Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Oppose, oppose, oppose. do not congratulate. this is not business as usual.

Fuck these fucking interesting times.

These are not very smart people, and things got out of hand.

Never give a known liar the benefit of the doubt.

These days, even the boring Republicans are nuts.

Republicans choose power over democracy, every day.

Prediction: the gop will rethink its strategy of boycotting future committees.

Sometimes the world just tells you your cat is here.

Their boy Ron is an empty plastic cup that will never know pudding.

She burned that motherfucker down, and I am so here for it. Thank you, Caroline Kennedy.

Trump should be leading, not lying.

The party of Reagan has become the party of Putin.

Relentless negativity is not a sign that you are more realistic.

Democracy cannot function without a free press.

Since when do we limit our critiques to things we could do better ourselves?

Accountability, motherfuckers.

They want us to be overwhelmed and exhausted. Focus. Resist. Oppose.

Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

If you can’t control your emotions, someone else will.

You can’t attract Republican voters. You can only out organize them.

How stupid are these people?

Polls are now a reliable indicator of what corporate Republicans want us to think.

Bad people in a position to do bad things will do bad things because they are bad people. End of story.

They are not red states to be hated; they are voter suppression states to be fixed.

You are here: Home / Politics / Domestic Politics / Big News

Big News

by | 352 Comments

This post is in: 

Federal judge: warrantless wiretapping can go back to Russia.

DETROIT – A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government’s warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency’s program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

“Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution,” Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

Please refer any legal questions to slickdpdx (lame-ass inside joke, not worth explaining).

You know that Glenn Greenwald has something to say. Undoubtedly more to come.

Reader Interactions

352Comments

  3. 3.

    Andrew

    JONBENET JONBENET JONBENET JONBENET JONBENET JONBENET
    JONBENET JONBENET JONBENET JONBENET JONBENET JONBENET
    JONBENET JONBENET JONBENET JONBENET JONBENET JONBENET
    JONBENET JONBENET JONBENET JONBENET JONBENET JONBENET
    JONBENET JONBENET JONBENET JONBENET JONBENET JONBENET
    JONBENET JONBENET JONBENET JONBENET JONBENET JONBENET
    JONBENET JONBENET JONBENET JONBENET JONBENET JONBENET

    Every single cable news channell is covering a decade old murder instead of a case affecting our Constitutional rights.

    I’m with the Bush administration: Throw all of the journamalists in Gitmo.

  6. 6.

    Steve

    The Government appears to argue here that, pursuant to the penumbra of Constitutional language in Article II, and particularly because the President is designated Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, he has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, itself.

    We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all “inherent powers” must derive from that Constitution.

    We have seen in Hamdi that the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution is fully applicable to the Executive branch’s actions and therefore it can only follow that the First and Fourth Amendments must be applicable as well In the Youngstown case the same “inherent powers” argument was raised and the Court noted that the President had been created Commander in Chief of only the military, and not of all the people, even in time of war. Indeed, since Ex Parte Milligan, we have been taught that the “Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace. . . .” Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 120 (1866). Again, in Home Building & Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell, we were taught that no emergency can create power.

    Finally, although the Defendants have suggested the unconstitutionality of FISA, it appears to this court that that question is here irrelevant. Not only FISA, but the Constitution itself has been violated by the Executive’s TSP. As the court states in Falvey, even where statutes are not explicit, the requirements of the Fourth Amendment must still be met. And of course, the Zweibon opinion of Judge Skelly Wright plainly states that although many cases hold that the President’s power to obtain foreign intelligence information is vast, none suggest that he is immune from Constitutional requirements.

    The argument that inherent powers justify the program here in litigation must fail.

  8. 8.

    Ancient Purple

    Oh no! This decision just emboldened the terrorists and they are going to bring down Lawrence, Kansas because we can’t wiretap American citizens without a warrant.

    Here’s something to help MacBuckets and Darrell make it through the current crisis.

  9. 9.

    Ozymandias

    “Oh no! This decision just emboldened the terrorists and they are going to bring down Lawrence, Kansas because we can’t wiretap American citizens without a warrant.”

    I doubt they would bother with Lawrence. I hear it’s full of their natural allies, the dreaded liberals, already planning a coup and declare it Lawrencistan.

  10. 10.

    Ancient Purple

    We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all “inherent powers” must derive from that Constitution.

    There is only one thing to say regarding this judge: traitor!

  12. 12.

    Tsulagi

    Gee, you think the administration just might appeal? I’m a little confused. Who is it again who hates us for our freedoms?

  13. 13.

    The Other Steve

    I agree with Mac Buckets.

    The Constitution clearly says that the President is not beholden to the Judicial branch. The War gives him authority to do whatever is necessary to protect the country.

  14. 14.

    neil

    ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, Paragraph 4. The War gives the President authority to do, like, whatever.

  15. 15.

    srv

    The desperation amongst the wackos that pass for republicans today is only going to get worse. Bush will just ignore this ruling, Congress will be AWOL as usual. Perhaps the SC can fast track this.

    We need an Article II showdown something bad.

  16. 16.

    Darrell

    But I thought you liberals wanted to be “tough on terrorists”? Yet you all are jumping for joy over this absurd ACLU ruling and injunction made by a Carter-appointed liberal.. another reason why liberals can never be trusted with national security.

    I hope you lefties will scream your approval of this noble ruling, blocking warrantless monitoring of overseas terrorists.. a stake in the heart of the Bush-fellators I tell you!

  17. 17.

    neil

    Darrell, perhaps you could move to Cuba. The powers that be there don’t have to follow any FISA restrictions, no pesky Fourth Amendment, and you definitely won’t get anybody arguing against you when you talk about how great the leader is. And they haven’t had a terrorist attack in years. Coincidence? I think not!

  18. 18.

    SeesThroughIt

    Oh no! This decision just emboldened the terrorists and they are going to bring down Lawrence, Kansas because we can’t wiretap American citizens without a warrant.

    At least Mr. Purple here understands just how lethal this decision is.

    I was going to make a joke about how this judge is a Carter-appointed screwball (which automatically makes him an embodiment of evil) who hates America and wants the terrorists to win, but Darrell beat me to it. And he wasn’t joking.

  19. 19.

    Darrell

    We need an Article II showdown something bad.

    Bring it on whackjobs, screaming your heads off how Bush is “shredding” the constitution, wearing your V for Vendetta masks.

    Everyone can see that you noble leftists have only the best and most patriotic intentions, kind of like Abraham Lincoln.. except that you leftists are even more noble and more patriotic than him.

  20. 20.

    Tom in Texas

    Darrell;
    As usual, you are dead on correct. Liberals should never be trusted with our nation’s security. Personally, I think we should vet all liberal Democrats (and liberal Republicans — let no one accuse me of being partisan) from any military role immediately, since they all hate our country and are probably actively working to assist AQ in Iraq as we speak.

  22. 22.

    Andrew

    Not only is she a Carter appointee, she is Black. Want to bet she was admitted to Yale on a Minority set a side? Maybe she’s related to Conners, the other Black nut from Mo Town.

    Also, she is in the Eastern part of Michigan, home of Dearbornistan.

    But don’t question her patriotism.

    As said by Abraham Lincoln: The court has made thier decision. Now let’s see them enforce it.

  23. 23.

    Darrell

    Personally, I think we should vet all liberal Democrats (and liberal Republicans—let no one accuse me of being partisan) from any military role immediately, since they all hate our country and are probably actively working to assist AQ in Iraq as we speak.

    Tom, I think that is such a profound, well founded opinion you hold. Keep up the good work.

  24. 24.

    Tom in Texas

    As said by Abraham Lincoln: The court has made thier decision. Now let’s see them enforce it.

    I’m pretty sure that was Andrew Jackson concerning the Indian wars.

  25. 25.

    Dungheap

    I think its hilarious that the Bush Administration resorted to a “penumbra” argument. I thought they hated penumbrae.

  26. 26.

    Jesse

    [quote]
    Not only is she a Carter appointee, she is Black. Want to bet she was admitted to Yale on a Minority set a side? Maybe she’s related to Conners, the other Black nut from Mo Town.

    Also, she is in the Eastern part of Michigan, home of Dearbornistan.

    But don’t question her patriotism.[/quote]

    Hmmm….racism!

  27. 27.

    Steve

    I hope you lefties will scream your approval of this noble ruling, blocking warrantless monitoring of overseas terrorists.. a stake in the heart of the Bush-fellators I tell you!

    I assume it’s clear to everyone but Darrell that the government can monitor overseas terrorists all it likes. It just can’t eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant.

  28. 28.

    Punchy

    DETROIT – A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government’s warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

    Uh…wiretaps without warrants is against the 4th Amendment. FISA is required for wiretapping during war, etc. So this has been illegal since the beginning, yet Bush and Company continue to do it.

    No judge anywhere is going to end it. After all, she cannot go down to the NSA building and start unplugging wires. God knows Bush won’t order the NSA to…

  29. 29.

    Punchy

    “Oh no! This decision just emboldened the terrorists and they are going to bring down Lawrence, Kansas because we can’t wiretap American citizens without a warrant.”

    I doubt they would bother with Lawrence. I hear it’s full of their natural allies, the dreaded liberals, already planning a coup and declare it Lawrencistan.

    Why’s everyone picking on my damn town?? Trust me, the cracker to Brown Guy ratio here is too high for a bunch of would-be Gatorade and Pepsodent Mixers to blend in without being noticed…

    And it’s not “Lawrencistan”, it’s “The United State of Larry”

  30. 30.

    Darrell

    I assume it’s clear to everyone but Darrell that the government can monitor overseas terrorists all it likes.

    Thanks to you leftists, the government has to run out and get a warrant each time that those overseas terrorists in Saudi Arabia get phone calls from Miami or Phoenix. That’s what this is all about, not “warrentless wiretapping” of Americans. Very clear indeed.

  31. 31.

    Darrell

    Not only is she a Carter appointee, she is Black

    Thanks for that Jesse, it’s great to see how “color blind” you noble liberals are.

  32. 32.

    Andrew

    Okay, geez, I can’t hold back any longer. My post was just three of the first comments at Ace of Spades concatenated together without any editing, and they managed to get in: (1) racism, (2) anti-Muslim bigotry, and (3) yes, a historically incorrect call for sedition.

    Sorry to violate Drum’s Law, but it’s just so much fun.

  33. 33.

    Lee

    Thanks to you leftists, the government has to run out and get a warrant each time that those overseas terrorists in Saudi Arabia get phone calls from Miami or Phoenix.

    This has to be a spoof. Nobody is really that stupid on the internets tubes are they?

  34. 34.

    Steve

    Thanks to you leftists, the government has to run out and get a warrant each time that those overseas terrorists in Saudi Arabia get phone calls from Miami or Phoenix. That’s what this is all about, not “warrentless wiretapping” of Americans. Very clear indeed.

    That’s not true… there is no requirement under the Fourth Amendment or FISA to get a separate warrant for each phone call.

    Thanks for amply illustrating the conservative strategy on this issue, however, which is to lie about what the decision says and then demonize liberals for supporting it. “Liberals oppose surveillance of terrorists!” But lies are ok… if they help get Republicans elected.

  35. 35.

    cd6

    Another day, another activist judge decision that rules “defending Americans against terrorists” is unconstitutional.

    Clearly, this judge and everyone in Michigan or related to Jimmy Carter in any way won’t be happy until they see our streets run red with the blood of innocent schoolchildren.

    I’m going to go pray to George W Bush every day until this ruling is successfully appealed and overturned. Save us, Bush and baby Jesus! (But not the liberals)

  36. 36.

    SeesThroughIt

    It’s sort of pathetic how well the “liberals think we should be forced to hang up if an Al Qaeda operative within the US talks to an Al Qaeda operative outside the US!” meme has sunk in, as opposed to the actually factual “if the government wants to listen in on the conversation of an American citizen–and if one party of the conversation is an American citizen, then that means you are listening to an American citizen regardless of who the other party in the conversation is–then it should get a FISA warrant. You know, that warrant you can get up to 36 hours after the fact and pretty much never gets rejected? That easy-to-acquire warrant? Yeah, that one.”

    Not surprising, mind you. Just pathetic.

  37. 37.

    Darrell

    That’s not true… there is no requirement under the Fourth Amendment or FISA to get a separate warrant for each phone call.

    Sure there is, if the terrorist receives calls from different individuals at different times.

  38. 38.

    Steve

    Here’s a great comment from Ace of Spades:

    I think all of us should send this judge thank you cards. She may have just handed the GOP a 2006 sweep in both houses. She should be the Willie Horton of 2006.

    The Willie Horton ad… it’s like a glorious shining moment for conservatives to celebrate. It’s not just Darrell, friends. They’re all longing for another beautiful Willie Horton moment.

  39. 39.

    p.lukasiak

    Thanks to you leftists, the government has to run out and get a warrant each time that those overseas terrorists in Saudi Arabia get phone calls from Miami or Phoenix. That’s what this is all about, not “warrentless wiretapping” of Americans. Very clear indeed.

    …and you have a problem with this because….?

  41. 41.

    Darrell

    Eugene Volokh splashes some cold water on you libs screaming how criminal Bush is “obviously” shredding the constitution with his disregard of FISA:

    All publicly known eavesdropping — or for that matter the prospect of possible searches of tangible papers — poses the risk that some communications will be deterred. Eavesdropping conducted pursuant to properly issued warrants (ones that can be based on mere probable cause, rather than any solid proof that the eavesdropping will yield incriminating evidence) poses that risk. Eavesdropping conducted purusant to properly issued FISA orders, which don’t even require probable cause that the speech collected will be incriminating (only probable cause that the targeted person is an agent of a foreign power), poses that risk. Constitutionally permissible border searches of papers pose that risk.

    Lots of security measures now which run counter to the 4th amendment. You libs will obsess over this ruling like the whackjobs that you are.. then a higher court will slap it down like Shaq swatting away jump shots.. and then you’ll whine about Herr Bush, while watching nonstop reruns of V for Vendetta.

  42. 42.

    neil

    But are there any _other_ black judges on the United States District Court for Eastern Michigan?

  43. 43.

    Slide

    methinks we are heading for a Constitutional showdown. The Bushies think they have a winner on this issue that the American public is with them so I fear that they will welcome the fight… quite a distraction from Iraq. If the President’s advisors tell him that they belive the Constitution gives him the authority to do what he is doing why would he listen to some silly ole’ judge?

  44. 44.

    neil

    Darrell, I have a challenge for you. Go a whole day.. or just a whole thread.. without any categorical statements about “you libs.” Can you do that?

  45. 45.

    Perry Como

    If the President’s advisors tell him that they belive the Constitution gives him the authority to do what he is doing why would he listen to some silly ole’ judge?

    Read Yoo’s book. It’s a sobering and scary piece of work.

  47. 47.

    The Other Steve

    Eugene Volokh splashes some cold water on you libs screaming how criminal Bush is “obviously” shredding the constitution with his disregard of FISA:

    I think the words were too big for you to understand, because he doesn’t say what you think he said.

  48. 48.

    Darrell

    I humbly submit that race baiting can cross political lines.

    I agree. But in this case, that ad seems very non Democrat-like. Dems are race baiters, but not in that ad from what the story shows. A porous border is in fact a security threat on many levels. It was entirely fair for that Democrat (and Republicans too) to point that out. Nothing racist about it. This is about the most nontypical Dem political ad that I can remember.

    What’s more, any ad that pisses off that crook Carol Alvado, is probably a good ad.

  49. 49.

    Slide

    Read Yoo’s book. It’s a sobering and scary piece of work

    yeah… if you look hard enough you can always find legal advice to advise you to do what you want to do. Yoo… was their man. What is he about 14 years old?

  50. 50.

    Steve

    You libs will obsess over this ruling like the whackjobs that you are.. then a higher court will slap it down like Shaq swatting away jump shots.. and then you’ll whine about Herr Bush, while watching nonstop reruns of V for Vendetta.

    Lest my position be unclear, please, please take the NSA program all the way to the Supreme Court. I beg of you.

    It’s amusing how Darrell refuses to notice how the Administration has opposed judicial review of the NSA program at every turn. His confidence that Bush must be right is clearly nothing but false bravado – as you can see from his statements on this thread, among others, he doesn’t have the first clue about the law. He just likes to cut and paste arguments that reach the result he likes.

  52. 52.

    Slide

    think the words were too big for you to understand, because he doesn’t say what you think he said.

    you took the words right out of my mouth, Darrell is so stupid he doesn’t even understand what he posts.

  54. 54.

    mrmobi

    No judge anywhere is going to end it.

    Exactly, Punchy.

    Allow me to be Mr. Subliminal for a moment. For this ruling to have any meaning, someone in the legislative branch is going to have to do the job they were elected to do. {fat chance} Alternatively, we could see this go to the supreme court. {anybodys guess with the new guys}

    AWOL isn’t going to do what the court says, {activist terrist judges} he’s got “god-given” authority {jesus, jesus, jesus} to deal with the terrorists {oh GOD, pleeease don’t hurt me, pleeaaasse!}
    Darrell (Mamzer Corky), I know you linked to some demonstration where there were people wearing “vendetta” masks. Did they scare you? Did you wet yourself? I know how scary these demonstration terrorists can be, you poor coward.

    I just want to reassure you that this ruling simply seeks to put a stop to this country rolling down the road to a police state, a state I guess, from your posts, you would be happy in. But some of us think the Constitution is a good thing, and don’t think that a President is a King, not any President.
    We’ve gotten this far without having to throw it away, but now, apparently, this enemy is SO bad that we just don’t have any choice but to become the very thing we are fighting against. I know it’s probably hard for you to comprehend, after the operation, which removed so much of your brain tissue. But keep trying, you unrelenting moron.

  55. 55.

    Darrell

    I think the words were too big for you to understand, because he doesn’t say what you think he said.

