"There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution," Taylor wrote. "So all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution."

So all 'inherent powers' must derive from the Constitution Judge Taylor? Stop spewing your Liberal hypocricy. Liberal judges have demonstrated time and time again that they over step the boundries set forth in the Constitution for Judges. The Constitution is not a set of guidelines... they are rules... checks and balances.

Liberal judges have demonstrated time and time again that they over step the boundries set forth in the Constitution for Judges
You demonstrate your bias here by speaking of "Liberal" judges, instead of "activist" ones.

The Constitution is not a set of guidelines... they are rules... checks and balances.
Yes, and it is the Judicial Branch's place to interpret, and if necessary reinterpret, the Constitution. Checks and balances yes. The Legislative Branch creates and passes laws, the Executive branch excutes them, and the Judicial Branch determines if the laws are justified and what constitutes a violation of them. I really can't make it any simpler than that.

People need to realize, when the different branches of government disagree with each other, things are working as intended. Contrary to recent popular belief, Congress and the courts are not supposed to be unwaveringly supporting the President like a bunch of henchmen and servants.

It's not the illegal wire-tapping that I personally have a problem with. I don't do anything wrong nor do I make calls overseas and even if I did, I wouldn't be worried about it since I am not sure what keywords their eavesdroppers are listening for anyway.

However, where does it stop? The line was drawn with the Bill of Rights and now those are slowly being erased as a matter of convenience for the government. How long before an administration removes a woman's right to vote because the majority of the women support another policy or repeal slavery because it labor costs are too high and this would give some relief to businesses with their high costs?

I know, totally absurd and way off the mark but who would have ever thought that our 1st and 4th amendment rights would be bent in such a way that the line is blurred to the point of no recognition.

Well...read them. The first and fourth amendments are more vague than Anna Taylor's reasoning behind her decision--"Congress shall make no law" in regards to "the" freedom of speech, etc. Think what you want, I'm not saying anything except that they almost seem to purposely avoid being specific.

So--perhaps you're right. I wasn't alive then so I can't say for sure what the intentions were. Based on the Constitution alone, I can say there is no basis to justify halting NSA wiretapping though.

Yawn. Liberal Detroit judge makes a liberal ruling. Not a surprise.

It's a shame these judges think the Constitution is a suicide pact.

The constitution can be amended. It is in the design. It's all about going through the proper channels.

For example when the constitution was written slavery was permissible. In the 1860's the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments were ratified, outlawing slavery and guaranteeing equal rights. In total the constitution has beeen successfuly ammended 27 times. Only 5 times have ammendments to the constitution not been ratified by the states.

Saying the constitution is a suicide pact shows incredible ignorance into US history & the workings of the constitution.

It is not up to the court system or the president to legislate, it is the exclusive right of Congress.

You completely missed the point. Liberal activists judges are ignoring the existing case law and turning the Constitution into a suidce pact by creating rulings based on their personal idealogies.

You are correct that legislation is the domain of Congress. And Congress can not pass any law take impedes the powers explicitly granted to the President in the Consitution -- such as FISA which the courts have repeated ruled that Congress via FISA can not place limits on the President's Article II powers to perform warantless searches for national security.

President's Article II powers to perform warantless searches for national security.
Where is this indicated in Article 2?

"There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution,"

Nice phrase, indeed.

But ... since when is "Kings" capitalized? uh?
Oh, wait, I forgot: the lone Betanews proofreader quit in 2003 and has not been replaced ... :P

Yawn ... http://en.wikipedia.org/...capital_letters)#Titles

Sigh. Just for a moment let's at least try to put away our us versus them bickering and try to look at this decision for what it is.

First of all, Benjamin Franklin led a committe to intercept mail suspected of containing British intelligence. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, and FDR conducted warrantless searches for enemy intelligence during WWII (and executed German spies without a trial).

So why was the NSA case ruled unconsitutional by one federal judge? Let me suggest that this case was shopped by the ACLU before a judge that would give a favorable opinion, timed to take place before the elections.

My evidence? Consider today's Washinton Post which called the decision a "judicial misfire" and added that the decision "is neither careful nor scholarly, and it is hard-hitting only in the sense that a bludgeon is hard-hitting."

Unless you have a background in Consitutional Law you won't be able to fully appreciate just how assinine this ruling was. The plantiffs had no standing for starters, and her arguments regarding tie 1st and 4th amendments are absurd -- they aren't even arguments but more or less her enforcing her personal preference as a matter of judicial tryanny -- overruling the will of the people and the law she was sworn to protect.

Oh and yes, the judge is a Carter appointee. Not that being a Carter appointee alone is damming (it's a start) but a look at her record shows a pattern of judicial activism and ignoring her responsibility to uphold the law rather than her preferences.

The ruling will not stand and will certainly be struck down in the appeals courts. I doubt that the Supreme Court would even accept to hear the case it is so absurd.

There are dozens of federal cases since 1970 that have consistently upheld the executives ability for warrantless searches when used for national security. And the simple fact is that Congress can pass no law (i.e. FISA) that restricts a President's ability to conduct warrantless searchs for national security.

Was anyone harmed by the NSA program? of course not, but you just have a bunch of whiny nutjobs complaining about the eroision of their rights -- unsubstantiated -- just because they have decided that they don't like Bush and they are going to stomp their feet, pout and oppose everything he does like a spoiled child denied at a candy store. It never bothered anyone when 60 minutes did a report on Echelon during the Clinton Administration and even baby monitor converstations were captured. Bush's program only monitors conversations going to a suspected terror cell overseas.

For those in here posting comments to the effect that this is all an evil plan to keep us all in fear -- is an intriguing conspiracy theory but ignornat beyond belief.

I suppose Bush and Rove engineered the plan in London to blow up several US bound planes last week. Oh, that's right -- Goerge W. Bush created terrorism and this is only happening because we invaded Iraq.

You need to watch this movie:

http://video.google.com/...3221198&q=obsession

Why does everyone forget that 9/11 happened AFTER the Republicans came to power?

(No, I'm not for one moment suggesting that Bush had anything to do with making it happen, I'm not a conspiracy theorist - I'm simply pointing out that it's not at all obvious that anything this administration is doing is actually helping to make us safer)

"Why does everyone forget that 9/11 happened AFTER the Republicans came to power?"

I can't beleive I'm actually going to respond to this ignorance. But what the heck I'm bored.

#1) The election of George W. Bush so infuriated Al-Queda that it imediuately spurred them into action. I'm sure it only took a few months to pass the flight training lessons and acquire the passports and organize all the logistics. It is an undisputed matter of public record that the planning for 9-11 began well before the election of Bush, and is further supported by documents captured in Pakistan.

