FISA decision.. think the LIBS won something?

Uh, no. They only continue to make themselves look like idiots!

Whaen I heard parts of the opinion handed down by the Carter appointee {should be evidence enough} I thought it was flaky.

Reading what Lawyers say about it.. makes it even more stupid.

Whether or not the case has legs.. meaning would it be found legal.. THIS is going to be overturned.

Because it was full of Liberal mantra passion and not much law concerned. You have to prove 'damage' in most suits, and they/she didnt.

Aint no packed jury going to be hearing the appeal.

WashPo: A weightless Screed

The fact that NOONE has EVER proved harm by the NSA actions, aside..
The fact MI5 used the same to foil the airline bombings, aside... stick a Lib on a hi-profile decision, get passion and woulda shoulda coulda's, not Law.

Even Ruth Ginsberg must be sick at her stomach..

 

Look, I am sorry.. but I'll say it again. I will not back off that use of "LIB" because that's who is doing it..

Individual 'liberty' POSSIBLY at risk is not grounds for such a suit. If there was ONE person harmed by the program as it is, dont you think it would be all over the press?

And did you note what district she's in? The largest concentration of Al Quaeda in the US.

Like I say, it MAY be found that he exceeded the powers given... but it wont be from this suit.

Here's a thought.. suppose Congress DOES give him the specific powers to do the US- International eavesdropping?

Will you then say it's okay? I mean you believe in the rule of law, right?

 

RE: Re: RE: FISA decision.. think the LIBS won something?

Aww, you guys just need to kiss and make up. After all, Our Beloved Whites are playing f****ing Man U this weekend. We need as much hoo-joo and karma as possible.
COYW!!!!

 

The harm that needs to be proven is that it is unconstitutional. The problem with this case is pointed out in the article. You cannot clearly and completely understand the program because the executive is not providing all the information. They feel they do not have to in the name of national security. But to allow the executive branch this power without oversight presents one of the most serious balance of powers questions this country has faced. One of the reasons England was able to gather some of its information in the recent airline scare is one of the reasons our constitution and government was set up the way it is by our founding fathers. We shouldn't forsake our foundation in the name of every little shred of information gathering. There are more creative and constitutional ways of catching a terrorist.

 

RE: Re: RE: FISA decision.. think the LIBS won something?

Don and I are buddies! He knows this is only here...
- - - - - - - -- - -
Come on, Don!

WHO IS GOING TO REPORT THAT DETROIT HAS THE LARGEST CONCENTRATION OF TERRORISTS?!!!

But it IS reported that the Detroit area has the largest Arab American community; SO.. if YOU were, where would you....

Big Government.. about which you are right, and Republicans are now just as bad in getting their pork.. DOES NOT apply to National Security.

Think back to your Civics classes; about the role of government in a Market Democracy.

To provide the services not easily or practically supplied by the private sector.

And I will gently remind you of the howling from certain quarters that we knew there were strange people in flight schools and nothing was done about it.

And nothing was done because the mid-managers didnt want to go through the hassle of the 'wall' that Jamie Gorelick instituted during Clinton
But which, interestingly, takes us to:

- 'Warrantless' searches not unprecedented

The Dems (as opposed to the Lib lines) say we need better intelligence... but who was it didnt like getting it from shady characters, abroad... or from snooping domestically.

The new mantra: Inspect everyone and everything and guard everything, everywhere and we'll be safe!

Now.. how you gonna do that?

Who is going to pay them.. and even better, WHO IS likely to bribe them!

 

- see above: As long as we dont consort with unsavory characters and no one is in danger of, or gets hurt

As long as we dont consort with unsavory characters and no one is in danger of, or gets hurt, and we dont get phone company records and data mine them, and dont do anything else to maybe hurt the feelings of anyone in the country, citizen or not
Name two

Too bad Bush is too political to beat the executive precedent drum... but I did.. see above post on Clinton/Gorelick.

- - - - - - - - -
What is 'oversight'?

Generally it's accepted that members of the congressional intelligence committees be advised of what is going on...

Which was done.
NOW name a former member of the Senate intelligence committee who is no longer a member because he took it on himself to decide what was and was not a matter of national security.

But he's STILL telling us what is and is not a matter to be kept secret and how we should do it.

Now.. I know it's painful.. but just grit your teeth and PRETEND you're Dubya and you have to advise the intelligence committees...HOW do you know who you can trust and what you can trust them with?

Remember... they begged and pleaded (and even DEMOCRATS did the same) the NYTIMES to not publish intelligence methods.

But self-interest always seems to win out doesnt it... which is why you are worried about Bush maybe knowing who YOU call ... because you think he would do what some of your heroes, or maybe you, might do with it.

As if they had the time or interest.

 

Cop OUT!!!

I answered EVERYTHING... and no rebuttal?!!!!?

Now.. as an add'l word on the subject, what Dem leader complained "If we are indeed at war, why are we not asked to make some sacrifices?"

Well, How about sacrificing knowledge of privacy on transatlantic calls?

{never mind who might be tapping the other end of the call}

- - - - - - - - - -
Well, back on topic...

It looks like this old lady judge is in even worse shape than I thought.

CaptainsQuartersblog

So she got confused as to whether she was making a political point.. or being a judge.
Again.. whatever you think SHOULD be the outcome, the inherent bias demonstrated by the judge in her opinion shows exactly why conservatives despise Liberal Judges, especially since Roe v Wade.