    TOS, let me break it down for you – the judge made the case that the NSA program violated the 4th amendment. Volokh listed a whole host of other security programs and procedures that ALSO similarly violate the 4th amendment. Just pointing out that the ruling is not so “obviously” justified on that 4th amendment basis, as virtually every liberal posting here has been asserting.

  56. 56.

    The Other Steve

    Speaking of Willie Horton moments Steve;

    What’s your opinion of this ad?

    I humbly submit that race baiting can cross political lines.

    I thought it was dumb, and shows a typical Washington thinking of the issues.

  57. 57.

    Pooh

    This has to be a spoof. Nobody is really that stupid on the internets tubes are they?

    You haven’t seen the half of it. Darrell is sui generis.

  59. 59.

    The Other Steve

    TOS, let me break it down for you – the judge made the case that the NSA program violated the 4th amendment. Volokh listed a whole host of other security programs and procedures that ALSO similarly violate the 4th amendment. Just pointing out that the ruling is not so “obviously” justified on that 4th amendment basis, as virtually every liberal posting here has been asserting.

    You didn’t catch the part about the 1st amendment, did you?

    The Judge stated the wire tapping violated the 4th amendment and as such also violated the 1st as it chilled speech. Volkoh is claiming that reason, linking the 4th back to the 1st, is unprecedented. He then backpedals and says he offers no opinion on the correctness, just noted it was interesting.

    At least that was my reading, based on my unlawyerly understanding of lawyer language.

    It appears that you read it from the perspective of a 1st grader, however.

  60. 60.

    cd6

    I don’t know why you all are focusing on race-baiting when we’ve got Judge Suzie al-Zawahiri basically begging the terrorists to destroy our buildings and explode all our airplanes.

    What’s this judge going to do next? Order the immediate disarmament of our military?

  61. 61.

    Darrell

    His confidence that Bush must be right is clearly nothing but false bravado

    My confidence on this stems from common sense, not “false bravado”. If it’s the President has indisputable authority to monitor overseas terrorists without warrants, then it stands to reason (using common sense) that this authority does not suddenly disappear, just because an overseas terrorist receives a phone call from Philadelphia or Atlanta. That is the crux of the issue, not whether Herr Bush will turn Amerikka into a police state, as so many of you leftists have been suggesting.

  63. 63.

    Pb

    Everyone can see that you noble leftists have only the best and most patriotic intentions, kind of like Abraham Lincoln

    Did someone say Abraham Lincoln?

    “Judicial decisions have two uses—first, to absolutely determine the case decided, and secondly, to indicate to the public how other similar cases will be decided when they arise. For the latter use, they are called “precedents” and “authorities.”

    We believe, as much as Judge Douglas, (perhaps more) in obedience to, and respect for the judicial department of government. We think its decisions on Constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control, not only the particular cases decided, but the general policy of the country, subject to be disturbed only by amendments of the Constitution as provided in that instrument itself. More than this would be revolution. But we think the Dred Scott decision is erroneous. We know the court that made it, has often over-ruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it to over-rule this. We offer no resistance to it.” — Abraham Lincoln

    You bet your ass I’m with Lincoln on this one. Rule of law, baby–learn it, live it, love it!

  64. 64.

    Darrell

    You didn’t catch the part about the 1st amendment, did you?

    I did catch it.. but that is another issue. My point is/was, that quite a number of other security programs and procedures ALSO run counter to the 4th amendment at Volokh’s examples illustrate. I’m sorry it’s so difficult for you to grasp that.

  65. 65.

    Slide

    The Darrell:

    Just pointing out that the ruling is not so “obviously” justified on that 4th amendment basis, as virtually every liberal posting here has been asserting

    .The Judge ruled that it violated the 1st and 4th Amendments. And in THIS country Darrell, the a Judge gets the final say in such matters, not some blogger. Oh, and btw Eugene Volokh believes the warrantless wiretapping IS illegal albeit for different reasons.

  66. 66.

    Steve

    An appeal from this decision goes to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals – one of the crazier and more dysfunctional appellate courts in the country. Plenty of ideologues from both sides, and of course, some non-ideologues as well. Maybe there will be some procedural angle to expedite it right up to the Supremes; we should all be so lucky.

    There are certainly some problems with the decision, which is thorough in some spots, cursory in others. I left this comment at Greenwald’s:

    To tell you the truth, I’m not impressed by the court’s Fourth Amendment argument, which seems surprisingly cursory. The court states:

    Accordingly, the Fourth Amendment, about which much has been written, in its few words requires reasonableness in all searches.

    No argument there, of course.

    It also requires prior warrants for any reasonable search, based upon prior-existing probable cause, as well as particularity as to persons, places, and things, and the interposition of a neutral magistrate between Executive branch enforcement officers and citizens.

    But of course, there are exceptions to the warrant requirement, including the “special needs” exception when the government is conducting a search for some reason other than collecting evidence in criminal cases.

    Now, I might not agree that the NSA program fits within an exception, but it seems odd for the court to not even address the issue. Instead, the court flatly states that a warrant is always required by the Fourth Amendment, which just isn’t so.

    And the court declined to resolve the FISA issue, holding that since the search violates the Fourth Amendment, it’s unnecessary to address the government’s argument that FISA unconstitutionally restricts the President’s inherent power. So if the Fourth Amendment argument doesn’t hold up, because the court failed to address whether an exception to the warrant requirement applies, then there’s no alternative holding to fall back on.

    Greenwald makes much the same point in an update, as does Prof. Volokh. The court really doesn’t get to the nub of the issue.

    I was impressed by the court’s reasoning, however, regarding a couple of threshold points: the state secrets doctrine and the issue of standing. I think the court was pretty solid on both of those, which otherwise would present major, major hurdles to any plaintiff seeking to challenge the NSA program.

    What continues to puzzle me, and has since day one, is that IF the NSA program is nothing more than the “limited” program described by the administration, why on earth they continue to fight this quixotic battle in Congress and the courts, when they could simply go back to the straightforward process of obtaining FISA warrants and have no legal problems whatsoever.

    The fact that simply getting a warrant isn’t even an option for the administration strongly suggests to me that the program is doing more than simply “monitoring overseas terrorists.”

  67. 67.

    Tsulagi

    For Bushtard, it really doesn’t matter what federal courts rule including the Supremes. If there’s a ruling he’s told he doesn’t like, Gonzales will simply write a finding saying he doesn’t have to listen to them. Harriet Meirs will draw the appropriate smiley faces on the finding to take the edge off. It’s worked with the balls-free Republican controlled Congress

  68. 68.

    neil

    And the other thing is, when Lincoln trampled on the Constitution, they didn’t try to call it anything but what it was! No attempts to retroactively legalize it or anything, or claim that he always had the authority.

  70. 70.

    Slide

    Constitutionally permissible border searches of papers pose that risk.

    do you see the wiretapping my phone call to my brother in the UK, without a warrant, as being the same as searching someone crossing over the border into our country?

  71. 71.

    Krista

    If it’s the President has indisputable authority to monitor overseas terrorists without warrants, then it stands to reason (using common sense) that this authority does not suddenly disappear, just because an overseas terrorist receives a phone call from Philadelphia or Atlanta.

    But it also stands to reason (using common sense), that being able to obtain a warrant up to 36 hours AFTER the fact, really doesn’t place that much of an undue burden on the President. He can monitor whoever he likes. But the onus is on him to either follow the law, by obtaining that warrant (even if it’s after the fact), or try to get the law changed. Why are either of those options so burdensome?

  72. 72.

    neil

    Yeah Darrell, but the worst part was how he changed the Constitution so that all future presidents would also have the authority to do those things.

  74. 74.

    Punchy

    The fact that simply getting a warrant isn’t even an option for the administration strongly suggests to me that the program is doing more than simply “monitoring overseas terrorists.”

    Steve, I hope to God you didn’t just realize this yesterday or today….

  75. 75.

    Dungheap

    Darrell — When Volokh uses the terms “constitutionally permissible border searches” and “eavesdropping conducted pursuant to properly issued warrants” he’s not talking about conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment. He’s talking about conduct that is constitutionally permissilble under the 4th Amendment but that, like the TSP, has a chilling effect on free speech but is nevertheless constitutional.

    He’s commenting on the soundness of the 1st Amendment basis for the decision in that post, not the 4th Amendment reasoning.

    I hope this helps.

  76. 76.

    Pooh

    TOS, let me break it down for you – the judge made the case that the NSA program violated the 4th amendment. Volokh listed a whole host of other security programs and procedures that ALSO similarly violate the 4th amendment. Just pointing out that the ruling is not so “obviously” justified on that 4th amendment basis, as virtually every liberal posting here has been asserting.

    Darrell, the passage you quoted, unsurprisingly, doesn’t say even close to what you think it said. The security operations mentioned raise 4th amendment concerns, which is not the same thing as saying “they violate the 4th amendment“. Some quick CONLAW 101 for Senator Corky

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…

    That’s the operative clause of the 4th. Note the highlighted term. Unreasonable, as has been defined by generations of precedent, is a term of art, and implicates a balancing test. In the case of say, a border search, the outcome finds that due to the right of the state to secure it’s borders, and the lesser expectation of privacy in crossing those borders, an unwarranted search is not per se unreasonable. In contrast tapping your phone line on certain calls (a key distinction you either don’t recognize or willfully ignore in bleating about “monitoring foreign terrorists”. As Steve and I have explained the distinction several times, I’m disinclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. But because you are ignorant of the law that you can’t find on Powerline in general, I’ll assume incompetence rather than malice on your part) because some investigator thinks it’s a good idea, without more, is unreasonable.

    And the 4th Amendment argument aside, what say you about the FISA-based statutory ruling? Even if Volokh is saying what you think he is (and he isn’t) you still lose.

  77. 77.

    Darrell

    But it also stands to reason (using common sense), that being able to obtain a warrant up to 36 hours AFTER the fact, really doesn’t place that much of an undue burden on the President.

    Whether or not it places an “undue” burden isn’t really the point. Why should his authority to conduct warrantless surveillance on overseas terrorists suddenly change just because the terrorist gets a phone call from Miami? This is an entirely reasonable point.

    Furthermore, it’s almost 100% certain that Bush pushed this NSA program precisely because the FISA law, if applied, would in fact place an undue burden, given the massive amounts of data from spy sweeps and other high-tech surveillance methods which would likely overwhelm an army of FISA judges. It’s not just phone calls Krista. I use the phonecall example only to more clearly illustrate the point.

  78. 78.

    Steve

    do you see the wiretapping my phone call to my brother in the UK, without a warrant, as being the same as searching someone crossing over the border into our country?

    Orin Kerr seems to think it’s a non-frivolous argument. I don’t know that I agree, but he’s a smart guy.

    Prof. Kerr cites United States v. Ramsey, a case that says customs officials can inspect international mail without a warrant. However, I think he’s dropped the ball. Customs officials can open mail and packages in order to find contraband; but they CANNOT read your letters without a search warrant.

    The border search exception to the warrant requirement is part and parcel of the government’s sovereign right to control “who and what enters the country,” but that logic doesn’t extend to written correspondence or oral communications, since a phone call can’t be contraband. I don’t think this “border search” argument is likely to prevail in the courts, although again, the failure of today’s decision to even address issues like this is rather frustrating.

  79. 79.

    Slide

    Greenwald makes much the same point in an update, as does Prof. Volokh. The court really doesn’t get to the nub of the issue

    . I dont’ know where you got the idea that Greenwald believes that the 4th Amendment doen’t apply here. This clearly shows that he believes that is does apply. Here is the last paragraph in a long article:

    Thus, as Hewitt’s “defense” demonstrates, the Bush’s Administration’s warrantless surveillance of American citizens not only violates Congressionally acted legislation which bars such surveillance, but also is barred by long-standing constitutional doctrine holding that the core guarantee of the Fourth Amendment protects Americans from exactly such intrusions.

  80. 80.

    Darrell

    In contrast tapping your phone line on certain calls (a key distinction you either don’t recognize or willfully ignore in bleating about “monitoring foreign terrorists”.

    Pooh, I think that’s such a wonderful point. Now that you’re lawyering up, can you please direct us to any evidence whatsoever that it’s the US citizen’s/person’s phone which is being tapped, rather than the overseas terrorist phone? Because I’d really like to see you substantiate that allegation

  81. 81.

    Pb

    Darrell,

    Presumably you’re too ignorant to know

    You’re projecting again.

    Why should his authority to conduct warrantless surveillance on overseas terrorists suddenly change just because the terrorist gets a phone call from Miami?

    Presumably you’re too ignorant to know about the Fourth Amendment.

  82. 82.

    Steve

    Steve, I hope to God you didn’t just realize this yesterday or today….

    No, I’ve been making this point since day one, as you could see (if you were bored enough) by searching my past posts on this subject. It strains credulity to suggest that the administration has gone through all this headache just because it’s too hard to obtain warrants for their “limited program.”

    But the point of today’s decision is that, even if you believe everything the administration has said about how it’s just a limited program, they still need to get warrants.

  83. 83.

    Darrell

    Presumably you’re too ignorant to know about the Fourth Amendment.

    Even Steve isn’t buying that one. But nice try Pb.

  84. 84.

    Steve

    I dont’ know where you got the idea that Greenwald believes that the 4th Amendment doen’t apply here.

    Perhaps I was unclear. What I meant to say is that Greenwald makes the same point as me, i.e. the court didn’t get into much detail regarding the Fourth Amendment analysis. I didn’t say the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply, I just said the court didn’t really deal with some of the arguments relating thereto.

  85. 85.

    neil

    …since a phone call can’t be contraband.

    Obviously you’re not thinking the Cuban way. Fortunately for all of us, Darrell is.

  86. 86.

    Slide

    Perhaps I was unclear. What I meant to say is that Greenwald makes the same point as me, i.e. the court didn’t get into much detail regarding the Fourth Amendment analysis. I didn’t say the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply, I just said the court didn’t really deal with some of the arguments relating thereto.

    Ok.. I must have misinterpeted what you said.

  87. 87.

    Mac Buckets

    Wouldn’t surprise me considering the activist judges Bush has appointed.

    Naw, Bush-appointed judges just aren’t beholden to the “lawyers, scholars, and journalists” — in other words, the moonbats — who brought this suit, like Jimmy Carter’s liberal relics are.

    (Cue “Battle Hymn of the Republic”)

    Bush’s judges are only beholden to the Constitution…and to America…and against terrorists! Not to the shysters, the New York Slimes and Al-JaReuters faux-togrophers, and the pointy-heads who say they are so awfully keen on being able to talk to Al Qaeda without the government hearing them!

    Or as someone else put it:

    Thank you Judge Taylor for shutting down the international wiretapping program. I feel so much safer knowing that my Constitutionally protected right to chat with Ayman al Zawahiri about the weather in Waziristan is safe in your hands.

    Enjoy your private convos with terrorists while they last, plaintiffs! This is a guaranteed overturn on appeal.

  88. 88.

    Pb

    Darrell,

    Presumably you’re too ignorant to know about the Fourth Amendment.

    Even Steve isn’t buying that one.

    Well, I’ll ask him. Hey Steve, do you think that Darrell is too ignorant to know about the Fourth Amendment? His comments thus far seem to reflect a basic lack of knowledge about it, at least to me.

  89. 89.

    Ancient Purple

    My point is/was, that quite a number of other security programs and procedures ALSO run counter to the 4th amendment at Volokh’s examples illustrate.

    If the 4th Amendment is a burden to the President in protecting the American public, then why not send an amendment to the States for ratification?

    Or is the President more important than “the people” in this Republic?

  90. 90.

    neil

    It’s a bit annoying that the article puts the judge’s name right in the very first paragraph of the article. Judges aren’t like lawmakers or executives, in that they are not allowed to do what they do based on their personal feelings. A lawmaker can propose a bill for whatever reason he wants; an executive has similar leeway; but it’s not as if Diggs Taylor said, ‘hey, let me take a crack at this case.’ Judges have cases assigned to them and they decide them objectively based on facts and precedent. Anything else would be inappropriate and abusive; so by putting the identity of the judge in such a prominent place they’re creating an implication that she decided the case un-objectively. Naturally this frame plays right into the hands of those opposed to the idea of an independent judiciary.

  91. 91.

    Steve

    Jack Balkin, smart liberal professor:

    Although the court reaches the right result– that the program is illegal, much of the opinion is disappointing, and I would even suggest, a bit confused. The first amendment holding is novel although plausible, but it is not supported by very good arguments. The basic idea is that when the government spys on its citizens, they are likely to avoid making controversial statements or join controversial organizations. Fair enough. But the problem is that the program was secret. It was the disclosure of the program that created the chilling effect. And even if we put that problem to one side, it is not clear whether a program that is otherwise legal under the Fourth Amendment and federal law ipso facto violates the First Amendment simply because people are chilled by its existence.

    Second, the court does not really deal with a number of very good arguments for why the NSA program might be within the Fourth Amendment. The best argument for the court’s position is that if the program reaches United States persons who are not agents of a foreign power, like the plaintiffs, it may be unconstitutional. But the court does not make that distinction.

    Finally, the court seems to be very weak in its reasoning about the separation of powers. It does not even cite the recent Hamdan decision, which is probably the most relevant decision, resting its arguments primarily on the 2004 Hamdi decision. It also seems confused about what constitutes a violation of separation of powers. If the AUMF did in fact amend FISA, the government has a very strong argument that it falls into category one– maximum executive power– and not category three– minimum executive power– under the Youngstown analysis. The court does not seem to deal with the best version of the government’s arguments. I think those arguments fail, for reasons that Marty and I, among others, have elaborated. But I must say that the court’s analysis is not very strong. It depends heavily on the fact that the President has violated the First and Fourth Amendments, which, I think, are the weakest arguments against the program. If those arguments go away, the separation of powers argument it offers is not very good, although in fact there are very good arguments for why the program does in fact violate the separation of powers, as well as FISA itself. The fact that the court does not bother to meet the government’s claim that FISA is unconstitutional is also quite unwise, in my view. Indeed, I’m mystified by the court’s refusal to draw on well publicized debates over the legality of the program between Justice Department officials and legal academics and commentators that reheases the best arguments pro and con, or, for that matter, the reasoning of the Supreme Court’s Hamdan decision, handed down this June, which is, in my estimation, precisely on point.