2) Terrorism did not exist before 9-11. The first World Trace Center bombing? oh, that was a little one so it really doesn't count. The USS Cole attack was executed by Osmama Bin Ladin while Clinton was still in office. Hmm...only 17 American soliders killed there so I guess that doesn't count either.

On this link is a list only 50 or so terrorist acts that took place prior to 9-11.

http://obsessionthemovie.com/timeline.htm

"So why was the NSA case ruled unconsitutional by one federal judge? Let me suggest that this case was shopped by the ACLU before a judge that would give a favorable opinion, timed to take place before the elections."

Thanks. I was beginning to wonder if I was alone in here--:) The ACLU were shopping alright--they tried California first, then the next best one in Missouri. Notice they didn't try Florida, Texas, or Louisiana...

"It never bothered anyone when 60 minutes did a report on Echelon during the Clinton Administration..."

Actualy, it did bother me greatly and i had complained about that as well...

Bravo!!! CHEERS!!! My hat is off to you Sir....

On this link is a list only 50 or so terrorist acts that took place prior to 9-11.

Some of those don't even appear to involve US citizens. And I would dispute if some of them were even "terrorist" in nature.

Check this out, it was written by John Ringo, a really great SCI-FI writer - he's been there and done that and has some very interesting insights.

http://johnringo.com/Unp...ds/liberalstupidity.asp

Personally, I think he's quite stupid. Of course its the rich's fault. Moral responsibility :P

But for the most part, the poor are quite stupid too; and need to be spoon-fed.

However, since the poor can't quite possibly satisfy the rich, and considering that the rich aren't really a necessity, they would need to spoil the poor. Where else would you find cheap labor or stupid people to keep yourself rich?

I rarely find quotes out of context, and blatant self-serving hyperbole interesting. I think he needs to stick to his SciFi writing, if that is even any good.

All the budget increases, all the new technology, the new partnerships with foreign intelligence, the supposed "key captures" of operatives, still no closer to Bin Laden, Al Zahwari (sp?). Geez. We still haven't identified or captured the idiot that pulled off the Anthrax mailings. WTF? Talk about bungling a budgetary goldmine.

Now the WH is pumping up the statement that Lebanon is the "new front on the war on terror". Last week/month it was Iraq. Before that Afganistan. Next month it will be Romania. When will they wake up and point their sites (for real) on Iran, N. Korea and Syria??? Stop wasting time and lives on 2nd string bad guys. Go after the starters!

You forgot Jack the Ripper. And I lost a glove when I was 4, no one has found it and returned it to me either. And it had my name in it...

Ah, but did it have your address?

And have you moved house?

And did you eat your porridge this morning?

Read 1984. Check out the character Goldstein.

yep

Finally someone has to stop Bush's abuse of power. Ironically it was a women. No republican man has big enough balls to confront Bush...

it's not ironic,
it's typical.
maybe if we nicely ask the terrorists to let us know in advance what their plans are, then we wouldn't need the wire tapping.
or, maybe if we ignore the problem of terrorism, it will go away.
typical ignorant thoughtlessness.

This wont go far. The ACLU communist party went shopping for a bush hating liberal Judge. Like always !! Its Funny How 75% of the Dems Voted for this wiretap program behind the scene. But Flap thier lying lips On TV all the time against it.. Typical clueless Lefties.. Abuse of power was when Bill clinton didnt have the Balls or back bone to stop 14 terrorist attacks against Us and killed over 1200 of our Folks all over the world. Including The 1st Twin tower attacks in 94. So Thank God we have somone with some balls to actually do something about this serious growing problem.. Instead of sending some flowers and a lawyer to fight them like clinton did !!

You miss (or perhaps deliberately distort) the issue. The democrats are not opposed to the use of NSA wiretapping - they are only opposed to it happening without proper oversight to protect the very freedoms for which the United States is supposed to stand!

Typical clueless Lefties
You seriously need more than a clue.

The ACLU communist party went shopping for a bush hating liberal Judge
Did you think that sounded cool or something? What does communism have to do with any of this? You do know communism is not the opposite of democracy, right? I can pull something out of my a** and make it sound good too. The ACLU, defenders of our rights, searched high and low for a judge with enough spine to standup to the current trend in government of turning the president into a king. (I think the "king" description is quite fitting, considering he thinks "God" put him in office.

Abuse of power was when Bill clinton didnt have the Balls or back bone to stop 14 terrorist attacks against Us and killed over 1200 of our Folks all over the world. Including The 1st Twin tower attacks in 94.
Do you know what "abuse of power" means, at best it was a squandering of power. And we know Clinton had so much time to take care of those things. It wasn't like he was busy being the subject of multiple witchhunts. I guess lying underoath about getting some action in the oval office is almost impeachable, but lying to the entire United States as a false pretext to war is showing responsibility and deserves commendations?

I have decided to throw my hat into the Presidential race in 2008 [terrorist]. My platform [terrorist] is quite simple [terrorism]. When I need a boost, [terrorism] I will just remind everyone that we are committed the war on terror [terrorism - WTC - bombs] and finding those responsible for making us live in fear [terrorist]. When I can't find them [terrorism], I will find a way to infringe on Americans rights guaranteed (not warrantied) under the Constitution [terrorist] in an effort to locate them. Afterall, I will be the President [terrorist], the big cheese, the Chief Executive of the US and Presidential discretion [terror] will be mine to use...well, at my discretion [terrorist]. With this platform of using [terrorism] strategically placed terroristic terms throughout my Presidency, I will be in office for 2 full terms [War on Terror - Bin Laden - Saddam - Afghanistan - Iraq]

Seriously, though, it is the challenge of being a leader in the greatest country in the world to make decisions for this country that will keep us safe without infringing on our rights guaranteed under the Constitution. If a wiretap needs to be put on my line, a warrant should be issued. If a warrant isn't issued, there is probably a reason or lack of one for that not happening.

Checks and balances. 7th grade social studies.

Too bad you're talking to 6th graders.

what happens when the balance becomes warped and bent ?

"Free" only exists in the dictionary & in Bush's speeches.

The dumbest thing GWB or NSA ever did was divulge to the public this was even going on. They should have kept their mouths shut. Stupid. NSA has used their powers similarly for decades, but no president (before GWB) has ever acknowledged or condoned it. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. They shot themselves in the foot, under the influence of arrogance. You don't tell everyone you're watching the bad guys that close, because that only tips them to behave differently. Makes it more difficult to spy on them and catch them. Dumb Dumb Dumb. They obviously didn't read the Sun Tsu training manual at all.

They didn't. The press did.

It was leaked to the press by someone involved.

Someone with a conscience.

pffft (snicker)
judgement by a woman
rofl
:-p

Hey, you were actually able to convey tone in that message :) Good thing to with how heated people are getting around here.

