guest Guest]

  I don't care if YOU listen in to my phone calls, simply put, I have nothing to hide.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's very sad. There are many things that are not illegal but are and should remain private unless there's a valid and LEGAL reason to invade that privacy.

What's next, will you encourage a government video monitor in your bedroom? After all, you SAY you have nothing to hide.

[Guest Guest]

I could be wrong, but I believe had Clinton never been impeached, there wouldn't be such bloodthirst to impeach Bush.  What say you, hmmmm???  A promise to impeach Bush if returned to power in Congress, after forty years of majority rule and disgraceful failed policies, is exactly why the Defeatocrats lose in November, AGAIN!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Clinton's impeachment is an anomaly, at firdt glance it appears to be bi-partisan politics at its worst as he was impeached by a Republican House, that he was acquited by a Republican Senate shows at least a few Republicans are capable of independent thought.

It does seem at least partly based on a puritanical Republican view of sexual matters. And if you would disagree please explain why we've seen a bigger flap from this administration over an exposed nipple than over dubious at best reasons for war?

[Guest Guest]

That far-left, Bush-hating judge will be reversed on appeal.  The government can listen to my phone calls all they want, I have nothing to hide. Apparently, one of the side effects of drinking Kool-aid is paranoia.  "FBI breaking down my door at 2 am" ??  Really !!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

YOU have nothing of any sense to say so it's not surprising you wouldn't object to having your calls monitored.

WHEN are you wankers going to understand the issue is an arrogant little cowboy who believes he's above the law and has nothing to do with anything else?

[Guest Guest]

A federal DEMOCRATIC judge has ruled that wiretapping terrorist phone calls without court approval is illegal.  What freakin side are these people on ?? 

  If people die in another attack because we weren't able to track the bad guys, will the victims families be OK with it because their privacy rights weren't violated ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm going to make a wild ass guess and say a Federal Judge is probably at least a little more qualified to rule on a matter of law than someone whose primary argument about many issues appears to be Kool-Aid and little else, least of all anything of substance or with a factual basis.

[Guest Patriot]

Clinton's impeachment is an anomaly, at firdt glance it appears to be bi-partisan politics at its worst as he was impeached by a Republican House, that he was acquited by a Republican Senate shows at least a few Republicans are capable of independent thought.

It does seem at least partly based on a puritanical Republican view of sexual matters.  And if you would disagree please explain why we've seen a bigger flap from this administration over an exposed nipple than over dubious at best reasons for war?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Clinton's impeachment an anomaly" ?? HA !! Getting oral sex from an intern in the White House and then lying to congress and the american people about it, an anomoly ?? Drink Up, the Kool-aid's on me .

[Guest Loki]

Try to understand what you write,  YOU wrote:"case law allows for certain inherent presidential powers regarding international security."

This does not preclude:

CERTAIN powers NOT being allowed.

CERTAIN powers requiring a warrant, Congressional approval, or other qualifying factors.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't write that, I was merely paraphrasing from Ms. Gorelick's written opinions. Look before ye leap.

[Guest Guest]

"Clinton's impeachment an anomaly" ??  HA !!  Getting oral sex from an intern in the White House and then lying to congress and the american people about it, an anomoly ??  Drink Up, the Kool-aid's on me .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The anomaly in modern politics is he was acquitted by a Republican senate you stupid WANKER. Go praise your president who sold weapons to the enemy you treason loving bastard. You want to talk about lying to congres let's include Teflon Ronnie and Tricky Dicky in that group you WANKER. Go stick your face in a bucket of Kool-Aid.

[Guest Guest]

I didn't write that, I was merely paraphrasing from Ms. Gorelick's written opinions.  Look before ye leap.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well. you certainly seem to agree with it as you implied the same should be applied to the cowboy.

[Guest BushBacker]

YOUR logic confuses me.  The issue has nothing to do with listening to phone calls, it has everything to do with an arrogant tunnel-visioned president who thinks he's above the law.

When it becomes accepted practice to let the president act with no concern for the law simply on his own say so you will know for sure America is doomed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, it has everything to do with listening to phone calls . More accurately, "scanning" phone calls, to pick up terrorist conversations. If it was Clinton doing this, somehow I don't think there would be any objection from the wacko left. "America is doomed" ?? Typical Defeatocrat remark. Drink Up Boys.

[Guest Guest]

  . . well someone hates Bush.  Get over it.  He won. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's right.

HE asked for the job and HE won

Therefore, as he continues to demonstrate his inability to handle the job HE gets the heat.

How many BJs a now private citizen got or any other BS are meaningless, get over it.

[Guest Guest]

"Clinton's impeachment an anomaly" ??  HA !!  Getting oral sex from an intern in the White House and then lying to congress and the american people about it, an anomoly ??  Drink Up, the Kool-aid's on me .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's an anomaly to Republicans because they avoid impeachment by resigning or developing a convenient amnesia when asked to explain their actions.