    It is quite clear that the government will appeal this opinion, and because the court’s opinion, quite frankly, has so many holes in it, it is also clear to me that the plaintiffs will have to relitigate the entire matter before the circuit court, and possibly the Supreme Court. The reasons that the court below has given are just not good enough. This is just the opening shot in what promises to be a long battle.

    I agree 100%.

  93. 93.

    Mac Buckets

    Judges aren’t like lawmakers or executives, in that they are not allowed to do what they do based on their personal feelings.

    Yeah. Right. That could never happen.

  94. 94.

    Punchy

    But the point of today’s decision is that, even if you believe everything the administration has said about how it’s just a limited program, they still need to get warrants.

    Answer me this, lawyers: Bush has claimed that what he did was constitutional because he said so (paraphrasing…IOW, he didn’t deny that FISA was a law). Now a judge says he cannot use that argument. But why would he now listen to a judge, being that he’s the President and what he says, goes?

    All jokes aside about his arrogance, hubris, etc…it’s a serious question–if the rule of Congress’s law (FISA) didn’t stop him before, why would a judge, enforcing the Constitution and law, behoove him to stop?

    Shorter: Why act legal NOW, when he’s been so successful being illegal in the past?

  95. 95.

    Darrell

    Hey Steve, do you think that Darrell is too ignorant to know about the Fourth Amendment?

    Pb, I think your intentional phrasing of that question was intended to evoke an honest and balanced response, wasn’t it?

  96. 96.

    Slide

    Bucket boy:

    Bush’s judges are only beholden to the Constitution…and to America…and against terrorists! Not to the shysters, the New York Slimes and Al-JaReuters faux-togrophers, and the pointy-heads who say they are so awfully keen on being able to talk to Al Qaeda without the government hearing them

    bucket boy has always been an asshole but this is assholedness carried to a new level.. bucket boy.. the guy that told us how much the Iraqi people love being liberated. yes.. the one and same bucket boy that still thinks Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Niger.. yes.. the same ole’ wrong bucket boy… wrong with almost every breath he takes… oh.. and I like the nice little anti-Semitic touch there… shysters? nice… but the judge is black you know.. perhaps you meant to say maccacca.

  97. 97.

    Steve

    This is a guaranteed overturn on appeal.

    Mac, do you have any legal training whatsoever? It really doesn’t come through from your comments.

  98. 98.

    Steve

    Pb, I think your intentional phrasing of that question was intended to evoke an honest and balanced response, wasn’t it?

    Obviously Pb was being funny. But to be clear, what is it that I supposedly agree with you on?

  99. 99.

    Cyrus

    Darrell Says:

    My confidence on this stems from common sense, not “false bravado”. If it’s the President has indisputable authority to monitor overseas terrorists without warrants, then it stands to reason (using common sense) that this authority does not suddenly disappear, just because an overseas terrorist receives a phone call from Philadelphia or Atlanta. That is the crux of the issue, not whether Herr Bush will turn Amerikka into a police state, as so many of you leftists have been suggesting.

    You are saying that location of an action and any other effects it has in addition to the primary one are immaterial to legality.

    Darrell might as well be Saying:
    My confidence that I can shoot my neighbor’s annoying kid stems from common sense, not “false bravado”. If it’s I have indisputable authority to put a rabid dog down by shooting it if it’s attacking me, then it stands to reason (using common sense) that this authority does not suddenly disappear, just because an eight-year-old has jumped between me and the dog. That is the crux of the issue, not whether Herr Bush will turn Amerikka into a police state, as so many of you leftists have been suggesting.

    Think hard about the “if he can do it overseas, he can do it here” argument, Darrell. Think very, very hard.

  100. 100.

    Slide

    Is Mac Buckets a spoof? Because that was pretty funny

    nope… believe it or not. he is for real.

  101. 101.

    Darrell

    But to be clear, what is it that I supposedly agree with you on?

    Regarding the “obviousness” that the NSA program is a clear violation of the 4th amendment, in light of the other security programs which also run counter to the 4th amendment or have the clear potential to do so (Volokh’s list cited above).

  102. 102.

    neil

    Judges aren’t like lawmakers or executives, in that they are not allowed to do what they do based on their personal feelings.

    Yeah. Right. That could never happen.

    Don’t let your bile obscure the fact that I agree with you. There’s no reason to emphasize the personal background of a judge in the reporting on her decision unless that judge has been naughty. Emphasizing it in the absence of this evidence is tantamount to a false accusation.

  103. 103.

    John D.

    Thanks to you leftists, the government has to run out and get a warrant each time that those overseas terrorists in Saudi Arabia get phone calls from Miami or Phoenix. That’s what this is all about, not “warrentless wiretapping” of Americans. Very clear indeed.

    Jesus. Hopping. Christ.

    Darrell, are you insane, or merely stupid? The last time this came up, I directly linked the text of FISA, which you claimed to have read. It’s become very clear that you either haven’t read it or did not understand it at all. From USC 50, § 1802 (the very first section of the law following the definition of terms)

    § 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court

    (a)
    (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
    (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
    (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
    (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
    (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
    C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
    if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.

    I draw your attention to § 1802, (a)(1)(B). Again.

    As soon as the calls start coming into or out of Miami and Phoenix, there is no longer “no substantial likelihood” that a US citizen is not a party to the conversation, and the need for a warrant is triggered. There is, as I’m sure you are aware, no need to get a warrant for each call. You get a warrant to allow the WIRETAP.

    You get to explain to all of us now — how exactly is it too hard to do this in front of the FISA court? You are even allowed to wiretap and then retroactively get the warrant within 72 hours. How, precisely, is this too difficult to do? How does this harm anti-terrorist efforts?

    Specifics, that’s the requirement. Bonus points if you manage to avoid your standard “broad-brush” arguments.

  104. 104.

    Darrell

    You are saying that location of an action and any other effects it has in addition to the primary one are immaterial to legality

    In the NSA instance regarding the monitoring of overseas terrorists outside the country, yes.. absolutely. The fact that these terrorists are overseas makes all the difference.

  105. 105.

    Pooh

    Pooh, I think that’s such a wonderful point. Now that you’re lawyering up, can you please direct us to any evidence whatsoever that it’s the US citizen’s/person’s phone which is being tapped, rather than the overseas terrorist phone? Because I’d really like to see you substantiate that allegation

    Well, they admitted it. (Bush’s first public comment on it rather recalled Col. Jessop’s “you’re goddamn right I did!”)

    I might add that BOTH ends of the call are considered “targets.” However, the right to listen to the “foreign terrorists” calls means you get to listen to both ends. Nothing in this ruling disturbs that, so far as I can tell – what they can’t do is listen to all calls made by US Person A, B and C without a warrant. We’ve been through this about a dozen times, but let’s try again. Say Abdul in Akron calls Khalid in Kabul (a known foreign terrorist suspect) – since we’re listening to KK’s phone, we can listen to the call. However, if we want to listent to AA we have to get a warrant (within 72 ‘freebie’ hours). Which, since the contents of the first conversation are usable as the PC for the warrant should be ridiculously easy to get from a court that has denied 6 applications in almost 30 years.

    Steve, am I missing anything? I haven’t run this down in a few months, so doing it from memory might be a little dicey.

  106. 106.

    Pb

    Darrell,

    I think your intentional phrasing of that question was intended to evoke an honest and balanced response, wasn’t it?

    At least as much as your original phrasing was, if not more.

  107. 107.

    ImJohnGalt

    From Darrell – just one example of many I recall.

    Given that the topic of this thread is criticism of Bush’s NSA program, has that program been declared “illegal” by any judicial authority? No? Well then, isn’t it a weee bit dishonest to refer to it as a “lawless activity”?.. but hey, why bother with facts, when you’ve got so much righteous anger which needs expressing?

    Can I get a witness?

  108. 108.

    Perry Como

    Answer me this, lawyers: Bush has claimed that what he did was constitutional because he said so (paraphrasing…IOW, he didn’t deny that FISA was a law). Now a judge says he cannot use that argument. But why would he now listen to a judge, being that he’s the President and what he says, goes?

    All jokes aside about his arrogance, hubris, etc…it’s a serious question—if the rule of Congress’s law (FISA) didn’t stop him before, why would a judge, enforcing the Constitution and law, behoove him to stop?

    Shorter: Why act legal NOW, when he’s been so successful being illegal in the past?

    IANAL, but I believe at that point we enter a constitutional crisis. The remedy lies within the legislative branch via impeachment.

  109. 109.

    Dungheap

    Darrell – Volokh’s list is not a list of security programs that run counter to the 4th Amendment. It is a list of security measures that comply with the 4th Amendment but that have some chilling effect on speech. Notwithstanding the chilling effect they have on speech, they are constitutionally permissible.

    All Volokh is saying is that, simply because a program has a chilling effect on speech, it is not automatically a 1st Amendment violation. He concludes that the 1st Amendment basis for this decision is derivative of the 4th Amendment violation, not a wholly independent constitutionally violation. That is, if the 4th Amendment basis were overturned, it is likely the 1st Amendment basis would be overturned as well.

    You’re obviously confused.

  110. 110.

    neil

    Somebody should ask Darrell if he thinks the President should (not ‘does’) have the authority to tap DNC headquarters and the houses of activists with Guy Fawkes masks without warrants.

  111. 111.

    Darrell

    John D. Says:

    Thanks to you leftists, the government has to run out and get a warrant each time that those overseas terrorists in Saudi Arabia get phone calls from Miami or Phoenix. That’s what this is all about, not “warrentless wiretapping” of Americans. Very clear indeed.

    Jesus. Hopping. Christ.

    Darrell, are you insane, or merely stupid?

    You know, you lefty lawyers jump all over me with your bullshit (“false bravado”, etc) without ever noting the abundance of legal opinion idiocy, aggressive idiocy actually, emananating from the left.

  112. 112.

    Pooh

    Naw, Bush-appointed judges just aren’t beholden to the “lawyers, scholars, and journalists”—in other words, the moonbats—who brought this suit, like Jimmy Carter’s liberal relics are.

    How exactly is an appointed judge with lifetime tenure beholden to anyone?

  113. 113.

    Steve

    Regarding the “obviousness” that the NSA program is a clear violation of the 4th amendment, in light of the other security programs which also run counter to the 4th amendment or have the clear potential to do so (Volokh’s list cited above).

    That’s really not what Volokh says. He doesn’t say we have lots of programs that violate the 4th Amendment (news flash, we’re not supposed to have any); he says that if you buy the court’s logic that this program violates the 1st Amendment, you have to deal with the point that many other programs would also violate the 1st Amendment.

    But I do agree that it’s not a slam dunk that the program violates the 4th Amendment, to the extent where you can just reach that conclusion without any real discussion, as this court pretty much did.

  114. 114.

    Zifnab

    Darrel:

    If it’s the President has indisputable authority to monitor overseas terrorists without warrants, then it stands to reason (using common sense) that this authority does not suddenly disappear, just because an overseas terrorist receives a phone call from Philadelphia or Atlanta.

    Liikewise, as common sense would dictate, if the President has indisputable authority to arrest and detain overseas enemy combatants, his authority doesn’t suddenly disappear just because said enemy combatants just happen to live in Philadelphia or Atlanta.

    If you’re not a US citizen, or if you are caught interacting with someone who is not a US citizen, you have no rights or protections under the US Constitution. Because all foreigners are potential terrorists and all out-of-country calls are potential plots to blow up the Sears Tower. And if you don’t want to die do exactly as I say.

  115. 115.

    Par R

    This decision will not stand. The federal courts have held on a number of occasions that the President has the constitutional power under Article II to order warrantless surveillance for national security purposes. The Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Circuits have so held, as has the special FISA Court of Review. And those cases dealt with domestic warrantless intercepts, as opposed to the international communications that fall within the NSA program.

  116. 116.

    Pb

    Darrell,

    Regarding the “obviousness” that the NSA program is a clear violation of the 4th amendment, in light of the other security programs which also run counter to the 4th amendment or have the clear potential to do so (Volokh’s list cited above).

    From what I saw of that list above, it looked like Volokh was only addressing the ‘chilling effect’ on speech that surveillance can have, which was an argument used in the case to show that the plaintiffs had standing to bring the case because they had suffered actual damages due to the program, and not directly addressing the 4th Amendment constitutionality of the programs themselves. I saw that you claimed otherwise, but I’d expect that of you, because you don’t seem to be very clear on the entire Bill of Rights in the first place. But if Volokh was making that argument… is that guy really a lawyer?

  117. 117.

    Mac Buckets

    nope… believe it or not. he is for real.

    That post was intentionally spoof-esque, though. (As opposed to yours, Joe?)

  118. 118.

    Zifnab

    How exactly is an appointed judge with lifetime tenure beholden to anyone?

    When they’re pawns of the country club going, champagne sipping, American hating, libero-islamo-facist elite.

  119. 119.

    neil

    Enjoy your private convos with terrorists while they last, plaintiffs!

    I was hoping just to talk with my mother, actually.

  120. 120.

    Punchy

    This decision will not stand. The federal courts have held on a number of occasions that the President has the constitutional power under Article II to order warrantless surveillance for national security purposes.

    For 15 days after the outbreak of war, and 72 hours after wiretapping on a case-by-case basis. NOBODY has ever ruled that they can do this indefinitely without judicial oversight. If I’m wrong, then supply the links to prove it.

  121. 121.

    cd6

    What’s the ultimate goal of you leftists here anyway? Bush is rightly going to keep on wiretapping regardless of what Congress of FISA or some activist judge says. Whether or not “info” collected from the wiretaps is illegal would therefore only really have a bearing if evidence collected during the wiretapping was used to prosecute a terrorist or an enemy combatant.

    And we don’t have to deal that THAT, because why charge somebody with a crime when you can just hold them indefinitely?

    legal opinion idiocy, aggressive idiocy actually, emananating from the left

    emananating from the left? Darrell, you slay me

  122. 122.

    neil

    Yeah, that was pretty funny, but I didn’t think it was worth mentioning since he didn’t slip ‘penumbra’ in anywhere.

  123. 123.

    Darrell

    Darrell – Volokh’s list is not a list of security programs that run counter to the 4th Amendment. It is a list of security measures that comply with the 4th Amendment but that have some chilling effect on speech

    You are mistaken. Volokh’s sentence preceding the list I cited:

    Note, though, that this judgment rests entirely on the court’s earlier conclusion (which is in my view not fully defended) that the eavesdropping violates the Fourth Amendment.

    That is, it HAS NOT BEEN FULLY ESTABLISHED that ALL eavesdropping is a violation of the 4th amendment. A number of security procedures which fall under this cloud of doubt include(courtesy of Volokh):

    Eavesdropping conducted pursuant to properly issued warrants (ones that can be based on mere probable cause, rather than any solid proof that the eavesdropping will yield incriminating evidence) poses that risk. Eavesdropping conducted purusant to properly issued FISA orders, which don’t even require probable cause that the speech collected will be incriminating (only probable cause that the targeted person is an agent of a foreign power), poses that risk. Constitutionally permissible border searches of papers pose that risk.

  124. 124.

    John D.

    You know, you lefty lawyers jump all over me with your bullshit (“false bravado”, etc) without ever noting the abundance of legal opinion idiocy, aggressive idiocy actually, emananating from the left.

    What?

    I responded to you. Your persona here is *assuredly* not from the Left. So, what, exactly, does The Left have to do with anything?

    I responded to you since you made THIS EXACT SAME ARGUMENT (even including the same 2 cities!) a month ago and I quoted the identical section of FISA I did above.

    There is no idiocy here on my part. The language of the statute is extremely clear — warrantless wiretapping is verboten once a “United States person” enter the communication. The insane/stupid dichotomy I posed is a direct result of the old joke about the definition of insanity (“Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result”). You have not deviated from your standard bullshit one iota, even in the face of facts. So, what word would *you* use to describe that?

    And for the FINAL time, I am not a lefty. I’m not sure how I can make that any more clear short of tattooing it on your forehead with a railroad spike. I know I’ve said that to you at least four times so far.

  125. 125.

    Pooh

    FWIW, I’m largely with Steve that I think the 4th A argument could plausibly go either way, and in reading the opinion, I would have preferred the judge to decide the statutory question (which is a slam dunk in my view) – Balkin’s points are all good as well.

  126. 126.

    cd6

    The defeatocrats claiming that these wiretaps violate the 4th amendment are the same liars who tried to peddle that hogwash about Kerry spending Christmas in Cambodia.

    Well guess what, you terrorist supporting hippy monkeys, that bird ain’t gonna fly.

  127. 127.

    Zifnab

    All jokes aside about his arrogance, hubris, etc…it’s a serious question—if the rule of Congress’s law (FISA) didn’t stop him before, why would a judge, enforcing the Constitution and law, behoove him to stop?

    Shorter: Why act legal NOW, when he’s been so successful being illegal in the past?

    Perry’s got the right answer here. The seperation of powers works such that, effectively, two branches can normally trump the third. Judges and Congress can oust the President. President and Judges can arrest a Congressman. Congress and the President can pooh-pooh the Judicary.

    So long as Congress continues to allow the President to run roughshod over every judical ruling, the judicary can’t really do much of anything. That’s the tragic bottom line. But if congressmen are seriously fearful for their occupations, with luck we’ll see movement at the House and Senate levels.

  128. 128.

    Darrell

    FWIW, I’m largely with Steve that I think the 4th A argument could plausibly go either way,

    But Pooh, all the other cool kids on the left are screaming that it’s such a positive shredding of the constitution by Herr Bush. You mean, there exists actual reasonable doubt to that assertion?