Advantage...Terrorists.

Fire is a good thing, but only in the right hands. This decision was driven by the fact that the good intentions were being mishandled and misguided. There's hope for democracy yet. Don't forget, it doesn't hamper NSA's ability to intercept communication in/out of the U.S. Technically, things that bounce off satellites "leave" the country for a while.

"possibly setting the stage for an Congressional investigation"
Now there is an answer(sic)!
Personally I completely understand the use of the wiretap. But I also do not understand why it is so cumbersome to have a few judges with a beeper or cell phone with whom they could contact on a moments notice.

You know, I love to listen to the various sides debate this, especially when it was the very sides debating this that were responsible for the ineffectual system that they are talking about!

It is a joke to listen to the critics complain as to WHY the FBI and CIA, etc. were not sharing information! Really!!! Especially as the Democrats made that illegal as a reform measure in the mid 70s for an agency who could only perform foreign surveillance and an agancy who was limited to domestic activity to share data - eg to communicate!
Now we whine that they didn't communicate illegally in an effective manner! DUH!
And the notion that there might be a middle ground where foreign activity extends and links with domestic activity, thus confusing the simplisitc foreign vs domestic boundary established by the astute CONGRESS (you know, the guys who might investigate the Pres who decided to deal with their shortsightedness in a perhaps too direct manner) must also confuse many.

What WOULD be nice, is if both parties decided just who were the enemies, and both parties then decided on the SAME enemies! And if both parties decided to effectively wage a campaign to stop the same list of enemies.

What would have indeed been a comic event, and I dare say I fear what would have been the resultant outcome, had WW2 or even the Civil War been fought in such a convoluted manner with the press acting 'independently' and doing a post mortem on each shot fired. Pardon my mistatement... By the press doing a post mortem on each shot fired by the Allies, to the omission of the attrocities of the enemy.
And when are we going to acknowlwge that collateral damage is a fact of war, especially in a guerilla war where the guerillas do not observe any of the geneva conventions and actively merge with the general population. Gee, if they would only wear TShirts with targets painted on them!

After all, we have UN resolutions galore denouncing the heinous activities of the US and the Allies. And the worldwide silence is deafening over beheadings, etc. perpetrated by the other side.

And I won't even touch the notion that foreign prisoners of war are to be extended the same rights as American citizens and the access to our courts! Especially as we are obliged to extend to them, rights that we neither receive in their country nor which are afforded to native US citizens! Doubt me? Since when are any religious group given special rights concerning the GENERAL treatment of any of their icons, or books, or even the simple depiction of their icons! All while they take great delight in violating the same tenets with others!

We are not bound to observe their beliefs in deference to our values. And they are free to stay or return to their country where those beliefs are recognized to the detriment of all other belief systems.

I don't agree.

Try using more exclamation points.

...

A lot of talk about "rights", but how
about the Right not to be blown-up
by terrorists ?

...

The Computer Rodent

...

im not giving up MY privacy for something that has a slim to none chance of preventing terrorism, but has a almost certain chance of being abused, or used in other ways against americans.

terrorist is a term government use to put fear into it's own citizen and to get get unlimited power. and how do you know that our government didn't create this 9/11 attack? I mean, every countries we attacked, we linked it to terrorist. It has been 5 years since 9/11, and we still haven't catch Bin Laden, and the whole world is looking for him. guess what, white house and the media mention less and less of him every day. just like when the government send troops to Iraq in the name of WMD, then found nothing. The motto was changed from WMD to something else, and lately become "the world is better off w/o SH". I don't see how the world is better off when more people are dying everyday in the part of the world, and NOTHING WAS ACCOMPLISHED SO FAR. Of course, Bush declared MISSION ACCOMPLISHED 3 years ago.

Nothing was accomplished? We got rid of a sadistic killer who tortured and killed his own family, murdered thousands more through the use of WMD (ask the Kurds) and lead a reign of terror over his country for years. Right, nothing accomplished. If you think he was a "great" man, read the article in Maxim regarding his two sons. These were spawns of the devil if ever there was such a thing.

We have helped them form a democratic government, a first for Iraq I believe. And while the press goes on to show the few nut jobs who caterwaul about how great it was under SH (who could have his SS come in during the middle of the night and make your whole household dissappear because he heard that you might not think he was the next best thing to sliced bread) are in the minority. I have a number of friends and family who are in the service and have served in Iraq and they tell us all the time about how many of the people are so happy that we did something about SH. Most of the country loves us for that, regardless of what the news might say.

Mission was accomplished three years ago. In a matter of weeks, we had deposed SH and had him in chains. That was the objective. Now it's just clean up. If we didn't have the mass media acting as cheerleaders for the opposition (the terrorists) we might have been done a long time ago. But every seditious article that comes out by the press, is fuel to the fire for those nut jobs out there.

As for Bin Laden, we'll find him, when he finally sticks his head out of the deep hole he's hidden in, we'll be there with the net. Right now he's not quite as powerful as he thinks he is. Don't get me wrong, he's still a threat, just not as great a threat as he once was. But he will get his in time.

Look at what just happened in London, that threat was real, not some "fear" put into the citizens by the government. We have been very fortunate that there has not been another attack in this country. It's because of the efforts made by this government that we have been kept safe. But these judges are going to do all in their power to thwart President Bush at every turn. They won't be happy until we have smoking, radioactive craters where our major cities were.

I was agreeing with you up to: "But these judges are going to do all in their power to thwart President Bush at every turn. They won't be happy until we have smoking, radioactive craters where our major cities were." That's quite an assumption. Will you change your opinion if another judge repeals this decision? Or will you still be prejudiced against them? And Judge Taylor made some good points. Furthermore, how did you manage to miss the part where she rejected the claims of data mining and stated that an investigation into the accusations ran the risk of revealing state secrets? That seems to disprove your assumption right there.

What the article says is that she rejected the ACLU's claims that the NSA was data mining because there wasn't enough proof.

If they could have proven that they were datamining (any data, not necessarily the phone wiretapping) then I'm sure she would have stopped that as well. As it was, they couldn't prove that they were actually doing this.

Needless to say or confirme that you are a true Bush supporter.

I never say SH is a great man, but who are we to judge someone else? And who really ask the US to go into Iraq to create democracy? Or should I said, we bring chaos to their country? If they love us so much, why are they killing our people everyday? To me, that translates nothing more than "GET OUT WE DONT WANT YOU HERE".

If you really think we are helping them? Why don't we have some other countries that don't even have enough to eat, like many countries in Africa.