  129. 129.

    Par R

    I should have noted that Judge Taylor who handed down this highly questionable ruling has held on to her robes by the skin of her teeth, given her largely unethical behavior while sitting on that court. Here’s a small slice of her history.

  131. 131.

    Darrell

    Well guess what, you terrorist supporting hippy monkeys, that bird ain’t gonna fly.

    Spoof alert – cd6

  133. 133.

    Darrell

    I responded to you since you made THIS EXACT SAME ARGUMENT (even including the same 2 cities!) a month ago and I quoted the identical section of FISA I did above.

    The ENTIRE crux of the argument rests not on the details of FISA law which you cited, but whether or not the President has the Article II authority to monitor overseas terrorists (no one disputes that authority) even when the overseas terrorists receive phone calls from Chicago or Seattle (disputed.. unreasonably so in my opinion).

  134. 134.

    Rusty Shackleford

    Darrell Says:

    But I thought you liberals wanted to be “tough on terrorists”? Yet you all are jumping for joy over this absurd ACLU ruling and injunction made by a Carter-appointed liberal.. another reason why liberals can never be trusted with national security.

    I hope you lefties will scream your approval of this noble ruling, blocking warrantless monitoring of overseas terrorists.. a stake in the heart of the Bush-fellators I tell you!

    August 17th, 2006 at 1:00 pm

    Darrell is a dishonest git and consistently misrepresents the warrantless NSA spying issue.

    “Warrantless” is the keyword. If BushCo would just follow the laws they could monitor whomever they want – according to the law.

    Tom Ridge was on Hardball last night and Matthews played the part of “Darrell”:

    MATTHEWS: What about phone taps? I know a lot of Americans obviously don‘t want their phones tapped for a lot of reasons, but if we find out it‘s the only way to nab people in the last couple days before they act is to hear them talking to each other, will the American people say, well we don‘t like giving up our rights, but this is not a matter of individual rights anymore, it‘s a matter of national rights. We have to protect the country. Will people change?

    RIDGE: I don‘t think they have to. I think you have laws on the books. If you had that kind of information going in, you could tap those phones. What I worry more than that, during the whole debate about N.S.A is I heard Americans tell me, I don‘t care, I am not doing anything wrong, it‘s OK if you tap my phone, and I don‘t think we ever want to reduce our threshold that low?

    MATTHEWS: Why not? Do you think we will?

    RIDGE: No, nor do I think we want to. I mean, the notion that we would surrender, voluntarily, knowing that we are not doing anything wrong, our rights, to have the government intervene or intercede or listen to a phone conversation, I think is absolutely unacceptable. But there are provisions in place in the law, tools in the law now, if you have that kind of information going in, you certainly can, under the FISA, can get that.

    MATTHEWS: Let me flip this around, Governor. Suppose you are homeland security secretary, and you find out that there may be a suspicious group of people doing things, but you want to honor their civil rights and you don‘t want to tap their phones. Can you explain the deaths of thousands of people because you were honoring civil rights after the fact?

    RIDGE: No, I don‘t think it‘s honoring civil rights, if you have cause, if there is justification. There are plenty of ways for the law enforcement community to do it within the constitution and the rule of law, period.

  135. 135.

    Mac Buckets

    Don’t let your bile obscure the fact that I agree with you.

    No bile at all, and I was aware of your intent. It’s just that sometimes we fall for the fantasy that these judges are all impartial and independent legal minds, but sometimes when you read the decisions, you see they can be just as arbitrary and capricious (and dull-witted) as any partisan shill. If a judge wants something bad enough, they can usually shoehorn a legal argument to fit.

    Why do you think the 9th Circuit reaches the most consistently liberal decisions? They’re dealing with the same legal code as the rest of America, right? Well, they’ve got the most liberal judges, so they produce the expected decisions. The Fourth Circuit would be the most conservative, probably. So the slant of the judges does matter, which is I guess why the media put their names on the decisions.

  136. 136.

    Dungheap

    Darrell – You are grossly misunderstanding Volokh’s point in that particular post.

    All he is saying is that the First Amendment basis for the decision that the TAP is unconstitutional derives from the court’s conclusion that the TAP violates the 4th Amendment. That’s it.

    Your point (in caps, no less) that it “HAS NOT BEEN FULLY ESTABLISHED that ALL eavesdropping is a violation of the 4th amendment” is self-evident to anyone that has read the 4th Amendment. Thank you, Captain Obvious.

  137. 137.

    Mac Buckets

    and I like the nice little anti-Semitic touch there… shysters?

    Joe, you incredible moron, you’re thinking of “shy-LOCK.” Once again proving your status as an archetypal, caricature, picture-postcard of a whiny lefty idiot!

    Don’t ever change, Joe!

  139. 139.

    Darrell

    Your point (in caps, no less) that it “HAS NOT BEEN FULLY ESTABLISHED that ALL eavesdropping is a violation of the 4th amendment” is self-evident to anyone that has read the 4th Amendment.

    Is that so? Seems at least one Jimmie Carter appointee had some trouble understanding the ‘self-evident’ nature of the 4th:

    Note, though, that this judgment rests entirely on the court’s earlier conclusion (which is in my view not fully defended) that the eavesdropping violates the Fourth Amendment.

  140. 140.

    Perry Como

    Tom Ridge was on Hardball last night and Matthews played the part of “Darrell”:

    I think you’ll see alot more Republicans coming around to the “liberal” view that laws should be followed as the Democrats get closer to holding power.

  141. 141.

    cd6

    I will say one thing:

    At least it was only this Diggs character was on the bench and not Fidel Castro, who I can only assume was Jimmy Carter’s first choice.

  142. 142.

    John D.

    The ENTIRE crux of the argument rests not on the details of FISA law which you cited, but whether or not the President has the Article II authority to monitor overseas terrorists (no one disputes that authority) even when the overseas terrorists receive phone calls from Chicago or Seattle (disputed.. unreasonably so in my opinion).

    Nope, you tried this dodge before as well.

    FISA supercedes all laws and statutes regarding electronic surveillance. It is THE law of the land on these matters. Nobody is disputing the Executive branch’s right to gather intelligence. They are disputing his right to do so WITHOUT A WARRANT. Amazingly enough, FISA lays out precisely the delineation between when a warrant is required, and when it is not.

    Youngstown, remember? We’ve danced this dance before, and you are once again on the wrong side. Once Congress passes legislation, and it is signed into law, the Exeuctive branch cannot choose to ignore it, even if it feels that the law encroaches upon it’s Constitutionally-granted powers. Google on Youngstown and “lowest ebb” for the Constitutional implications, I’m not rehashing them all here again for one who will not choose to listen.

    So yes, the ENTIRE crux of the argument rests on FISA. In acting the way that they have, the Executive branch has violated FISA. They can claim pure motives. They can claim broad Constitutional powers. That does not change the fact they THEY VIOLATED THE LAW. They even admitted doing so.

    The Executive and my right nut have precisely the same ability to declare a law unconstitutional — zero. We are a nation of laws. It’s time people on both sides of the spectrum remembered that.

  143. 143.

    Darrell

    FISA supercedes all laws and statutes

    FISA does not supercede the constitution. This is a constitutional argument. The President, reasonably imo, declared that the FISA laws encroached on his constitutional authority/turf. He has a good case. I’m sorry you are too dense to see it.

  144. 144.

    Dug Jay

    JOHN D admits he’s been neutered.

    ….and my right nut have precisely the same ability to declare a law unconstitutional—zero.

    But I guess that really didn’t come as a surprise to any of us, did it?

  145. 145.

    Dungheap

    Darrell — I’ll give you hint about the little provision in the 4th Amendment that permits eavesdropping, it begins with a “w” and ends with a “t” with “arran” in the middle.

    Are you really this dense?

  146. 146.

    cd6

    FISA does not supercede the constitution. This is a constitutional argument. The President, reasonably imo, declared that the FISA laws encroached on his constitutional authority/turf. He has a good case. I’m sorry you are too dense to see it.

    I agree

    The terrorists don’t play by the rules defined by the Constition, so why should our president?

    If the founders wanted Congress or the courts to be able to come with ways to limit the president’s power, the obviously would have implemented some sort of system that provided “checks” or “balances.” They didn’t, despite what you liberals keep trying to insist.

    Go back to manufacturing your “Hillary for president” posters and leave the terrorist fighting to the big boys.

  147. 147.

    Slide

    bucketboy:

    Joe, you incredible moron, you’re thinking of “shy-LOCK.” Once again proving your status as an archetypal, caricature, picture-postcard of a whiny lefty idiot!

    There’s a reason why some words or phrases simply are not acceptable in polite company. They are offensive, redolent with prejudice and hatred, and simply not clever or witty.

    Take, for example, the word “shyster.” According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word is of “obscure origin,” but its meaning is hardly obscure. Rooted in the German scatological term scheisser, it’s a deplorable and demeaning word which has traditionally been loaded with anti-Semitism.

    .

  148. 148.

    John D.

    FISA does not supercede the constitution. This is a constitutional argument. The President, reasonably imo, declared that the FISA laws encroached on his constitutional authority/turf. He has a good case. I’m sorry you are too dense to see it.

    HE DOES NOT GET TO DO THAT.

    Jesus. It’s like talking to a stump.

    The Constitutional authority to decide what does and does not encroach upon each branch of government was granted to the JUDICIAL, not EXECUTIVE branch. Why are you not grasping this?

    By law, the Executive branch must file suit in order to resolve this. He has no “case”, at all, until such time as he does so. I wonder why he hasn’t? Perhaps he knows what the outcome would be (since Youngstown is fairly definitive on this precise subject)?

  149. 149.

    Darrell

    This purpose of this ACLU lawsuit is to publicize details of a national security program designed to thwart terrorist plots. If the ACLU (backed and endorsed by most liberals) lawsuit is successful, they will expose whatever details they can about the NSA program to neuter its effectiveness. Remember that next time libs claim “we’re tough on terrorism too”

  150. 150.

    Tom in Texas

    The President, reasonably imo, declared that the FISA laws encroached on his constitutional authority/turf.

    Darrell;
    He didn’t declare anything. He ignored the law because he felt it was unconstitutional (or at least that’s what he said when caught). If I try to solicit a prostitute, I have broken the law and can (and should) be prosecuted. Even if I claim the law is wrong and immoral and unconstitutional, or even if they change the law to allow what I did later, it does not change the fact that I knowingly violated the law. Why is Bush any different?

  151. 151.

    Steve

    This purpose of this ACLU lawsuit is to publicize details of a national security program designed to thwart terrorist plots.

    Wrong again.

    In fact, the plaintiffs’ entire summary judgment motion, which the court just granted, is premised on the theory that the illegality of the program can be established solely by reference to public admissions by the government itself.

  152. 152.

    ThymeZone

    It’s like talking to a stump.

    Only, worse.

    A stump was once a tree, generously providing fruit and shade.

    This stump was once … a stump. Just a stump.

  153. 153.

    Darrell

    If I try to solicit a prostitute, I have broken the law and can (and should) be prosecuted. Even if I claim the law is wrong and immoral and unconstitutional, or even if they change the law to allow what I did later, it does not change the fact that I knowingly violated the law. Why is Bush any different?

    Your prostitute analogy is pathetic. Seriously. A better analogy would be one in which congress or the Supreme court passes a law or rules on a law such that the President no longer has authority as commmander in chief of our armed forces as specified in the constitution… but instead, according to Congress or the Supreme court (pick either one for this theoretical analogy) that CiC authority is to be held by the head of the Supreme court, not the elected President according to this law. Sure, they passed a law or made a ruling regarding Presidential powers.. doesn’t mean they had the constitutional authority or justification to do it. More clear now Tom?

  154. 154.

    Darrell

    In fact, the plaintiffs’ entire summary judgment motion, which the court just granted, is premised on the theory that the illegality of the program can be established solely by reference to public admissions by the government itself.

    But the government can most effectively defend itself by revealing state secrets that, well, need to be kept secret for national security reasons. The ACLU is hoping that it can force the govt to reveal these secrets which it can then publicize to neuter the program. Liberals cannot be trusted with national security. This ACLU case is reason # 74333279 why.

  155. 155.

    Tom in Texas

    Absolutely any analogy will work Darrell, because you are missing the point of my analogy. If Bush felt that his authority was unconstitutionally restrained, he should fight to change the law. No American can ignore a law they don’t like, and if they do, it is at their own peril.

  156. 156.

    Steve

    Yes… obviously a law that clearly contradicts the text of the Constitution itself is a much better analogy. Good point Darrell.

  157. 157.

    Ezert

    Here’s a challenge. Count up the times the phrase “activist judge” is used by right-wing pundits. The number will probably reach so high it will make Will Hunting’s head spin.

    Of course, for a Bush Administration unconcerned with pesky little things like laws, judges, Congress or the Constitution, I’m sure the program will go unabated.

    For those who find things like this important, she is a President Carter appointee.

  158. 158.

    ThymeZone

    Your prostitute analogy is pathetic

    Pathetic? The prostitute analogy is the first sign of life in this fucking thread.

    It invokes great visuals. What does the prostitute look like? Is she wearing fishnet stockings? That sort of thing.

    And then there are your 30 posts in which you basically Proof-By-Assertion that Bush’s NSA/FISA crimes are perfectly acceptable and only a fool would question it.

    So … prostitute, or Darrell’s endless fucking repetition of the same talking points forever?

    Prostitute, Darrell.

    Prostitute, Darrell.

    Do you see the point?

  159. 159.

    Ancient Purple

    Why is Bush any different?

    Because Darrell believes that the only thing that will keep him from wetting his pants is President Bush.

    Now, you know.

  160. 160.

    Steve

    But the government can most effectively defend itself by revealing state secrets that, well, need to be kept secret for national security reasons.

    That’s a great faith-based argument… you just “know,” don’t you, that the government has super-secret information it could use to win the case if only it wouldn’t tip off the terrorists by doing so! Unfortunately for you, the court actually SAW the super-secret information and rejected your argument:

    Finally, Defendants assert that they cannot defend this case without the exposure of state secrets. This court disagrees. The Bush Administration has repeatedly told the general public that there is a valid basis in law for the TSP. Further, Defendants have contended that the President has the authority under the AUMF and the Constitution to authorize the continued use of the TSP. Defendants have supported these arguments without revealing or relying on any classified information. Indeed, the court has reviewed the classified information and is of the opinion that this information is not necessary to any viable defense to the TSP. Defendants have presented support for the argument that “it . . is well-established that the President may exercise his statutory and constitutional authority to gather intelligence information about foreign enemies.” Defendants cite to various sources to support this position. Consequently, the court finds Defendants’ argument that they cannot defend this case without the use of classified information to be disingenuous and without merit.

    Darrell, who has never seen the classified information, knows better what its legal importance is than the judge who actually did see it… because, of course, the judge is a Carter appointee and is therefore wrong about everything.

  161. 161.

    neil

    It’s just that sometimes we fall for the fantasy that these judges are all impartial and independent legal minds

    I don’t think this is true at all, Mac. Maybe it was true once, long ago back in the innocent old days, but I doubt it. And this is assuredly getting worse now, with high-level politicians falling all over themselves to warn the people that the judiciary branch is filled entirely with very unsavory personalities.

    No, I think not many people believe in the impartiality of judges these days, and news coverage like this does not help.

  162. 162.

    Darrell

    If Bush felt that his authority was unconstitutionally restrained, he should fight to change the law.

    Talk about missing the point Tom, you are being willfully ignorant here. The President can challenge any law he reasonably believes encroaches on his authority, and let others sue if they think he’s wrong. The President went through the proper legal channels to get the NSA program approved.

    In this case, there is complete agreement that the President has constitutional authority to monitor overseas terrorists without warrant. The President has reasonably argued that this constitutional authority should not suddenly disappear just because a terrorist in Libya receives a phone call from Cleveland.

  163. 163.

    les

    Tom in Tex: “Why is Bush any different?” Because he’s the friend of Jebus, and he’ll rip up the constitution to save Darrell, and every night at the pee pool cools to body temperature and D nods off, he thanks Bush for staving off the brown people for one more day, and offers up his rights in support.

  164. 164.

    cd6

    Liberals cannot be trusted with national security

    Conservatives have been trying to enhance the inspection of our cargo containers in the ports, and the fat cat liberals who run our Congress wasted all their time on bills about gay marriage and flag burning.

    It’s hard to believe that anyone might think liberals are taking terrorism seriously, and aren’t just using it as a fear inducing campaign issue.

    The prostitute analogy is the first sign of life in this fucking thread.

    I resent that. I thought my timely Kerry Christmas in Cambodia reference was a winner.

    :(

  165. 165.

    Tom in Texas

    The President can challenge any law he reasonably believes encroaches on his authority, and let others sue if they think he’s wrong.

    Again, he did not challenge it, he ignored it. There is a huge difference. He did not provide the opportunity for others to sue, because he did everything he could do hide the fact that he was endrunning this law.

  166. 166.

    cd6

    The President can challenge any law he reasonably believes encroaches on his authority, and let others sue if they think he’s wrong.

    The president should make “suing the president” a capital offense. What would the ACLU do then? What a fine how-do-you-do that would be!

    ::guffaws all the way to the bank

  167. 167.

    neil

    You have to spoof better than that to trick us around here, cd6 (if that is your real name).

  168. 168.

    Darrell

    Darrell, who has never seen the classified information, knows better what its legal importance is than the judge who actually did see it

    Yes, because a liberal judge is infallible, right? Especially since government defense counsel strongly disagrees with her legal opinion, claiming that they will need to reveal classified info. to present the kind of case they would need to present. In other words, the judge took it upon herself to decide what is ‘best’ for defense counsel. Look Steve, she may be right.. neither you nor I have seen the information. And furthermore, how much or how little of the classified info. did she review has not been disclosed to my opinion. Either way, the ACLU, backed by most liberals, is praying that details of the NSA program are brought out in court so they can publicize them. That is the point

  169. 169.

    John S.

    Is there any doubt how absolutely fucked the discourse in this country is?

    There are millions of Darrells of out there.

    Each one is just as mulish and mindless as he is. Remember that around election time if you feel like staying home and ceding your vote to them.

  170. 170.

    Darrell

    Again, he did not challenge it, he ignored it. There is a huge difference. He did not provide the opportunity for others to sue, because he did everything he could do hide the fact that he was endrunning this law.

    The Bush admin went through proper legal channels to implement the NSA program which ignores parts of FISA which the Bush admin reasonably believed encroached on Presidential authority. If Dems are in opposition to this, Dem congressmen need to be taking legal action against the President now rather than letting their henchmen at the ACLU do it. Why aren’t they? If the President has a reasonable case, and he does, then the legal burden is not necessarily on him.

    Do you admit that your prostitution analogy was ridiculously off-point?

  171. 171.

    Pb

    the ACLU, backed by most liberals, is praying that details of the NSA program are brought out in court so they can publicize them. That is the point

    And here I thought the point of the lawsuit was to shut down the program in the first place, and make the President follow the rule of law for once. But fortunately we have Darrell here to do our mind-reading for us.

  172. 172.

    mrmobi

    I vote prostitute! And who is this cd6? He distracted me from my Hillary posters. Damn it!

    Liberals cannot be trusted with national security. This ACLU case is reason # 74333279 why.

    I know Darrell, we liberals should be shuffled off to internment camps, there has never been a liberal who fought for this country, or performed public service, or defended the constitution. GOD, you are so right. You have won me over with your comprehensive grasp of the current situation.

    Can we exterminate the ACLU liberal scum first?

  173. 173.

    Steve

    Either way, the ACLU, backed by most liberals, is praying that details of the NSA program are brought out in court so they can publicize them.

    It blows my mind that you actually believe “most liberals,” not to mention the ACLU, actually sympathize with the terrorists more than they sympathize with Americans, and they want to reveal details of anti-terrorist programs so the terrorists can escape detection.

    I mean, it’s fine for politicians to wage smear campaigns along these lines, it’s what they do… but I see no signs that you’re just spouting a line. You appear to actually believe most liberals are looking to aid the enemy. You’ve been fed so much propaganda about how liberals are evil, that you’re willing to believe literally anything about them, without engaging your brain for even a moment to think whether the allegations even make sense.

    And you’re not alone, of course, which is the truly scary part.

  174. 174.

    Tom in Texas

    The Bush admin went through proper legal channels to implement the NSA program which ignores parts of FISA which the Bush admin reasonably believed encroached on Presidential authority.

    So they allowed the program to be thoroughly debated and vetted by the legislative branch — except for the constitutionally dubious parts, which they just went ahead and did anyway. Ooookayyy.

  176. 176.

    cd6

    You have to spoof better than that to trick us around here, cd6 (if that is your real name).

    Don’t be jealous of the fact that I love America and freedom way more than you do.

    I’m just trying to uphold the same level of reasoned, passionate discourse that Conservatives are reknowned for across the blogosphere.

    This is made difficult by the fact that the elite right wing pundits keep raising the bar:

    I figured Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, a 73-year-old Jimmy Carter appointee, would have the chutzpah to overturn the NSA wiretaps and rule in favor of the ACLU and its raft of Islamist, America-hating plaintiffs. And she did not disappoint my low expectations of her.

    She seems to hate America and fairness almost as much as the Plaintiffs do. She certainly hates a fair, impartial Judiciary. It’s not just that she’s a shameless liberal who always allows her politics to enter into her decisions.

    http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/08/nsa-opposing_ju.html

  177. 177.

    John D.

    The President can challenge any law he reasonably believes encroaches on his authority, and let others sue if they think he’s wrong. The President went through the proper legal channels to get the NSA program approved.

    This is 100% ass-backwards.

    The President did nothing of the sort, Darrell. He *ignored* the law. Challenging the law would be filing suit himself, or introducing legislation to Congress to amend existing law.

    What the Executive branch has done here is simply “breaking the law”. They did not follow the requirements of FISA. They *admit* not following the requirements of FISA. Their rationale is that they have an inherent Constitutional authority to do so.

    THAT is for the Judicial branch to decide. Not the Executive. So why did the President not sue?

  178. 178.

    Punchy

    The Executive and my right nut have precisely the same ability to declare a law unconstitutional—zero

    So it’s the left one that’s writin’ all the statutes, eh?
    Seriously, if nuts could write laws, they’da been a ban on pointy women’s shoes years ago….

    As for this:

    The President can challenge any law he reasonably believes encroaches on his authority, and let others sue if they think he’s wrong.

    He didn’t challenge it, legally. He ignored the law, then when caught, tried to blanket-protect himself…laughably…chirping “AUMF..AUMF…STFU Y’ALL…AUMF”.

    Congress has yet to opine “FU, you MF! Find me a JAG ASAP to prove the BS is truly a POS, so we can 86 this 2000 mistake by 21:00″…

  179. 179.

    Rusty Shackleford

    Steve Says:

    It blows my mind that you actually believe “most liberals,” not to mention the ACLU, actually sympathize with the terrorists more than they sympathize with Americans, and they want to reveal details of anti-terrorist programs so the terrorists can escape detection.

    I mean, it’s fine for politicians to wage smear campaigns along these lines, it’s what they do… but I see no signs that you’re just spouting a line. You appear to actually believe most liberals are looking to aid the enemy. You’ve been fed so much propaganda about how liberals are evil, that you’re willing to believe literally anything about them, without engaging your brain for even a moment to think whether the allegations even make sense.

    And you’re not alone, of course, which is the truly scary part.

    August 17th, 2006 at 4:06 pm

    I’ve been unable to determine whether Darrell is a) stupid or b) dishonest. I think I’ll just go with c) stupid and dishonest.

  180. 180.

    Darrell

    It blows my mind that you actually believe “most liberals,” not to mention the ACLU, actually sympathize with the terrorists more than they sympathize with Americans, and they want to reveal details of anti-terrorist programs so the terrorists can escape detection.

    The ACLU and most liberals would destroy an effective national security program because they are extremists. They may not be intentionally aiding the terrorists, but their goal in this case (neutering the program) would undermine an effective program for thwarting terrorists attacks.

    Not substantively different than leaking details on tracking terrorist finances because of the public’s “right to know”. Extremist as hell, and damaging to national security.

  181. 181.

    Tsulagi

    To show his toughiness, I’m just waiting for Bushy to issue a veto threat against this ruling.

  182. 182.

    John D.

    The ACLU and most liberals would destroy an effective national security program because they are extremists.

    So, since you keep claiming I’m on The Left, do you think this about me? Honest question.

  183. 183.

    ThymeZone

    because of the public’s “right to know”. Extremist as hell

    That’s right. Freedoms, liberties, and the right to know … all extremist.

    The sooner we get rid of them, the sooner we won’t need to “secure” the nation. There won’t be a nation to secure.

  184. 184.

    Steve

    The ACLU and most liberals would destroy an effective national security program because they are extremists. They may not be intentionally aiding the terrorists, but their goal in this case (neutering the program) would undermine an effective program for thwarting terrorists attacks.

    This liberal would settle for a full and fair adjudication of whether the program is legal, preferably by the Supreme Court. Is that extreme and unreasonable of me?

  185. 185.

    Darrell

    You appear to actually believe most liberals are looking to aid the enemy

    Liberals cheered when the NY Times published leaked details on a legal program tracking terrorist finances, just like they cheered when it published details on the NSA program. Most liberals, not “some” liberals smeared our troops with bogus claims of using WMDs in the white phosphorous controvery. Liberals run off campus military recruiters at campuses across the country.. and then tell us how dare anyone challenge their patriotism.

  186. 186.

    Darrell

    This liberal would settle for a full and fair adjudication of whether the program is legal, preferably by the Supreme Court. Is that extreme and unreasonable of me?

    No, it’s not unreasonable of you, and separates you from the majority of liberals clamoring over Bush’s fascist Amerikka.

  187. 187.

    RSA

    They may not be intentionally aiding the terrorists, but their goal in this case (neutering the program) would undermine an effective program for thwarting terrorists attacks.

    Right! Because this program has been effective in deterring how many terrorist attacks? Sorry, that’s a secret. But trust the Bushies–they’ve been right on everything else, haven’t they?

  188. 188.

    Tsulagi

    Hey, here’s a thought. How about investigators in the Gonzales DoJ examining the NSA program for a fully unbiased assessment? Oops, forgot, the WH decided not to give them security clearance.

  189. 189.

    Steve

    No, it’s not unreasonable of you, and separates you from the majority of liberals clamoring over Bush’s fascist Amerikka.

    But the administration has opposed judicial review of this program at every turn, doing everything in its power to prevent a court from ever ruling on the merits of the dispute, twisting arms to block Sen. Specter’s bill that would have provided for a secret adjudication of the program before the FISA Court of Review.

    Above, you said: “The President can challenge any law he reasonably believes encroaches on his authority, and let others sue if they think he’s wrong.” That’s a fine, civics-class interpretation of things. But in the real world, he seems awfully unhappy about the idea that anyone but him gets to determine what limits the Constitution places on his powers. Shouldn’t a duty to uphold the laws and the Constitution demand a little more of him?

  190. 190.

    Darrell

    I know, it’s strange. Why haven’t they weighed in?

    Oh my, some Dems “filed a brief”. I’ll bet they’ve sent some stern letters of condemnation too. That brief doesn’t amount to jack shit and you know it Steve. You throw that out dishonestly, as if it means anything.

    Why the hell after 8 months haven’t Dems offered up legislation for an up or down vote?

  191. 191.

    Pb

    This liberal would settle for a full and fair adjudication of whether the program is legal, preferably by the Supreme Court. Is that extreme and unreasonable of me?

    That makes you just as extreme and unreasonable as our Founding Fathers were, and yours truly is, with our bothersome insistence on ‘the rule of law’ and ‘The Constitution’ and ‘checks and balances’ and all those other quaint pre-9/11 (i.e., post-1776) concepts.

  192. 192.

    neil

    Why the hell after 8 months haven’t Dems offered up legislation for an up or down vote?

    According to today’s ruling, there’s no bill the legislature could pass. The program is unconstitutional, the only thing to do an ‘up or down vote’ on is a revocation of the 4th Amendment. So, Darrell, what say you? Is the 4th Amendment just another example of pre-9/11 thinking?

  193. 193.

    John S.

    Liberals cheered when the NY Times published leaked details on a legal program tracking terrorist finances, just like they cheered when it published details on the NSA program.

    Stating “facts” not in evidence. Or at the very least, you are entirely misrepresenting why people “cheered” these revelations.

    Most liberals, not “some” liberals smeared our troops with bogus claims of using WMDs in the white phosphorous controvery.

    Stating more “facts” not in evidence. How do you quantify the numbers? What the fuck is “most”? Are you gonna pull another number out of your ass like you usually do?

    Give it up man, you’re chasing fucking ghosts. The enemy you have built up in your mind DOESN’T ACTUALLY EXIST.

  194. 194.

    Pb

    Darrell,

    Why the hell after 8 months haven’t Dems offered up legislation for an up or down vote?

    What legislation would you suggest? The Pretty Please Start Following FISA Again Real Soon Now Mr. President Act Of 2006? There’s no legislation to pass here, it’s *already in place*, and has been for decades. Unless you’re suggesting impeachment?

  195. 195.

    Darrell

    That’s a fine, civics-class interpretation of things. But in the real world, he seems awfully unhappy about the idea that anyone but him gets to determine what limits the Constitution places on his powers

    Let’s be clear about Bush’s judicial “overeach”. As elected President, Bush has undisputed authority to monitor foreign terrorists overseas without warrant. There is near unanimous agreement on this point. So then, Bush had the crazy idea that this authority didn’t simply disappear just because an overseas terrorist in Bahrain gets a phone call from the US. This is no wild overreach as the left is framing it. It’s entirely reasonable.

    That the left gets so worked up over such a reasonable interpretation demonstrates what extremists they truly are..

  196. 196.

    John S.

    The Pretty Please Start Following FISA The Law Again Real Soon Now Mr. President Act Of 2006

    Now THAT has a nice ring to it.

  197. 197.

    John S.

    It’s entirely reasonable.

    This administration has lost nearly EVERY ruling in court when it tries to assert that its actions were reasonable.

    That the right refuses to accept the rule of demonstrates what extremists they truly are.

  198. 198.

    Steve

    Let’s be clear about Bush’s judicial “overeach”. As elected President, Bush has undisputed authority to monitor foreign terrorists overseas without warrant. There is near unanimous agreement on this point. So then, Bush had the crazy idea that this authority didn’t simply disappear just because an overseas terrorist in Bahrain gets a phone call from the US. This is no wild overreach as the left is framing it. It’s entirely reasonable.

    So then the question is, why so much opposition to letting a court – even a secret court – rule on this “reasonable” interpretation?

  199. 199.

    Mac Buckets

    Take, for example, the word “shyster.” According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word is of “obscure origin,” but its meaning is hardly obscure. Rooted in the German scatological term scheisser, it’s a deplorable and demeaning word which has traditionally been loaded with anti-Semitism.

    That is so weak and dishonest, Joe, that, well, that I’m surprised you didn’t try it sooner.

    First of all, nice unsourced quote with “OED” bolded, even though the anti-Semitic inference is noted nowhere in OED.

    shyster

    • noun informal a person, especially a lawyer, who uses unscrupulous methods.

    — ORIGIN said to be from Scheuster, the name of a lawyer.

    And yes, I looked up your unsourced quote, and I found that it’s only an unsourced opinion from a commenter at some silly blog. Even dictionaries that give the nod to scheisser being the root don’t note anti-Semitic connotations.

    Word History: Calling someone a shyster might be considered libellous; knowing its probable origin adds insult to injury. According to Gerald L. Cohen, a student of the word, shyster is derived from the German term scheisser, meaning literally “one who defecates,” from the verb scheissen, “to defecate,” with the English suffix -ster, “one who does,” substituted for the German suffix -er, meaning the same thing. Sheisser, which is chiefly a pejorative term, is the German equivalent of our English terms bastard and son of a bitch. Sheisser is generally thought to have been borrowed directly into English as the word shicer, which, among other things, is an Australian English term for an unproductive mine or claim, a sense that is also recorded for the word shyster.

    You should know by now you can’t pull this weakness on me, Joe. Don’t try to cover your ignorant allegations of anti-Semitism with faked, unsourced quotes from Random Blog Commenters. I’ll only break you off, because that’s how I rock it.

  200. 200.

    The Other Steve

    So then the question is, why so much opposition to letting a court – even a secret court – rule on this “reasonable” interpretation?

    They don’t like to work for The Man.

  201. 201.

    Davebo

    Well, when the President does it, that means that it’s not illegal.”

    Worked out just swell for Dick. Here’s hoping Dubya has the same success.

  202. 202.

    Darrell

    What legislation would you suggest?

    Legislation which clarifies the ‘gray areas’ involved in monitoring foreign enemies overseas. If it’s so obvious that criminal Bush is shredding the constitution, then have the balls to propose legislation making it illegal to do exactly what the President is doing.. and if he ignores your noble and patriotic legislation, then take it to the Supreme court.

    Dems should take stand and vote on it for the record. Nah, much easier to let their surrogates in the ACLU pursue it with lawsuits while they try and have it both ways.

  203. 203.

    Davebo

    Mack Buckets.

    You’ve really got to get out of Utah every now and again!

    You’re starting to look really silly.

  204. 204.

    Darrell

    So then the question is, why so much opposition to letting a court – even a secret court – rule on this “reasonable” interpretation?

    I have no problem at all with that in theory, except that we would have to be talking about a court made up of members with high level national security clearances, rather than hacks who would blab details to the NYTimes, right?

  205. 205.

    Davebo

    This liberal would settle for a full and fair adjudication of whether the program is legal, preferably by the Supreme Court.

    Sadly you are going to be extremely dissapointed.

    To this administration, the federal courts are not an asset to be used to determine the legality or constitutionality of the administrations actions.

    They are used as a stall tactic. Does the name Padilla ring a bell?

    This will never get to the Supreme Court because they know what the ruling will be.

  206. 206.

    Steve

    I have no problem at all with that in theory, except that we would have to be talking about a court made up of members with high level national security clearances, rather than hacks who would blab details to the NYTimes, right?

    Right, like the FISA Court of Review. And when Sen. Specter proposed legislation that would have let that secret court rule on the NSA program, the administration did everything in their power to block it. I’m glad to see that you don’t oppose this sort of review – I just wish you would acknowledge that the administration, in fact, is not being quite so reasonable, and is acting like they have something to hide.

  208. 208.

    Punchy

    then have the balls to propose legislation making it illegal to do exactly what the President is doing.. and if he ignores your noble and patriotic legislation, then take it to the Supreme court.

    #1, there’s ALREADY such a law…it’s called FISA
    #2, he IS ignoring it, and thus it WILL go to the SC…

  209. 209.

    RSA

    As elected President, Bush has undisputed authority to monitor foreign terrorists overseas without warrant. . . So then, Bush had the crazy idea that this authority didn’t simply disappear just because an overseas terrorist in Bahrain gets a phone call from the US.

    Nice strawman. If Bush knows that someone is “an overseas terrorist”, wouldn’t it be the height of incompetence not to seek a FISA warrant? Instead, you should be talking about a conversation between people about whom you have insufficient information to get a warrant even from the notoriously lenient FISA court.

  210. 210.

    Punchy

    Bush already agreed to NSA program review

    No he didn’t, dumbass. Read the fucking link before you post it, shithead. Lemmie help you (from your link):

    An administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity said the bill’s language gives the president the option of submitting the program to the intelligence court, rather than making the review a requirement.