One last thing, we have NO PROOF, NO PROOF that Iraq has WMD. We found none before or after the war. And we didn't accomplish s***, we stilling fighting a war that we have no idea when if it even end. I wouldn't be surprise if it end up like Vietnam.

Keep going. What about the part: "stated that an investigation into the accusations ran the risk of revealing state secrets"?

So clueless .. You must watch CNN (Communist News Network.) To get all your info.. Every one i know And every other news network that actually cares about the real Facts are talking about all the chem. weapons they are finding in Irac. Also they are talking about all the sattelite footage being released about Russian and chinese convoy's moving truck loads of stuff into syria before the war began. there is a big reason russia and china voted against the war in Irac. Sadam was paying them off with oil for food contracts while also buying the technology to build this stuff from china and russia. This has been a festering problem scince the late 60's. The only reason the terrorist are becoming more active now is because we have someone in the white house with the balls to actually do something.. it has to get bad before it gets better.. like WW2. This pollitacally correct crap has to go , or we all will go down.. 3 years ago isnt long .. clintons war in bosnia was only supposed to last 6 months... hey 10 years later we still haave alot of troops there.. it took us 16 years to build our nation to democracy and alot people died then also Here ! this is becoming the nation of impatiant finger pointing wussies ! Just deliever some flowers and a lawyer and everything will be Ok..

"never say SH is a great man, but who are we to judge someone else?"

You truly perplexed me with that statement. Especially now that SH is on trial here in the US...oh no, that's right...the Iraqi's are judging him!

"One last thing, we have NO PROOF, NO PROOF that Iraq has WMD. We found none before or after the war. And we didn't accomplish s***, we stilling fighting a war that we have no idea when if it even end. I wouldn't be surprise if it end up like Vietnam."

I will let you re-read your statement. Perhaps you will see the error in your thinking. If not--no need to ask me. I try to speak only to help those who are reachable, and I'm afraid you do not fit into that category...

"You must watch CNN (Communist News Network.) "

Okay, you are perhaps a little over-the-edge in your viewpoint, but that statement did make me LMAO... :)

Would it hurt all the legal experts to wait until the fat lady sings? Sheesh! This thing is nowhere near done.

naw, it's more fun to debate it ;)

The fat lady is lip-synching. :)

One thing I'd like to know from all those who have thought about this issue and come out on the side of the Executive Branch:

Where do you draw the line?

If it's okay for the NSA to monitor all international communications, if it saves lives, then why not all domestic communications?

If it's okay for the NSA to monitor all domestic email and phone calls, wouldn't it be prudent to monitor snail mail as well? Again, if it would save lives?

If it would save lives, would you support a new agency, one that would analyze the content of each and every communication between all citizens of the United States? Don't worry about how, we're Americans, by God, and if we need 5 thousand supercomputers to listen to and analyze every phone call, every email, and every text message, then, by God, we will build them. And if we need a million new government employees to open every letter that goes through the post office, then we will hire and train them, after the appropriate background checks, of course.

We can do it. We are AMERICANS.

Accusations based on "if's" and "why's" does not a sound argument make.

I trust the government because it is our only hope. It will always be imperfect, and we should do our best to better it all the time, but NEVER would I defy our leader. Your precious right to privacy won't mean a thing if we become a dictatorship withen the next 30 years now, will it? Quit fueling the terrorists' cause! Are we for America, or against it? If our system is so corrupt, aren't the terrorists right? Do you see where this argument is taking us?

My argument is based on a question which you and everyone of your ilk are apparently incapable of answering:

Where do you draw the line?

^^^See, there it is again, and you still won't answer it, because to do so would force you to take a clear position, either for or against a state where there are no private communications. If you would only agree that the privacy of the hand-written letter should remain sacrosanct, a rather safe position considering that such is not even currently in question, we would be making great progress, and you will have drawn a line.

But that's the scary part for you. Whenever you imagine that line, you imagine the Terrorists taking advantage of it. You imagine the day after, when it's oh-so-painfully-clear that if we had just pushed that line back a little farther, the day's tragedy may have been averted. If only Homeland Security had been given the power to open all letters it deemed remotely suspicious, dead people would still be alive. All the government needed was just a little more power, but the nervous Constitution-quoting liberal nellies denied it.

What you fail to understand, perhaps deliberately, is that even if the government had unlimited power over the citizens of this nation, we citizens would still not be safe from the evil-doers of this world. We would not be safe, and we would be living in a police state. Personally, if I am forced to accept the inherent Un-Safeness of living, and I am, I would rather live freely.

Yes, sir, I see where your argument is taking us. It's taking us to a magical fantasy land, where absolute safety is assured, where you and I have no need for privacy, and where treating people like enemies does not make them so.

"Your precious right to privacy won't mean a thing if we become a dictatorship withen the next 30 years.." What do you suppose a dictatorship is? It is a head of state doing what ever they want without regard to laws and doing so with seeming impunity. They all say it is for the good of the country, to keep the masses in check. Blindly following the head of state is rediculous. Would you follow another Hitler? You are at least partly correct in the government is our only hope. That is, following a well thought out set of rules (laws if you will) allows society to act in unison. This is called the Constitution. Many leaders make mistakes and need to be reigned in. When you cross the line a couse correction needs to be made or you veer entirely off the course (set forth in the Constitution).

if they were using that reason then the terrorists would be right, and thus called revolutionaries. but as it is there current reason is allah and because we have better lives, and because we meddle in other countries affairs. which that last one is a pretty valid point.

i mean lets face it, we go to war to protect peace? does that make sense to anyone here?

yes but if the government had full power we MIGHT be safe from outside forces, but we would have to fear our government (more than we have to already it seams...) currently we just have to fear nature and the remote chance some jackass is going to blow something up. i think i will take my chances with the bomber then risk getting hauled off by the government for speaking against them.

"Your precious right to privacy won't mean a thing if we become a dictatorship..." - bourgeoisdude

Exactly.

If we don't question the actions of our leaders now, we forfeit our rights as citizens, now and for the future.

As far as the argument that "You are either for us or against us," (Bush has used this one) that's a false argument. There are ways of fighting this war without having to give up our rights at home. Not starting wars where there need be none is a start.

Here is a quote to ponder over:

"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to Question Authority." - Benjamin Franklin

"As far as the argument that "You are either for us or against us," (Bush has used this one) that's a false argument. There are ways of fighting this war without having to give up our rights at home. Not starting wars where there need be none is a start."

Umm...nothing could be further from the truth. The difference is that we are not trading an essential liberty for temporary security. There is no reason to even stand on your baselessness when the law does not match with what you claim it says. The US courts have ruled repeatedly in favor of the fact that THERE IS NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY on public phones...don't believe me? Look at recent court cases:

http://www.courts.state....me/out/J-52-2000-mo.pdf

http://www.loundy.com/CASES/Smyth_v_Pillsbury.html

Out of time...editing at work--but there is no resonable expectation of privacy on the phone under current law. EVEN THE LIBERALS ADMIT that, but nobody here understands. The laws were changed in the 70's, 80's, and 90's regarding privacy. You must re-write the law to say it is unconstitutional--sorry.

"You must re-write the law to say it is unconstitutional--sorry."

All laws are subordinate and derivative of the Constitution. It doesn't matter how many times a law is rewritten, if it violates the basic tenets as outlined by the Constitution, it is unconstitutional. A law cannot be at once unconstitutional, and then be rewritten to be constitutional without changing the spirit of the proposed law itself. That’s just impossible.

We are getting off of track here, though. The argument is whether or not the President has acted within the powers granted to him by the Constitution.

From the judge’s own ruling:

"This court [...] holds that the TSP violates the APA; the Separation of Powers doctrine; the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution; and the statutory law,"

Let me emphasize that- violated the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution.

I don’t expect this ruling to be the last; this fight will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court no less. The Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether or not the President acted within his powers, as granted by the Constitution, or acted in defiance of it.

As for the cases you cited, the Smyth vs Pillsbury is regarding an employee using a company’s computer systems to for email. Certainly, the plaintiff Smyth should not have reasonably expected the right to privacy when he used the company’s computer systems to send and receive email. The computers belonged to the company.

In the other case, Rekasie vs Pennsylvania, the Appellant Rekasie had his phone conversations recorded AFTER it was approved by the Deputy Attorney General in accordance with the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, meaning that the person had his conversations recorded after due course of the law.

Accordingly, if we can use this case as an example, the President should have acted under the guidance of the laws and sought approval from FISA upon this venture.

The President argues that to have to seek approval from FISA would needlessly encumber the government and delay action that is needed in cases of immediate threats.

The President doesn’t tell you that the law allows him to report to FISA after the fact, thus annulling his argument about timeliness. (Does anybody here remember how long it took him to stand up and do something as the events of 9/11 were unfolding?)

The President never went to FISA for court approval. Now ask yourself, why not?

"The President never went to FISA for court approval. Now ask yourself, why not?"

Answering the last question first--well, I've answered nearly half a dozen other times in this forum...

"All laws are subordinate and derivative of the Constitution. It doesn't matter how many times a law is rewritten, if it violates the basic tenets as outlined by the Constitution, it is unconstitutional. A law cannot be at once unconstitutional, and then be rewritten to be constitutional without changing the spirit of the proposed law itself. That’s just impossible."

Umm...yeah. So explain how the 4th Amendment says that the government cannot monitor phone lines? See, the whole problem is that the Constitution is not specific. We can change the "meaning" of the constitution, and pervert it however we wish, right?

Amendment 4: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Very vague--are phone wires people's "effects"? Is wiretapping considered to be "unreasonable"? Is the government really "seizing" anything? The only answers you give to these questions will be matters of opinion. That's the problem.

The rulings I mentioned--and in which you scanned through--are made up of several Judges, not one. My point is that the rulings show that this Detroit Judge is very much in the minority. She interprets the constitution differently than most other judges. Even the California Judge dismissed the ACLU suit against NSA. This judge stands alone.

Now, we will have to wait and see what happens, but I am more than confident that the Supreme Court will make the right decision, and can tell you I am fully confident it will be a unanimous decision.

"From the judge’s own ruling:

"This court [...] holds that the TSP violates the APA; the Separation of Powers doctrine; the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution; and the statutory law,"

Let me emphasize that- violated the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution."

Emphasize it as you will--one judge does not a democracy make. We will see what happens--again I am fully confident there will be a unanimous decision made by the Supreme Court in favour of national security.

"As for the cases you cited, the Smyth vs Pillsbury is regarding an employee using a company’s computer systems to for email. Certainly, the plaintiff Smyth should not have reasonably expected the right to privacy when he used the company’s computer systems to send and receive email. The computers belonged to the company."

And the phone lines...?

"In the other case, Rekasie vs Pennsylvania, the Appellant Rekasie had his phone conversations recorded AFTER it was approved by the Deputy Attorney General in accordance with the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, meaning that the person had his conversations recorded after due course of the law."

Inconsistent from your next statements:

"The President doesn’t tell you that the law allows him to report to FISA after the fact, thus annulling his argument about timeliness. (Does anybody here remember how long it took him to stand up and do something as the events of 9/11 were unfolding?)"

He will as soon as the clear and present danger is gone. If he doesn't, then you win. Nonetheless, revealing this prior to winning the war on terror would have revealed information that could be used to the terrorists' advantage. This has now drifted off topic a bit, so let's get back to the point...

It goes back to that common sense issue discussed earlier in this forum. Again, the accusations against the President are baseless, as they are all based on "coulds" or "mights", and are all subjective. Even the Judge is ruling subjectively, as do ALL judges. That's the whole point. If it were clear, they wouldn't need a frikin judge. Anne Taylor is interpreting the law differently than other judges, and therefore, she can say with confidence "she is rulingtly by the law."

Heh, ironic really, that judges have "re-evaluated" the constitution more in the past 40 years than the number of times it has been re-evaluated since our nations history times 2. Now, the US SC will generally remand these changes--nonetheless, the state and district courts are becoming more and more aggressive in changing our constitution. To me it is close to impossible to see a clear violation of amendment 4 because:

1. It is reasonable, not "unreasonable"
2. It is not a "search or seizure";
3. It says "no warrents shall issue", but it never said it required a warrent--only that it would not violate the right of individuals to remain private in their "persons, houses, papers, and effects..."

The third one is not the big debate here. We do clearly see the original intent was that a warrent would indeed be required, of course, but only if all of the other conditions were not met. You tell me specifically how wiretapping violates the fourth amendment.

It is not that wiretapping is of itself unconstitutional, it is that the wiretapping must be done in accordance of the law.

See below at my other post.

Seems like a "search" to me. They're searching for one or more things.

Perhaps--still, basing it strictly on the Constitution is really hard to do anyway, as it in and of itself can be interpreted very subjectively. Again, how can we even define "unreasonable"? There must be laws that clarify this meaning, and thus the "violation of the First and Fourth Amendments" statement by the Judge seems quite ignorant to me regardless of the issue.

Unreasonable really should have been better defined. The Judge isn't necessarily ignorant for viewing the warrantless wiretaps as being unreasonable. After all, to her it obviously is unreasonable. That's the subjective part. Whether or not she is right is another matter.

We do clearly see the original intent was that a warrent would indeed be required, of course, but only if all of the other conditions were not met.