    IF Pres. Bush WANTS to, he can. If he doesn’t…well…oh well. That’s not an agreement to have the courts look at it. That’s an agreement to do nothing.

  211. 211.

    ThymeZone

    That the right refuses to accept the rule of

    It’s the new Man-Right Law tribunal. Basically, Burt Reynolds and a few Republicans sit around a table and decide what’s okay what isn’t.

  212. 212.

    Tom in Texas

    I have no problem at all with that in theory, except that we would have to be talking about a court made up of members with high level national security clearances, rather than hacks who would blab details to the NYTimes, right?

    Are you accusing the FISA court of leaking details Darrell? Or maybe its the Supreme Court you don’t trust to keep their mouths shut. From everything I’ve read, no judge divulged state secrets. Rather, it was the NSA itself that leaked this program.

  213. 213.

    Darrell

    Nice strawman. If Bush knows that someone is “an overseas terrorist”, wouldn’t it be the height of incompetence not to seek a FISA warrant?

    RSA, try and imagine that we are not only talking about phone calls, but emails, faxes, satellite communication and god knows what other communication methods. There are spy plane sweeps and electronic nets that gather mountains of data, so voluminous that likely an army of FISA judges couldn’t sort through it all in 100 years. The sheer volume of data to be dealt with is almost certainly why Bush moved forward with the NSA program.

    Remember, under this program, if you’re calling your cousin in Jordan and in a spy sweep, the Feds learn you are dealing drugs in Cleveland, it can’t be used against you. Not at all.

  214. 214.

    Pb

    it was the NSA itself that leaked this program

    Those terrorists! Send them to Gitmo post haste!

  215. 215.

    Tulkinghorn

    So then, Bush had the crazy idea that this authority didn’t simply disappear just because an overseas terrorist in Bahrain gets a phone call from the US. This is no wild overreach as the left is framing it. It’s entirely reasonable.

    This is beyond stupid. Darrell, the goddamn text of the goddamn law specifically addresses this situation. FISA allows the NSA to listen in for three days without a warrant with no requirement for good cause to be shown.

    And what if there were hundreds of these calls at once (say, right before a major terrorist operation) the President could always tell the NSA to go ahead and listen in, and then in good faith say that on this occasion he had to break the law. Do you think he would be sued, much less impeached in such a situation?

  216. 216.

    Punchy

    Sorry Darrell, that was a little strong. Didn’t intend for that to sound so mean, but sometimes your obfuscation is absolutely maddening.

  217. 217.

    demimondian

    If it’s so obvious that criminal Bush is shredding the constitution, then have the balls to propose legislation making it illegal to do exactly what the President is doing.. and if he ignores your noble and patriotic legislation, then take it to the Supreme court.

    Well, boy howdy, and that’s exactly what the ACLU has done. Except that they didn’t bother to propose legislation and gone to the supes, but, instead, brought a direct Constitutional case to the District level (as the law requires).

  218. 218.

    Darrell

    Are you accusing the FISA court of leaking details Darrell?

    No I wasn’t, but keep wailing away on those strawmen Tom. Previously, the Bush admin raised security concerns with proposed Justice Dept. investigations. The fewer the people involved in the details of the classified program, the less chances of a security breach.

    Personally, I’m glad the President played hardball here, at least at first, as his actions “shook the tree” regarding debate on Presidential constitutional authority, which he has reasonably asserted. We have 3 separate but equal branches of government. A lot of people don’t seem to understand that. Bush reminded them.

  219. 219.

    Tulkinghorn

    There are spy plane sweeps and electronic nets that gather mountains of data, so voluminous that likely an army of FISA judges couldn’t sort through it all in 100 years. The sheer volume of data to be dealt with is almost certainly why Bush moved forward with the NSA program.

    ummm… I suppose in that case we could change the law? As long as Congress made appropriate findings it would probably pass judicial muster. And since the program is no longer secret, why not?

    It couldn’t have something to do with the program tapping Bill Clinton’s phone calls, no?

  220. 220.

    Darrell

    Well, boy howdy, and that’s exactly what the ACLU has done

    Exactly. Because spineless Dems didn’t have the balls to propose legislation and vote on it, in order to play it both ways, they have their surrogates at the ACLU file lawsuits. That way, they can pretent that they’re ‘tough on terrorists’ for mainstream Americans, while winking and nodding to the Dems increasingly radicalized base.

  221. 221.

    ThymeZone

    How to make your shampoo bomb

    Kevin Drum has the goods again. Here’s how close we did NOT come to having the evil British shampoobomb plot reach its sinister climax.

    Combined with the fact that the “bombers” had no plane tickets and in some cases, no passports in some cases … whew … we really dodged a rubber bullet there.

    Good thing those NSA eavesdroppers were right on top of this thing. Weren’t they?

  222. 222.

    Darrell

    ummm… I suppose in that case we could change the law?

    If it goes to the Supreme court and the Bush admin loses, that’s almost certainly what will happen. The Bush admin is not only doing what it thinks is best to thwart terrorists attacks with this program, I believe at the same time, the Bush admin wanted to remind everyone that an elected President has very real authority and powers granted in the constitution.

  223. 223.

    ThymeZone

    Once the plane is over the ocean, very discreetly bring all of your gear into the toilet. You might need to make several trips to avoid drawing attention. Once your kit is in place, put a beaker containing the peroxide / acetone mixture into the ice water bath (Champagne bucket), and start adding the acid, drop by drop, while stirring constantly. Watch the reaction temperature carefully. The mixture will heat, and if it gets too hot, you’ll end up with a weak explosive. In fact, if it gets really hot, you’ll get a premature explosion possibly sufficient to kill you, but probably no one else.

    After a few hours — assuming, by some miracle, that the fumes haven’t overcome you or alerted passengers or the flight crew to your activities — you’ll have a quantity of TATP with which to carry out your mission. Now all you need to do is dry it for an hour or two.

    The genius of this scheme is that TATP is relatively easy to detonate. But you must make enough of it to crash the plane, and you must make it with care to assure potency. One needs quality stuff to commit “mass murder on an unimaginable scale,” as Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Stephenson put it. While it’s true that a slapdash concoction will explode, it’s unlikely to do more than blow out a few windows. At best, an infidel or two might be killed by the blast, and one or two others by flying debris as the cabin suddenly depressurizes, but that’s about all you’re likely to manage under the most favorable conditions possible.

    There’s more at the link. The good news is that it will make you feel a little more confident about the safety of flying overseas. The bad news is that it will make you feel a little less confident about the terror announcements of our national governments.

    Just shows to go ya, if the government says it, it must be true.

    Right Darrell?

  224. 224.

    John S.

    We have 3 separate but equal branches of government. A lot of people don’t seem to understand that. Bush reminded them.

    I love when you spout shit like this. You sound so smug and condescending, like you’re a schoolteacher lecturing a class full of wanton students. And the best part is when you sum up it all up by entirely missing the point and being wrong – as usual.

    A person like you who thinks they are always right and try to browbeat others with their ‘superiority’ while being completely fucking wrong all the time must really leave their mark in the world.

    It would come as no surprise to me if you were unemployed and had very few intrapersonal relationships. I mean, how else could you write post after post of mindless drivel here all throughout the day and night?

  225. 225.

    ThymeZone

    “Ladies and gentlemen, this is the flight deck … we’re going to be holding here off Cape Cod for two hours to give our terrorist passengers time to get the final mix of their explosive chemicals ready before we land at Kennedy airport. Those of you in the rear of the plane may need to move forward to get away from the noxious fumes pouring out of the lavatory. We regret this inconvenience.”

    From my new booklet, “Inflight Announcements You Are Not Likely to Hear Any Time Soon”, just $19.95 plus shipping.

  226. 226.

    RonB

    The President has reasonably argued that this constitutional authority should not suddenly disappear just because a terrorist in Libya receives a phone call from Cleveland.

    If that’s all he’s arguing for, then FISA provides for that. What the President wants is to look at billions of communications passed through domestic switches legally. What the NSA is doing is beyond FISA’s power to allow. Hoovering up domestic commo needs to be legally challenged. It’s just part of the process and I don’t understand anymore why people think this is “leftist” or “liberal”. It would seem to me that most “leftists” are arguing more for the procedure to be vetted and overseen than they are for the procedure to be discarded.

    Let’s just imagine for a moment that “leftists” are not the ones making the con arguments regarding The Program. Would you then be able to look at a court challenge as a sign of the health of our separation of powers? When you get down to it, challenging this type of power extension is downright…conservative, in the true sense of the word.

  227. 227.

    Darrell

    IF Pres. Bush WANTS to, he can. If he doesn’t…well…oh well. That’s not an agreement to have the courts look at it. That’s an agreement to do nothing.

    That’s what gets liberals so riled. For so long, they have believed that all the power rests with the almighty Judicial and Legislative branches. Bush reminded them that we have 3 separate, but equal branches, each with different constitutional powers and authority. “How dare Bush do that!”

    I understand their position, I just don’t agree with it in this instance. Furthermore, I think libs are showing their extremism over this assertion of Presidential authority with initiating the NSA program.. which from what’s been reported, seems to be an entirely reasonable. Libs are portraying it as some wild overreach, which it’s not.

  228. 228.

    ThymeZone

    Remember, even though it is now a certainty that the British Shampoobomb Plot was hyped from being a funny Owen Wilson movie plot to 911 Redux, and even though your government deliberately pushed for arrests and disclosure of the thing right at this particular time probably for political reasons, and even though you have been fucked up the ass once again by these lying cocksuckers running this Potemkin government, as Darrell would say, the most importatnt thin you need to be doing right now is making sure that these lying turds are licensed to do any fucking thing they want to do, to anyone, at any time, to protect America.

    Any challenge of their power is unAmerican and helps the terrorists … including the ones who probably would have blown themselves up in the airport bathroom before they ever got on the fucking plane.

  230. 230.

    Darrell

    It would seem to me that most “leftists” are arguing more for the procedure to be vetted and overseen than they are for the procedure to be discarded.

    If that’s true what you say, then ask yourself, was the first reaction of liberals A or B?

    A)’We’re all for the monitoring of terrorists, but we’d like to work on more ways to have additional congressional oversight’

    B) ‘Bush’s “illegal” program is a clear violation of our privacy rights. He is wiretapping Americans without warrant’

    An honest answer to that question says it all, wouldn’t you agree?

  231. 231.

    Tsulagi

    You can debate left/right points or messages for days, months, or the remaining years in this administration. Doesn’t matter. At the end of the day for now there is still Bush: The.Worst.President.Ever.

    Regardless of whatever laws passed, commission recommendations, court rulings, etc., he doesn’t understand them, despises them, and will still do whatever retarded thing breezes through his head. He’s garbage. He doesn’t deserve to be in the same room with an American flag. Until he’s gone and/or the ball-less enablers in Congress of this kind of presidency are booted, FUBAR is the order of the day.

  232. 232.

    neil

    Libs are portraying it as some wild overreach, which it’s not.

    I think you mean ‘the judiciary’ are portraying it that way.

  233. 233.

    ThymeZone

    ask yourself, was the first reaction of liberals Bush?

    A) FISA makes it harder for me to do this thing I want to do. So what? Fuck it. I’ll do what I want. Terror is scary. People will love me for it.

    B) I want to protect America, but I also want to protect the rule of law and the integrity of the branches of government here. So I’ll work closely with congress to modify the FISA law, and get both the surveillance power I need, and insure proper oversight, at the same time. That’s what a good president would do.

    Which one did Bush pick?

  234. 234.

    neil

    A)’We’re all for the monitoring of terrorists, but we’d like to work on more ways to have additional congressional oversight’

    That’s pretty stupid, honestly. Oversight is not an end in and of itself. Asking for oversight for oversight’s sake sounds like a parody.

    B) ‘Bush’s “illegal” program is a clear violation of our privacy rights. He is wiretapping Americans without warrant’

    Because only liberal extremists believe in the 4th Amendment. Darrell thinks it’s outdated, pre-9/11 thinking and believes that it should be voted down, but he won’t say so.

  235. 235.

    ThymeZone

    Darrell thinks it’s outdated, pre-9/11 thinking and believes that it should be voted down, but he won’t say so.

    Darrell imitates his idol, the lying cocksucker alcoholic coke addict failed businessman Bush. Why bother to take the time to be upfront and work through a difficult situation, when you can just shit on your enemies and grab what you want and cover it all up with a big lie?

    I mean really, why bother? Isn’t the second way better and faster?

  236. 236.

    Tulkinghorn

    Furthermore, I think libs are showing their extremism over this assertion of Presidential authority with initiating the NSA program.. which from what’s been reported, seems to be an entirely reasonable. Libs are portraying it as some wild overreach, which it’s not.

    I don’t even know where to begin to unpack this nonsense. As just a start, lets observe that:

    1. It is not just ‘Libs’ who consider the program a)illegal and b)unconstitutional;

    2. ‘from what’s been reported, seem to be an (sic) entirely reasonable.’ — I have a problem with whether adequately reporting was made to Congress, and ‘seems… reasonable’ to who? You? That is reassuring!

    3. ‘Libs are showing their extremism’ — whether or not one can accurately call a liberal to be an extremist, what does it mean to show one’s extremism in this context? Is it extremist to complain about a deliberate and cynical program to violate the law and disrupt the balance of powers, or is it extreme to say that the law and the constitution are a ‘suicide pact’?

    How about some proof that the administration has been reasonable? We could start with the NSA director stating under oath whether or not Bill Clinton’s telephone calls have been intercepted?

  237. 237.

    Darrell

    the lying cocksucker alcoholic coke addict failed businessman Bush

    That’s the winning campaign message that you Dems need to communicate this fall. You’ll be speaking truth to power..

  238. 238.

    RonB

    Oversight and vetting by the courts, Darrell. In case it is determined it’s a clear violation of our privacy rights.

  240. 240.

    neil

    Isn’t the second way better and faster?

    Yes, because the ends justify the means.

    On that topic, did you notice in the thread yesterday where Darrell said two wrongs made a right? More moral clarity from the Professor.

  242. 242.

    ThymeZone

    did you notice in the thread yesterday where Darrell said two wrongs made a right

    No, I didn’t. But it makes sense, now that you mention it.

    Two wrongs can certainly make a right if the second wrong is aimed at repairing the damage done by the first one.

    It’s commonsense practical, and truthy. I like it.

  243. 243.

    Darrell

    I don’t even know where to begin to unpack this nonsense. As just a start, lets observe that:

    1. It is not just ‘Libs’ who consider the program a)illegal and b)unconstitutional;

    Ok, fair enough. Now you acknowledge that lefties, including a Clinton Asst. Attorney general consider it well within the President’s constitutional powers.

    Tulk’s post is another example of unhinged liberal reaction to the NSA program.

  244. 244.

    Ancient Purple

    the Bush admin wanted to remind everyone that an elected President has very real authority and powers granted in the constitution.

    Power which trumps the right of the people.

    Right, Darrell??

  245. 245.

    ThymeZone

    Power which trumps the right of the people.

    Well, according to Darrell, once the people say that they have a right to be protected, then the protectors get to decide what other rights they end up with.

    You can’t have it both ways … safe, and free. The Constitution doesn’t promise us a bed of windsurfing roses, you know.

  246. 246.

    Darrell

    RonB Says:

    Oversight and vetting by the courts, Darrell. In case it is determined it’s a clear violation of our privacy rights.

    I take it you’re not going to answer my question regarding liberal reaction and behavior regarding the NSA program.. It was a reasonable point Ron. You asserted that the libs act in good faith. Please answer honestly.

  247. 247.

    neil

    Tulk’s post is another example of unhinged liberal reaction to the NSA program.

    And so is Judge Diggs Taylor’s cease-and-desist order, right?

  248. 248.

    Tulkinghorn

    You admit that some republican agree that the program is illegal, yet I am the unhinged one? Who among us is grasping at straws, hinge-boy?

  249. 249.

    ThymeZone

    I take it you’re not going to answer my question

    Where do you get off asking questions around here?

    When do you start answering some fucking questions?

    Like this one:

    Which one did Bush pick?

  251. 251.

    neil

    Darrell, on the other hand, is the least good-faith arguer that you’ll be able to find on this side of Usenet. Those two choices were totally absurd, and essentially precluded the possibility that anybody has a reasonable desire not to be spied upon.

    Why won’t you tell us your position on the 4th Amendment? Useful bulwark against government intrusion, or terrorist-enabling liberal claptrap? This is pretty key stuff.

  252. 252.

    Darrell

    RonB Says:

    Oversight and vetting by the courts, Darrell.

    Ron, most individual military and national security programs don’t get vetted by outside courts unless there is a glaring problem to warrant such an investigation. In this case, the Bush admin got the program approved by NSA legal chiefs as well as the Justice Dept. Where is the evidence of illegality or overreach?

  253. 253.

    Rusty Shackleford

    John S. Says:

    We have 3 separate but equal branches of government. A lot of people don’t seem to understand that. Bush reminded them.

    I love when you spout shit like this. You sound so smug and condescending, like you’re a schoolteacher lecturing a class full of wanton students. And the best part is when you sum up it all up by entirely missing the point and being wrong – as usual.

    A person like you who thinks they are always right and try to browbeat others with their ‘superiority’ while being completely fucking wrong all the time must really leave their mark in the world.

    It would come as no surprise to me if you were unemployed and had very few intrapersonal relationships. I mean, how else could you write post after post of mindless drivel here all throughout the day and night?

    August 17th, 2006 at 5:20 pm

    Oh my goodness – Darrell is the Rightard equivalent of David Brent!

  254. 254.

    Darrell

    Ron, I have read a number of your posts. Honestly, you seem like a liberal who is posing as a centrist moderate. I’ve never read one thing you’ve posted right of center. Or center/moderate for that matter. Why don’t you just come out and call yourself what you really are?..a liberal. Go ahead, you’ll feel better about yourself.

  255. 255.

    RonB

    While you’re composing your answer, I’ll answer your question. I think it is very noble that anyone questioned the validity of this program regardless of why they felt it was illegal. Whether they are doing their civic duty on a very sophisticated level(reading FISA) or a rudimentary level(reading the fourth amendment), it doesn’t matter. I can only speak for myself, but I am sure there are many people besides myself for whom the learning curve was and remains steep on this issue.

    These days, anyone who takes an interest deserves a hat tip.

  256. 256.

    RonB

    Ron, most individual military and national security programs don’t get vetted by outside courts unless there is a glaring problem to warrant such an investigation. In this case, the Bush admin got the program approved by NSA legal chiefs as well as the Justice Dept. Where is the evidence of illegality or overreach?

    That is true, but you’ll note that both entities are withing the executive branch. Why shouldn’t a group like the ACLU challenge this executive huddle? That’s why they are there.

  258. 258.

    John S.

    Ron, I have read a number of your posts. Honestly, you seem like a liberal who is posing as a centrist moderate.

    Yes, Ron. Confess. This is the New Inquisition. Grand Iquisitor Darrellmada presiding. Please check your patriotic tendencies according to the chart below:

    L ——————————————{center}– R

    All those to the left of center and his honorable munificence, Grand Iquisitor Darrellmada, please register for your purging.

  259. 259.

    Darrell

    While you’re composing your answer, I’ll answer your question. I think it is very noble that anyone questioned the validity of this program regardless of why they felt it was illegal.

    Hey, I’m all for questioning things. You responded reasonably, so please forgive my somewhat snarkish followup
    1) Do we need to monitor terrorists? Yes, for obvious national security reasons

    2) Does the President have authority to monitor foreign terrorists without warrant? Unquestionably

    3)Is is reasonable that this Presidential authority to monitor terrorists overseas, should remain in place even when communication to these foreign suspects originates in the US? Yes (my opinion)

    See? I asked the questions, making me noble(?) by your standards. I think I did so in a reasonable and logical fashion. Questions can and should be asked. But coming right out of the gate with accusations of “illegal wiretapping without warrant” as so many on the left did, is not noble and it’s not responsible.

  260. 260.

    ThymeZone

    This is the New Inquisition. Grand Iquisitor Darrellmada presiding

    Didn’t Poe write about this in the Pit and the Pendulum?

    “With each swing of the terrible blade, RonB could feel his body flatten tighter against the floor ….”

  261. 261.

    RonB

    Ron, I have read a number of your posts. Honestly, you seem like a liberal who is posing as a centrist moderate. I’ve never read one thing you’ve posted right of center. Or center/moderate for that matter. Why don’t you just come out and call yourself what you really are?..a liberal. Go ahead, you’ll feel better about yourself.

    I’ve definitely shifted left, and am still considering changing the name. But there is always the possibility that I’ve really only shifted left from the right, know what I mean? Feel free to put me in with the liberals, though. Whatever you are calling the people opposed to the political climate the Bush administration has created, that’s what I am.

  262. 262.

    Darrell

    Why shouldn’t a group like the ACLU challenge this executive huddle? That’s why they are there.

    To take your logic to it’s conclusion (that everything is fair game for ACLU investigations), how about ACLU legal challenges that would expose the names of covert CIA operatives and/or their assets? How about their constitutional right to have access to the nuclear launch codes? Isn’t it noble to ask?

    Reasonable people know there must be limits. We can debate what those limits should be, but only as soon as you and your side admit that there do need to be limits.

  263. 263.

    John S.

    Whatever you are calling the people opposed to the political climate the Bush administration has created, that’s what I am.

    So you admit to having Bush Derangement Syndrome. Good.

    Grand Iquisitor Darrellmada is pleased.

  265. 265.

    John S.

    Reasonable people know there must be limits.

    Indeed.

    Fortunately, Grand Iquisitor Darrellmada is a highly unreasonable man.

    For him – there are no limits.

  266. 266.

    Darrell

    Whatever you are calling the people opposed to the political climate the Bush administration has created

    Do you acknowledge any culpability of this climate coming from the unhinged Bush haters? Or am I a Rovian Bush-fellator for even having dared to ask that question?

  268. 268.

    RonB

    Hey, I’m all for questioning things. You responded reasonably, so please forgive my somewhat snarkish followup

    Don’t worry about it. It’s what we all do here. When I told you that you had no Elvis in you, I figured snark was all I would get from you from there on in. That was a serious accusation and perhaps the Elvis in you is greater than I thought. Talk to it! Call it up! Say heal me, Elvis! Be born again in the perfect Elvis light.

  269. 269.

    jg

    Or am I a Rovian Bush-fellator for even having dared to ask that question?

    I don’t know about for daring to ask but definately for the phrasing.

  270. 270.

    RonB

    Is is reasonable

    But is it legal?

    The answer to that question is now in the correct hands and we have done our duty.

  271. 271.

    RonB

    how about ACLU legal challenges that would expose the names of covert CIA operatives and/or their assets? How about their constitutional right to have access to the nuclear launch codes? Isn’t it noble to ask?

    What Constitutional tenet or passage is being violated in either of those cases? Just so Im clear here.

  272. 272.

    ThymeZone

    Boy oh boy, talk about your res ipsa loquitur!

    So, Republicans are on the verge of snatching huge defeat from the jaws of victory handed to them on a silver platter by terrorists. They’re just toast. The jig is up, the people now know that these turds in suits have been all about themselves for five years, and not about the people.

    So what I don’t get is, what do the Darrells and Macs think they are accomplishing with this tireless, mindless, never ending blind unquestioning support of these crap artists?

    Well we already know the answer, but it’s still fun to ask.

  274. 274.

    RonB

    Do you acknowledge any culpability of this climate coming from the unhinged Bush haters?

    I know you have to leave, but maybe you can return to this. Why do you think the Bush haters are unhinged? My immediate answer to your question is no, but I’m open to your opinion.

  275. 275.

    Tsulagi

    L—————————————————————{center}—R

    You got that right. Coming into 2000 I could’ve probably been described as a socially liberal, small government, strong defense, fiscally responsible Libertarian who did vote for Republicans in my state. We had some good ones. Then.

    Then came Bush and the Reign of the Super Stupids who took a large part of the country on a huge short bus ride to retardo-theocon land. I stayed where I was, but now that was called screaming-liberal moonbat territory. Fuck ’em, I want my country back.

  276. 276.

    RonB

    PPGaz, thanks for the laffs, you helped pass my 24 hour duty. What I enjoy most about you is that you can always get away with being as outrageous as you want and say the most fucked up shit to people and get away with it, because you know exactly what youre talking about behind all the trash talk.

    I wish I knew enough about certain things so I could be nasty and rude whenever I felt like it.

  278. 278.

    Bruce Moomaw

    One other rather important point: one of the main arguments made defenders of the warrantless wiretap program is that it ONLY applies to overseas calls. Well, sir: as pointed out by Kevin Drum in one of his May 17 entries, Gonzales and Michal Hayden have both announced puclicly earlier this year that Bush reserves the right to start secretly applying it to purely domestic calls any time he chooses, without bothering to inform Congress or the courts.

  279. 279.

    ThymeZone

    I wish I knew enough about certain things so I could be nasty and rude whenever I felt like it.

    Your post made me laugh. And cry. And pull the heads off three kittens. Okay, they were plush kittens, but still.

    I admire your work, sir. You’ve got Darrell on the ropes, too.

    Darrell just doesn’t get this. I’m the most liberal guy here, probably. Maybe. Sort of. But anyway, I am not against judicious and supervised use of tools to catch terrorists.

    What I am against is unbridled, unchecked power for the president.

    Asking me to choose between surveillance and security, on one hand, and proper protections via oversight and separation of powers on the other hand, is a false dichotomy. Any reasonable person can see that, IMO.

    But Darrell doesn’t care about that. To Darrell, shitting on people who disagree with him is what it’s all — ALL — about, all the time. That’s why I don’t tolerate his crap.

    Anyway, keep up the good work.

  282. 282.

    The Other Steve

    63% of Republican voters believe that Bush has made some or a lot of mistakes in Iraq

    The problem wasn’t Bush.

    The problem has been Republican moonbatty ideology.

  283. 283.

    VidaLoca

    Darrell,

    Do you acknowledge any culpability of this climate coming from the unhinged Bush haters?

    Let’s take a step back to the election of 2000, which Bush won in the only vote that mattered, 5-4. Through the first nine months of his term, though he held an office he hardly had a mandate; still most people were willing to adopt a wait-and-see attitude.

    And that was the way it was though Sept. 10, 2001 — but by September 12 he had the country, indeed the world, solidly behind him. The mandate was finally his, and his to lose.

    He’s lost it in spectacular fashion. All the good will he had, and the US had too, pissed away.

    Is Bush the only reason the political climate is what it is today, going on five years after 9/11? No. The media has consistently refused to play any critical role. The GOP majority in Congress has refused to exercise any oversight. The Democratic minority in Congress has refused to offer any opposition.

    There’s blame to go around but the majority of it lands squarely where it belongs: on Bush. Finally, at the ripe old age of 60 years, a responsibility that he can’t avoid.

    Your “unhinged Bush haters”? A bunch of voices crying in the wilderness. Nobody would support them, nobody would listen to them — it would all be a fart in a whirlwind but what they’re saying is true. Bush will never escape it.

    And there won’t be any building of a Dolchstosslegende this time either. Bush owns this mess.

  284. 284.

    ThymeZone

    Unlike other two-term presidents, Bush hasn’t grown in office, become an old familiar whose irritating traits and lapses could be accepted almost affectionately, like Reagan’s dottiness. He’s demonstrably diminished, dwarfed by the reality that he continues to deny and repeating himself in press conferences like a robot whose wiring is on the fritz, for whom words and phrases are nothing more than pre-programmed units of sound. He’s more irritating and dangerous than ever before, because he doesn’t know anything, doesn’t know or care that he doesn’t know anything, and yet persists in a path of destruction as if it were the road to salvation. It’s finally dawned on responsible minds that Bush could take all of us down with him before he and the neocons are through.
    DKos.

    World. Of. Shit.

  285. 285.

    ThymeZone

    So, all kidding aside:

    When it looks like Bush is dragging us into war, with Iran, what are you going to do?

    I think it’s time to start asking those kinds of questions. I for one am not going to sit here and do nothing. I’d be inclined to join, or start, a march on Washington, and go there and just march on the fucking White House. I figure if a million people marched on the White House we should be able to stop the crazy fucker from doing anything really crazy.

    How about you?

  286. 286.

    Kirk Spencer

    Thymezone, what do you mean ‘when it looks like’? He is.

    Of course, I’ve been convinced that a US attack on Iran is inevitable for about six months now, and discussed it on my blog back in April. The reasoning is simple: Bush doesn’t do Nuance.

    All the talk of how we’re dancing and pushing Iran, sharing the dance with the UN and Russia to keep them offbalance, they all assume that our nation’s leader is subtle and capable of parsing and nuance and finesse. And that’s not Bush. The reason many of his supporters gave for supporting him was that he was straightforward.

    But at the same time, Bush intends to accomplish everything he said he’d accomplish. Dislike him as much as you wish (and I do), he tells you his intent and sets out to accomplish every single one of them. And he has said that Iran must have a regime change. And that it has to be under his term because he doesn’t trust a later president – of EITHER PARTY – to do it.

    The man isn’t stupid – intellectually lazy, yes, stupid, no. He – or Rove and Cheney – can be quite certain that the next congress has a darn good chance of being at least one house Democrat. Which means his ability to wage aggression gets some severe brakes applied.

    The absolute latest I see us hitting Iran – intending shock and awe and disruption of the current regime so as to enable the rise of the revolution – is early March of 2007. For reasons of partisan politics I actually expect it in the last couple of weeks before the November elections. I sincerely hope I’m wrong. But I’m buying provisions and investments based on the assumption I’m right – of course, it won’t hurt me if I’m wrong.

    The problem with your plan, ThymeZone, is that the disbelief of the public is still strong enough that by the time a million people are convinced enough to march it’ll be too late. Or so I believe.

  287. 287.

    Pb

    the Bush admin got the program approved by NSA legal chiefs as well as the Justice Dept

    Wow, that’s like all three branches of the unitary executive!

    How about you?

    See you there?

  288. 288.

    Tulkinghorn

    I figure if a million people marched on the White House we should be able to stop the crazy fucker from doing anything really crazy.

    You do not appreciate the perversity of that man in the White House. If you demonstrate against him you will harden his heart and strengthen his resolve to go ahead and invade. He will do it out of spite, not spite toward Iranians, but out of spite toward his American opposition.

    You are dealing with an omnipotent three-year-old. Manipulate him into thinking he is competent to make the decision, and cut out his support while he is not looking. Our armed forces are not capable of taking on Iran without tremendous loss of life. Our officers need to be talking to their retired colleagues and getting that message out.

    Let a thousand Murthas bloom.

  289. 289.

    Pb

    The man isn’t stupid – intellectually lazy, yes, stupid, no.

    No–attacking Iraq was really stupid. And attacking Iran now would be far, far more stupid. At least, you know, as far as America is concerned. No, either Bush is really, really stupid, or he might as well be working for al-Qaeda.

  290. 290.

    Par R

    Eugene Volokh appears to feel that today’s decision by the Whack Job Judge will fall apart on review. He writes:

    “…the judge’s opinion in today’s NSA eavesdropping case seems not just ill-reasoned, but rhetorically ill-conceived. A careful, thoughtful, detailed, studiously calm and impartial-seeming opinion might have swung some higher court judges (and indirectly some Justices, if it comes to that). A seemingly angry, almost partisan-sounding opinion (“[The orders] violate the Separation of Powers ordained by the very Constitution of which this President is a creature,” emphasis added, thanks to a caller for pointing this out) is unlikely to sway the other judges — especially when the opinion is rich in generalities, platitudes (“There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution”), and “obviously”‘s, and poor in detailed discussion of some of the government’s strongest arguments. “

  291. 291.

    Darrell

    RonB Says:

    how about ACLU legal challenges that would expose the names of covert CIA operatives and/or their assets? How about their constitutional right to have access to the nuclear launch codes? Isn’t it noble to ask?

    What Constitutional tenet or passage is being violated in either of those cases? Just so Im clear here.

    Just so we’re clear – you are actually suggesting that it “may be” ok for the ACLU to publish nuclear launch codes, as long as it doesn’t explicitly violate a Constitutional tenet, right? Wow. I guess in fairness Ron, it would constitute treason. Help me understand where you’re coming from.. are you suggesting that if it’s legal (including legal technicality loopholes), then that makes it right? I’m trying to determine if you have a moral compass asking a question like that.. because your questions make me wonder

  293. 293.

    Darrell

    Let’s take a step back to the election of 2000, which Bush won in the only vote that mattered, 5-4.

    As well as every single recount, including those made by liberal newspapers and mags.. just so you know

  294. 294.

    Tulkinghorn

    Yes Darrell, I know the slime merchants are waiting.

    Let’s see how well it goes this time, why don’t we?

  295. 295.

    Darrell

    Tulkinghorn Says:

    Yes Darrell, I know the slime merchants are waiting.

    Extremist whackjobs call them “slime merchants”.. Most call them truth tellers. As usual, judge for yourself

  296. 296.

    Darrell

    Eugene Volokh appears to feel that today’s decision by the Whack Job Judge will fall apart on review. He writes

    But the liberals “feel” that the whacky judge must be righteous.. so that’s all that matters in the ‘reality based’ community. Facts, reason and law don’t play a part in their world.

  297. 297.

    Pb

    Darrell,

    As well as every single recount

    False.

    Facts, reason and law don’t play a part in theirDarrell’s world.

    Fixed.

  299. 299.

    Ancient Purple

    You do not appreciate the perversity of that man in the White House.

    Probably not. But I do like the fact that he unintentionally causes Darrell to wet the bed every time he raises the terrorist threat level.

    My stock in Depends and rubber sheets quadruples in value everytime we go from yellow to orange. Once the whole thing hits red, I am retiring.

  300. 300.

    The Other Steve

    I figure if a million people marched on the White House we should be able to stop the crazy fucker from doing anything really crazy.

    Only if they’re carrying something besides a protest sign.

  301. 301.

    The Other Steve

    Extremist whackjobs call them “slime merchants”.. Most call them truth tellers. As usual, judge for yourself

    Really? Most.

    Prove it. You know you can’t because most people would look at that website and consider it the work of a bunch of whackadoodles.

    Give us a break. Murtha is going to win reelection this year. Why? Because he’s done nothing wrong. If anything he stood up and told the truth. An inconvenient truth that you are afraid of because you are a moral coward.

    So take your little coward shit and run home ot mommy.

  302. 302.

    The Other Steve

    Is it just me, or is Darrell getting more and more desperate these days?

    He used to pretend like he was in the mainstream, some sort of moderate. But lately he’s been posting to links to Republican websites which are increasingly ever more extremist.

    I smell fear.

  303. 303.

    Perry Como

    I smell fear.

    Lobbying groups in DC are hiring Dem insiders. They know which way the wind is blowing.

  305. 305.

    Zifnab

    Lobbying groups in DC are hiring Dem insiders. They know which way the wind is blowing.

    For those of you who’ve picked up the book Freakonomics, I enjoyed the chapter on campaign contributions.

    Typically, its not that a campaign that receives more money will win the election, but the campaign that is expected to win the election receives more money. And the Democrats, not surprisingly, are seeing a windfall.

    I can’t wait for Republicans to start decrying the unfairness of campaign funding again once they’re back in the dog house. “But… but… we should have term limits and campaign limits and third parties and… why is the Federal Government so mean!”

  306. 306.

    Kimmitt

    No—attacking Iraq was really stupid.