"...but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Doesn't this pretty much describe a warrant always being required? The warrant is the official legal documentation of the "oath or affirmation" of "probably cause" to search the "place...and the persons or thing to be seized".

"Additionally, an investigation into the accusations ran the risk of revealing state secrets, she ruled."

Secrets should be illegal.

But it's about time bush's privacy invasion stopped.;

I'd much rather see terrorists' cause destroyed, myself. I also believe we are covered--we don't own the phone lines, thus they are a public utility. Anybody here with any knowledge of Communication Law should know that in public places we have NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY.

Amazing how incredibly simple it can become when you do some research...

Sir with full respect your comments are stupid.

I usually don’t reply to any comments but this is just to ridiculous. Phone lines are not a public utility. In fact that’s not even a "Communication Law".
Your one of those people that cant accept the fact that President Bush is a bad leader and representative of this country.

Yeah, sure, your Clinton Left Wing leader with his Administration was so much better that he let terrorist infiltrate in the USA for years while doing nothing to prevent it and in a hope that they could kill a possible Right Wing President like then Bush was. But on 9-11 they failed despite it was clear that there were people in charge trying to kill him and helping the terrorists when it took hours to re-act during the worst terrorist attack ever.

"Secrets should be illegal."

Right, only the terrorists should have them, huh?

WOW, that's the dumbest comment I've heard in a long time. Did you actually think about it at all before posting?

Actually--phone lines are indeed public utility. The Comm Law has to do with the expactation of a right to privacy, not whether or not phone lines are public or not (though lower courts have ruled several times that they are indeed public).

Call me stupid if you want. Or try looking it up. Since it is unlikely any comments here will change your mind anyway, why listen to me? If I'm so stupid, why are my words so upsetting to you?

public utility, owned by a company and rented by others, not owned by the government, which is why i do expect privacy. the government should keep its nose out of where it doesnt belong.

Read some stuff on findlaw.com, sir. Don't take my word for it--phone lines have officially been declared as public utilities, and reaffirmed with this new "Internet privacy" BS.

Really. Don't listen to me. Go there and find the actual court cases.

I know I shouldn't take the bait but I'm going to anyway:

The funny thing, aredo, is that during the years preceding 9/11/01, while Bush was in power, his administration did even LESS than the Clinton administration to "fight terrorism".

Does that now make it a vast Right Wing ploy to destroy it's own leadership, making it look like a vast LIE-beral plot to destroy the right wing leadership because, like most liberals, they HATE AMERICA?

Years before 9-11 when Bush was in power ? What are you talking about ?? The elections were on year before and the Democrats tried to steal the end results because they weren't accepting defeat. The Left Wing always tries to steal the elections in every single country and then accuses the Right Wing of playing dirty tricks. That's an old communistic tactic.

I have taken your advice seriously and here is what I have found:

In regards to Warrantless "National Security" Electronic Surveillance:

"The Government's duty to preserve the national security did not override the gurarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy."

"The question of the scope of the President's constitutional powers, if any, remains judicially unsettled. 156 Congress has acted, however, providing for a special court to hear requests for warrants for electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence situations, and permitting the President to authorize warrantless surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information provided that the communications to be monitored are exclusively between or among foreign powers and there is no substantial likelihood any ''United States person'' will be overheard."

The court that this tidbit refers to is, of course, FISA.

http://caselaw.lp.findla...ion/amendment04/05.html

"privacy of its citizens"

What's the keyword here?

Oh right, citizens.

Terrorists aren't citizens.

Thanks.

It is your grave misunderstanding for thinking that anyone here is saying that the President should not be monitoring terrorists.

So that you may understand, existing laws (FISA) were designed for the express purpose of allowing the President the right to monitor terrorists, including "U.S. Persons" that are engaged in terrorist activities. The Patriot Act further LOWERED the standard needed for FISC approval.

Source:
http://www.law.duke.edu/...showtopic&topicid=2

FISA has been so lax in its implementation that many people have viewed the law as simply being a rubber stamp for the President. In the year 2005, 2,074 applications were submitted and all but two were approved. The reason the other two were declined was because they were withdrawn by the Executive branch itself. One was later resubmitted and subsequently approved. For all intents and purposes, EVERYTHING the President wanted, he got under FISA.

Source:
http://www.fas.org/irp/a.../doj/fisa/2005rept.html

In fact the EFF, a plaintiff in another related case against AT&T, believes that that the powers granted to the President by FISA are so great that in their words, "FISA powers are broad and vague, and the secrecy of FISA proceedings makes FISA powers susceptible to abuse."

Source:
http://www.eff.org/Censo..._militias/fisa_faq.html

In defense of President Bush, he has avowed several times that the only communication being intercepted is that of known terrorists. "As part of this effort, I authorized the National Security Agency to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al-Qaida and related terrorist organizations. In other words, if al-Qaida or their associates are making calls into the United States or out of the United States, we want to know what they're saying."

Source:
http://www.whitehouse.go...2006/05/20060511-1.html

The scope of the President's purported actions is exactly what is stipulated in FISA.

So why didn't the President just go to FISA and obtain the legal protection? Why has the President worked so hard, and at great risk, to circumvent the law? Is it because, contrary to what he says, what the President is doing is so illicit that he knew even FISA would not approve of it?

I've always seen the tactical/security reasons for "secrets"; but also have always been slightly amused at the irony that it usually means the "enemy" that uses spies knows more about the government and its activities than its own citizens.

Hmmm... I think those that slammed me for the 4th amendment post should now apologize. I know you won't since you can't believe the original founders of this nation actually created a government that tries so very hard to protect your rights, no matter how much your willing to give up for "Emmanuel Goldstein".

I am so glad our fore-fathers were as bright as they were.

Oh, and I voted for Bush BTW. I think he's clearly overstepping his boundaries. I don't think a pres of either party should have this much power...EVER.

The government does try to protect our rights, and to thank them you're attacking their leader.

Bush is doing what any reasonable person would do in his position--he's keeping one step ahead of the terrorists.

I almost hate to bring this up, as it is a fantasy sci-fi movie--nonetheless, it has an extremely powerful message. You've seen the new star wars episodes, right? Remember in Episode 3, when the Jedi began debating about removing Palpatine from office? They broke the rules of democracy to do so, did they not?

Were they wrong? Should they have let Palpatine rule, and allow democracy to rule? There are times indeed where we must compromise one freedom or right to protect our country, but unfortunately, the media has become our enemies greatest ally, and anything that happens outside of closed doors will be revealed to them. We cannot and must not allow our enemies to know our every move. We would be doomed.

If President Bush is doing this for his own gain, if he cares nothing for our country or its people, why is he not defending himself? Why does he continue the war on terror when it is costing him his approval ratings? I thank God that he has the guts to stand up against evil amidst the turmoil around him. I pray we elect a President that is half the man he is for the 2008 election.