    Bull. It got him the Senate, got him reelected, and almost got him a chance to gut Social Security. Attacking Iraq was many things, but for George W. Bush, who cares nothing for the good of this country, it was not stupid.

  307. 307.

    Ancient Purple

    On a related matter, being of Middle Eastern descent, a Muslim, and buying lots of cell phones means you are probably a terrorist.

    Or not.

    Lawyers for three Texas men once accused of plotting to blow up the Mackinac Bridge claim the government is bailing out an overzealous prosecutor by bringing unprecedented charges.

    Until Wednesday, even the FBI said the business of buying and altering cell phones — as the men claim was their only motive — was a legal enterprise, and that the only issue was whether proceeds end up in terrorist coffers.

    But now, the FBI and U.S. attorneys in Bay City say the entrepreneurial behavior of three Americans of Palestinian descent amounts to fraud, not terrorism.

    “Our research shows us that this prosecution is the first of its kind under these circumstances,” the trio’s Dearborn defense attorney, Nabih H. Ayad, and his team said. “This is absolutely out of the realm.

    Because if you are reselling cell phones for a quick buck, you are an Osama Bin Laden toadie.

  308. 308.

    The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me

    I figure if a million people marched on the White House we should be able to stop the crazy fucker from doing anything really crazy.

    Bush doesn’t listen to focus groups. Didn’t you learn that the last time a million marchers tried to stop him from invading a country?

    When you’re defending America (and, by extension, the rest of the free world, including those ingrate French bastards), you just don’t have the time for it.

    Go fuck a sunflower, Hippies. Iranians are about to get freedom, one way or the other.

  309. 309.

    Pb

    Kimmitt,

    for George W. Bush, who cares nothing for the good of this country

    That’s essentially the choice–either he’s really stupid, or he cares nothing for the good of this country, or both.

  310. 310.

    Mac Buckets

    Because if you are reselling cell phones for a quick buck, you are an Osama Bin Laden toadie.

    Naive as baby kittens, you lot are.

    If they’re just reselling the tracphones for a quick buck, why’d they destroy the packaging and rip out the battery charger? Who destroys a large chunk of the utility of a product in order to resell it?

    Why pay cash everywhere? If it’s a business venture, use up all the credit you can muster to increase your buying power!

    Why drive a van across the country for the phones and not just have them drop-shipped to Dallas? You can get them at WALMART.com, so there’s no shortage of supply. Come to think of it, why didn’t they order even one phone online? Because it leaves a paper trail?

    What normal consumer in their right mind would buy damaged phones (which, incidentally, are untraceable and have been used to detonate explosive devices) for 20% over retail? Are you in the market for an above-retail phone with the charger ripped out?

    These clowns may well be pawns who are being prosecuted by an overzealous local police force (they should’ve been followed until we found out which mullah– I mean, who was buying the phones). But yeah, take their alibi at face value — it’s very cute.

  311. 311.

    Pb

    Mac Buckets,

    Naive as baby kittens, you lot are.

    You’re dumber than a baby kitten.

    If they’re just reselling the tracphones for a quick buck, why’d they destroy the packaging and rip out the battery charger?

    Because they’re smarter businessmen than you’ll ever be:

    “In a legal variation, the phone is discarded, and the batteries, charger and included minutes of air time are broken down and sold separately — invariably for more than the phone.” — Newsday

    yeah, take their alibi at face value

    Yeah, sure, that’s what we’re doing–us, and the FBI, that is. Pfft.

  312. 312.

    Mac Buckets

    Because they’re smarter businessmen than you’ll ever be:

    I was not aware that one definition of “smart business” involved going to the hole for fraud and money-laundering like these three — thanks for the info.

    I just couldn’t work out a profit/pricing structure that made sense for this scheme that didn’t involve the end-buyer being retarded or criminal (which I’m guessing he still is in many cases). If tampering with the phones increases their value significantly, that could make it work out (though still not legally).

  313. 313.

    Pb

    Mac Buckets,

    I was not aware that one definition of “smart business” involved going to the hole for fraud and money-laundering

    That’s right–Mac Buckets’ rule #1 of smart business: just don’t get caught. If only they had been rich white Republicans, or had made bigger campaign contributions to the GOP, maybe they could be living it up right now. Then again, that doesn’t always work out either.

    I just couldn’t work out a profit/pricing structure that made sense for this scheme

    Well now you know.

  314. 314.

    Ancient Purple

    Shorter MacBuckets: If you are caught shoplifting a Baby Ruth from 7-11, you obviously are a bank robber.

    Great job in reading the full article there, Mac. If you had actually read it, you would have seen the part where it states how this type of phone manipulation is pretty common. Go to any flea market in any city and you will find those manipulated phones for sale.

    Great job indeed.

  315. 315.

    The Other Steve

    Naive as baby kittens, you lot are.

    Perhaps, but…

    Oh dear… What’s this?

    New charges?

    The federal government alleges that the men are part of a scheme to buy up phones that Nokia makes for TracFone and then remove TracFone’s proprietary software, enabling use of the handsets with any cellular provider.

    Occam’s Razor my friend. Occam’s Razor. Cell phones without batteries and chargers aren’t much use to terrorists. And if they were terrorists, why wouldn’t they have picked up the cheaper cell phone model? If you’re gonna blow it up, why do you care that you get 300 minutes instead of 60? Are you going to have a long conversation with your bomb?

    And why risk suspicion and buy 80 phones at once, when all you need is a minimum of two?

    And where are the explosives?

    Odd how parting them out and selling the pieces makes a lot more sense.

    I’m afraid the only thing Mac Buckets has proven is how FEAR can destroy a persons ability to reason well.

  316. 316.

    The Other Steve

    Shorter MacBuckets: If you are caught shoplifting a Baby Ruth from 7-11, you obviously are a bank robber.

    Well obviously, because a Baby Ruth in your pocket looks a lot like a gun!

  317. 317.

    ThymeZone

    I’m afraid the only thing Mac Buckets has proven is how FEAR can destroy a persons ability to reason well.

    “The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.”

    New Republican slogan. They’ve just tightened up FDR’s idea a little.

  318. 318.

    ThymeZone

    “Did you have trouble at the airport this week? I had to throw away all my make-up. They said it’s because of this terrorist plot they foiled over in England. I believe it’s an elaborate ruse perpetrated by the big cosmetics industry. Maybe it’s not terrorism. Maybe it’s Maybelline.”
    —Jimmy Kimmel
    –

    “According to reports, Fidel Castro is alert and being briefed. And I’m thinking, why didn’t we get a president like that?”
    —Letterman

    Courtesy DKos, a little humor this morning.

    This is material that we can aspire to.

  319. 319.

    mrmobi

    “The only thing we have is fear itself.”

    New Republican slogan. They’ve just tightened up FDR’s idea a little.
    Very nice, Thyme.

    By the way, I’m ready for a little trip to DC., haven’t been there in three years. It’s a beautiful place, and the Lincoln Memorial had the same wondrous effect on me that it did when I was ten. I haven’t carried a sign or chanted a slogan in far too long, it appears. Probably won’t make any difference, but who cares? Opposition is what is needed, if we can’t get it from our elected representatives, I guess we start representing ourselves.

  320. 320.

    Mac Buckets

    That’s right—Mac Buckets’ rule #1 of smart business: just don’t get caught. If only they had been rich white Republicans, or had made bigger campaign contributions to the GOP, maybe they could be living it up right now.

    That’s the dumbest thing I ever read.

    Shorter MacBuckets: If you are caught shoplifting a Baby Ruth from 7-11, you obviously are a bank robber.

    I spoke too soon (proving for the 2487th time that anytime anyone posts “Shorter Whatever,” what follows is sure to be absolute bollocks).

  321. 321.

    Mac Buckets

    Cell phones without batteries and chargers aren’t much use to terrorists. And if they were terrorists, why wouldn’t they have picked up the cheaper cell phone model?

    What I read was that they had batteries (only the charger was ripped out), and that most were $20 tracphones from Wal-Mart — I’ve never heard of a cheaper phone.

  323. 323.

    Zifnab

    If they’re just reselling the tracphones for a quick buck, why’d they destroy the packaging and rip out the battery charger? Who destroys a large chunk of the utility of a product in order to resell it?

    Why pay cash everywhere? If it’s a business venture, use up all the credit you can muster to increase your buying power!

    Why drive a van across the country for the phones and not just have them drop-shipped to Dallas? You can get them at WALMART.com, so there’s no shortage of supply. Come to think of it, why didn’t they order even one phone online? Because it leaves a paper trail?

    See, you’ve got alot of good questions there Mac, but that’s the heart of the problem. Lots of questions, no answers. Why were they buying all those phones? Why were they paying in cash? Why were they riding in a van? Why go cross country? Because these questions exist, we must assume these three Palestinians are terrorists until the questions are answered. Reasonable doubt, people. You can’t just go “assuming” people are innocent until proven guilty. If there’s a reasonable doubt that these men are potential terrorists, give’m a one-way ticket to Gitmo.

    Seriously, Mac. If the FBI or the NSA or any law enforcement agency had hard evidence on these guys other than “suspicious activity”, do you think the US would be prosecuting them for fraud, of all things? This is a witch hunt, and a rather pathetic witch hunt at that. What’s next? Coordinated efforts to arrest Pakastanis who resell mattresses with the tags ripped off?

  324. 324.

    ThymeZone

    What’s next? Coordinated efforts to arrest Pakastanis who resell mattresses with the tags ripped off?

    They hate us for our sleep numbers.

  325. 325.

    Darrell

    Because these questions exist, we must assume these three Palestinians are terrorists until the questions are answered. Reasonable doubt, people. You can’t just go “assuming” people are innocent until proven guilty

    I’m sorry Zifnab, where did you read that these guys won’t be offered a trial and defense counsel? Of course you pulled that strawman out of your ass because you’re dishonest as hell.

    NO ONE questions that we need to get to the bottom of this. But with these details that Mac posted, it’s certainly a helluva lot more damning than the initial reports from our ‘fair and balanced’ news media, which didn’t say jack shit about how the cell phones had their battery chargers ripped. So instead of dealing with the reality of this new damning information, you dishonestly frame it as if they’ve been stripped of their rights. What an asshole you are.

  326. 326.

    John S.

    Naive as baby kittens, you lot are.

    I see Mac is running a play from the Darrell handbook. Therefore, he gets the same response.

    I love when he spouts shit like this. He sounds so smug and condescending, like a schoolteacher lecturing a class full of wanton students. And the best part is when he sums it all up by entirely missing the point and being wrong – as usual.

    Just remember how things look from MacDarrell World:

    L—————————————————————{center}—R

  327. 327.

    John S.

    I’m sorry Zifnab, where did you read that these guys won’t be offered a trial and defense counsel? Of course you pulled that strawman out of your ass because you’re dishonest as hell a liberal.

    Forgive me for questioning the wisdom of your words, Grand Inquisitor Darrellmada, but I think this rings more true.

    I believe Zifnab must be purged.

  328. 328.

    Darrell

    This from a news report a couple of hours ago which may explain further what was going on:

    Florida-based TracFone sells prepaid cell phones with a limited number of minutes at subsidized prices. It makes money when buyers purchase additional minutes.

    The government alleges the men are part of a scheme to buy up phones that Nokia makes for TracFone and then remove TracFone’s proprietary software, enabling use of the handsets with any cellular provider.

    Looks like it could be fraud, rather than terrorism.

  329. 329.

    Pb

    This from a news report a couple of hours ago which

    The Other Steve already linked, yes.

    Looks like it could be fraud, rather than terrorism.

    What a shock. Of course, I heard informed speculation that suggested that exact same obvious possibility when this story first broke, but you wouldn’t want that to get in the way of the latest (bogus) terror scare–and we’ve had a rash of them lately.

  330. 330.

    Perry Como

    I’m actually curious to see if the fraud charges stick. I didn’t know it was illegal to remove software from something you bought legally and then resell it.

  331. 331.

    John D.

    I’m actually curious to see if the fraud charges stick. I didn’t know it was illegal to remove software from something you bought legally and then resell it.

    It is illegal. Bundling agreements have been upheld in the courts. I’ll see if I can dig up the case references.

  332. 332.

    Perry Como

    It is illegal. Bundling agreements have been upheld in the courts.

    Is a contract signed or is it one of those shrink wrap thingees where you are bound by the agreement before you have a chance to read it?

    I’ll see if I can dig up the case references.

    Thanks. The situation I’m thinking of is if a company sold a computer that had an OS that was locked down to only allow certain functionality. So you go out and buy the computer, replace the OS with with something better and resell it with all of the functionality available.

    It don’t think we should be making laws to protect bad business models.

  333. 333.

    ThymeZone

    The government alleges the men are part of a scheme to buy up phones that Nokia makes for TracFone and then remove TracFone’s proprietary software, enabling use of the handsets with any cellular provider.

    They hate us for our anytime minutes.

  334. 334.

    Pb

    It’s probably about as heinous and as idiotic as trying to prosecute people for reselling things that are marked “not for resale”.

    laws to protect bad business models

    Yes, that’s exactly what this is.

  335. 335.

    Mac Buckets

    Because these questions exist, we must assume these three Palestinians are terrorists until the questions are answered. Reasonable doubt, people. You can’t just go “assuming” people are innocent until proven guilty.

    I give young Muslim men driving around in a van and paying cash for devices that can be used as detonators about the same slack as you guys give the government when they say they want to listen to terrorist phone calls. What I call “concern” and “reasonable suspicion,” you’d call “fearmongering” and “violations,” and vice versa. Only thing is, I feel that my concerns are a little more reality-based, since we know of thousands of young Muslims men who have blown stuff up, but there’s not one shred of evidence that Bush gives even one small crap about what any American has to say to their foreign dealer bookie mother.

    That being said, these small fries shouldn’t have been arrested by the local cops. They should’ve just been watched to see where the phones went, and where the subsequent profits went.

  336. 336.

    Mac Buckets

    They hate us for our anytime minutes.

    Great, there goes half my diet coke through my nose and onto the keyboard.

  337. 337.

    ThymeZone

    since we know of thousands of young Muslims men who have blown stuff up

    How many of those events involved celphone parts?

    Give it up man, you look like an ass.

    Well, I mean, more than usual.

  338. 338.

    ThymeZone

    there goes half my diet coke through my nose

    You are welcome.

    Have a nice day, Mac. I’m off on a trip and I won’t be around to harass you much today.

    Cheers, pg.

  341. 341.

    RonB

    Just so we’re clear – you are actually suggesting that it “may be” ok for the ACLU to publish nuclear launch codes, as long as it doesn’t explicitly violate a Constitutional tenet, right? Wow. I guess in fairness Ron, it would constitute treason. Help me understand where you’re coming from.. are you suggesting that if it’s legal (including legal technicality loopholes), then that makes it right? I’m trying to determine if you have a moral compass asking a question like that.. because your questions make me wonder

    Come on, Darrell, give me a break. Really. I’m asking you under what constitutional provision would I ask for either of the examples you gave. Look, man, you’re a slick debater, but give me the benefit of the doubt and don’t twist what I’m saying. All I said was it was ok to be concerned about privacy issues on the NSA issue. What say you?

  342. 342.

    ThymeZone

    Look, man, you’re a slick debater

    “One way to get your dog to take the pill is to coat it with food, and then hold his mouth open while you drop the medicine down into the back of his mouth and right into his throat. The dog will swallow reflexively and never know that you gave him a pill.”

    Darrell says, “Ruff!”

  343. 343.

    The Other Steve

    The sad thing Mac? As bad as the local cops were on this, the FBI is just as dysfunctional.

    I could get a job for the government selling them development services. At those rates, all I need is one gig to retire for life.

  344. 344.

    John D.

    It don’t think we should be making laws to protect bad business models.

    I agree fully, but that doesn’t change the situation at hand.

    I’d *like* to see all of these sorts of cases thrown out of court, since I’m firmly in the camp of “You buy it, it’s yours”. Unfortunately, the American legal system does not yet agree with me.

  345. 345.

    Mac Buckets

    Have a nice day, Mac. I’m off on a trip and I won’t be around to harass you much today.

    Someplace fun, I hope. Enjoy!

  346. 346.

    Darrell

    Look, man, you’re a slick debater, but give me the benefit of the doubt and don’t twist what I’m saying. All I said was it was ok to be concerned about privacy issues on the NSA issue. What say you?

    Dude, I wasn’t trying to ‘pin’ you on your words, it’s just that from what you’ve written, you don’t seem to acknowledge there should be any limits whatsoever on the public’s “right not know”. Hence my admittedly extreme example regarding exposing our nuclear launch codes, which you went right along with, asking in effect “what’s wrong with that?”

    I’m asking if you think there should be any limits at all. You’re answers thus far indicate no, which is an extreme position. Nothing ‘slick’ at all about pointing that out.

  347. 347.

    Mac Buckets

    The sad thing Mac? As bad as the local cops were on this, the FBI is just as dysfunctional.

    What? Massive federal bureaucracies aren’t efficient, mobile, and modern? There goes my belief system!

  348. 348.

    Pb

    Darrell,

    Hence my admittedly extreme example regarding exposing our nuclear launch codes, which you went right along with, asking in effect “what’s wrong with that?”

    At which point you might have to actually explain or defend your positions–heaven forfend!

  349. 349.

    chopper

    Fortunately, Grand Iquisitor Darrellmada is a highly unreasonable man.

    hey, corkymada, waddya say?

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. […] While some celebrate here for example and others put in a few pre-emptive insults (under the guise of prediction) the legal experts, who for the most part are admittedly prediposed to agree with the judge, are pretty unanimously pessimistic on the chances of this not being over-ruled, mostly because of the ineptitude of the judge it seems. […]

  2. […] It shames me a bit to have left the landmark ruling from District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor to a cursory first post with no follow-up. If the ruling is upheld on appeal the significance is practically unimaginable. The criminal ramifications alone make the Plame case look like kindergarten. So here goes. […]