I would just like to note that Star Wars Episode 3 was one of the most stupidly bad films I'd seen in years.

Have you ever heard Bush talk? Have you heard him make speaches? They're idiotic, and he has -people- for those. This is not a man who weighs all aspects of a problem in his mind, this is a man obsessed with a flashy 'solution'. Not that I don't agree with some of the security measurements now in place, but we should have a serious look at what the security forces -gain- from all this; which is, unfortunately, a lot. I'm not saying they're all bad, but it's stupid to stop questioning what they do.

What has your consideration on Star Wars Episode 3 anything to do with you insulting Bush ?

it doesnt thats why there is a seperation moron

"I would just like to note that Star Wars Episode 3 was one of the most stupidly bad films I'd seen in years."

So...we already know you are in the minority, as you did not like the film even though millions of others thought it was the best in the series--but I digress.

"Have you ever heard Bush talk? Have you heard him make speaches? They're idiotic, and he has -people- for those."

Again you base something on YOUR experience and expect me to think just as you do. Newsflash: everyone has opinions, everyone thinks differently. The key is narrowing down reality from just plain BS and commentary. The facts tell us that we have no clear evidence that Bush is ordering wiretapping for any other reason than what he says it is. Just because YOU don't like him does not mean he is incapable of telling the truth. Sorry--try moving to the south and you'll find that most people agree with me. Just because the media doesn't show us and doesn't really care (unless Katrina happens) doesn't mean we don't exist. SOMEBODY voted Bush into office again, eh?

Amazing you're coming out with the big guns now--resort to calling people morons are we? Actually, he asked a good question--and you didn't read the post. Only he mentioned Bush's speeches, not me--so he's the one putting them together, not separating them.

Whatever though...

Whoa. Not a single mention of Left Wing, etc.

Did you actually see the movie?

Putting aside its qualities for a moment, the Jedi decided to remove Palpatine precisely because he was subverting their democracy.

George Lucas has stated, publicly, that he meant this as an allegory to our current situation, our steady movement toward fascism.

Palpatine and Anakin represent the Bush administration. Remember when Anakin says "You're either with me, or you are my enemy"? Sound familiar? You're apparently the only person on the planet that didn't get it.

And the movie sucked, btw.

We can sit around and guess his (and his administrations) motives all day; wouldn't that be fun? The point is: you can have the best intentions in the world and still have bad policy.

Now, regardless of your political leaning, it's our responsibility to be critical of, and question, our government at all of its various levels. Not only is it irresponsible to blindly accept everything Glorious Leader does, it's downright dangerous.

Also, your Star Wars analogy sucks.

Instead of SW Ep 3, let's talk 1984. It seems more relevant here. Whenever the government needed to convince/subvert the people they pulled out good ole Emmanuel (sound like someone else you know?). People gave their freedoms for this ficticious character.

Also EP 3 had one very good line "this is how democracy falls, to thunderous applause". Don't forget that line. Strangely, Ep3 is more in line with Germany's rise before WW2.

Anyways, I like some of Bush's policies, not most though. For those defending him, just think as if Clinton did this, and the apathy you'd have if he or Gore were in office.

You must look beyond polical parties and ask yourself, is this really what the constitution was about? Clearly this judge says NO. Thank goodness for judicial review.

The "thunderous applause" at the fall you refer to will be heard from the major media outlets and the left.

Lucas put that in the script after that was said. If lucas has a problem with any idea of the US moving to fascism, it is rather confusing as to why he would support the insanity of the left.

Yes, Lucas put it in the script as a slam to GWB. What's your point?

My point is that it's ludicrous for a right-wing zealot to use that crappy movie to further his idiotic assertion, that democracy is somehow being saved by the erosion of civil liberties.

A fascist state is a police state where citizens are treated like subordinates and are assumed to be guilty at all times. True liberals and libertarians are fighting against anything that moves us in that direction. The only people who seem to have no problem with a trend toward fascism are the people who can't stomach a 0.0005% chance of being offed by terrorist. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable with 0.0004%. THAT's insanity.

Read a book.

You know what surprises me, is that a good 50%+ of the people that seem to comment on political matters don't seem to actually comment at all on the political matter. They just scream hate to the "other party." Last I checked guys, it doesn't matter if you are left wing or right leg or upper forehead, the article is about our government infringing our rights and securities.
Whether you take it upon yourself to question EVERYTHING ANYONE says at ALL times, or just blindly accept what you are told and give complete trust is really no concern of this judge, or should be no concern of each person on this forum. What you should be concerned about is the fact that there is something wrong going on here. It’s wrong enough to have made it legitimately to a courtroom and to have won thus far.
We all know corruption exists in all government, in all jobs, and in all facets of life, our government is no different. But there is a general problem when enough people think our government has gone over the line of "acceptable corruption" that an actual legal battle AGAINST OUR OWN PEOPLE must ensue. When a president hardly can hold 50% approval rating, when his bank swells as gas prices rise, when our sons and daughters die in someone else’s land fighting for a now lost reason, when nearly EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD stands up and voices words of hate towards us, eventually there comes a time when people will have to start to question what is actually happening in front of them. Is our government really out working and fighting hard for us, or are they busy playing Battleship with the world as their board.
Should we stop and listen to conspiracy theorists who tell us that everything from 9/11 to Iraq has been a complete setup to allow us to go to war so Bush's father's companies can get massive $$ govt contracts?
I would like to call attention to a LONG forgotten concept known as "Common Sense." Now I know just hearing those words makes peoples eyes roll in their heads and immediately the left/right wing flames start to be typed, but really guys, take a look around. When you can no longer turn on the television without hearing a news story printed here in the states that does not match the same stories printed elsewhere around the world, its time to actually take a look at things yourself and stop letting everyone else think for you. Last time I checked neither a donkey nor an elephant was fit to tell a human what to do.

So you say that the govt is protecting your rights? So you say that this entire thing is Clintons fault? So I say then why thus far has every reason, every scrap of intelligence gained, everything that has required an investigation somehow all come out as "bad intelligence" or a "clerical mistake". When we have video taped evidence with dates stating our president was warned about 9/11 before it happened, when we find out that there are no WMDs in any places we are attacking for.... WMDs is "intelligence error" I start to say perhaps we are jumping the gun or at the LEAST making very bad decisions. Sure the tyrants of those countries needed to be dealt with. No I do not think this the war up till a few months ago has not been worth it, but I gotta say, I would much prefer to be told we are going to war to unseat a ruthless ruler than a lie of WMD that will kill us all in our sleep please let us tap your phones and listen to your conversations and please also put this microchip in your hand.
So all the obvious BS aside.... here’s a nice question I wish we could ask.
"Can the NSA prove that their wiretapping HAS saved lives?" I mean, sure, the old saying is innocent until proven guilty, but on the turn of the foot, I do not recall seeing any terrorist activities thwarted by these wiretappings. I have seen better results from other countries (Britain) without those wiretaps.
Another thing that really bugs me about all this is that we STILL do not have a document stating what the criteria for said wiretaps is. How is this information obtained? If someone is not listening to something and stumble upon probable cause to wiretap someone, just how do we decide (and why) that someone gets taped?

Lastly I would like to point out something that I am seeing less and less of. Checks and balances. The govt was built upon a system that no one person or organization could have nearly unlimited power or abilities to do things without another organization or power to counteract their actions. When a president goes around those checks and balances to be able to do something that is already quite controversial, I trouble believe they should be doing it start off with. If they are doing something that REQUIRES them to go around the "red tape" of the balances, then chances are that’s because those balances would deny these taps. Of course no one can say that but them, but seeing as they have not be given the cases, have not be asked, and have been completely circumvented, it does not look to favorably for the current administration.

I have said my peace and will continue to write my congressman as I always do and try to help my friends actually come to their own conclusions, not just accept what a ruling party or some totally crazy wing tells them to believe. After all, there is only so long that someone can tell you the fire will not burn you, until it does, and all the lies, red tape, and covering up cannot stop that. Lets just hope bush is not the fire.

There is something wrong indeed, with Left Wing people like you that try to look like they are smartest around and tell that it's not a question of Left and Right political parties...
It's another classical tactic that Left Wing supporters like you use since a long time ago.
If people reading here are gullable then they will get caught by your trick and follow you thru the noise you try to create in their heads, but if they don't fall asleep they won't let you and other Left Wing supporters make a fool of them.

All your statements want to look good and right while they are deadly wrong and flawed. You write a lot of theoretical stuff trying to negate reality. Reality is the fact that the Left Wing controls everything and judges are its puppets, the majority of them are always against the Right Wing and always trying to help criminals and terrorists and trying to say that the Right Wing is evil and such.
With these tricks the Left Wing got stronger and stronger in the last 30 years or so and there is no balance anymore. Whoever keeps voting for the Left Wing anywhere in the world is actually voting for criminals and terrorists because this neo-communist Left Wing is helping them as much as possible as all of this clearly demonstrated once again.

Give it up. The -1's on your posts are a clue.

Well said....

Well, they are now saying these taps helped thwart the bottle bombers. The timing of this is very interesting.

However, I agree with the rest of your post. I just wish more people would wake up.

I must agree with you on this issue. Everything boboki says looks great on the cover, but in reality, he is doing the same thing the media does--mixing sound argument with deception.

1. "You know what surprises me, is that a good 50%+ of the people that seem to comment on political matters don't seem to actually comment at all on the political matter. They just scream hate to the "other party." Last I checked guys, it doesn't matter if you are left wing or right leg or upper forehead, the article is about our government infringing our rights and securities."

You started out with sound truth, then transformed it into a lie with the "the article is about our government infringing our rights and securities". The betanews article is about one US district court judge's ruling; specifically, one of the many Sixth Circuit district court judges. It is not saying that the government is infringing on our rights.

2. " When a president hardly can hold 50% approval rating, when his bank swells as gas prices rise..."

Again, you started with truth, then go to personal beliefs/opinions. I am making more money than I did last year at this time--does that mean the economy is better? Bush making money while "the gas prices rise" are not directly related, and 100% unrelated to the story. Again you digress from the truth and attempt to attack the President's charactor without backing up your statements. Let's stay focused here.

3. "...when our sons and daughters die in someone else’s land fighting for a now lost reason..."

Totally 100% opinion. The reason we are at war in Iraq has nothing to do with NSA wiretapping. How dare you belittle the cause in which they fight! Are you for us in this war, or against us? Please quit purposely attempting to s*** the focus of your so far baseless accusations.

4. "...when nearly EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD stands up and voices words of hate towards us, eventually there comes a time when people will have to start to question what is actually happening in front of them."

Do countries themselves speak, or are you perhaps referring to citizens of the countries? There have been and always will be people who disagree with our cause, and there is likely at least 1 person from every country that believes America should go to hell, but the countries themselves do not think so. Please quit deceiving us with CNN's hogwash, take your own advice and start questioning what is going on in front of you.

5. "Is our government really out working and fighting hard for us, or are they busy playing Battleship with the world as their board."

Good question; I can guess what you'd answer to that question :) --but again, we are getting into the gray area in which there is no hard evidence proving either side.

6. "Should we stop and listen to conspiracy theorists who tell us that everything from 9/11 to Iraq has been a complete setup to allow us to go to war so Bush's father's companies can get massive $$ govt contracts?
I would like to call attention to a LONG forgotten concept known as "Common Sense." Now I know just hearing those words makes peoples eyes roll in their heads and immediately the left/right wing flames start to be typed, but really guys, take a look around. When you can no longer turn on the television without hearing a news story printed here in the states that does not match the same stories printed elsewhere around the world, its time to actually take a look at things yourself and stop letting everyone else think for you. Last time I checked neither a donkey nor an elephant was fit to tell a human what to do."

Bravo! Good words, I agree with you here.

7. "So you say that the govt is protecting your rights? So you say that this entire thing is Clintons fault?"

Umm...relevance? Clinton has nothing to do with NSA wiretapping...

8. "So I say then why thus far has every reason, every scrap of intelligence gained, everything that has required an investigation somehow all come out as "bad intelligence" or a "clerical mistake".

*sigh* You aren't seriously bringing up that over-hyped WMD argument, are you?

"When we have video taped evidence with dates stating our president was warned about 9/11 before it happened, when we find out that there are no WMDs in any places we are attacking for.... WMDs is "intelligence error" I start to say perhaps we are jumping the gun or at the LEAST making very bad decisions."

Yup...WMD argument. Well, here it goes: even though the issue of whether or not Iraq had WMD is not relevant, it does deal with trust of the government, so sure, I'll humor you. It was the British satellite imagery from which we determined the intelligence data telling us WMD were indeed present. Look it up if you don't believe me. Even if I'm wrong (which I'm not), again we digress from the main issue at hand.

9. "Sure the tyrants of those countries needed to be dealt with. No I do not think this the war up till a few months ago has not been worth it, but I gotta say, I would much prefer to be told we are going to war to unseat a ruthless ruler than a lie of WMD that will kill us all in our sleep..."

You and I agree, Bush should have never said or even implied that Iraq "has" weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps he should have said the intelligence we obtained "strongly suggests" it, but he chose his words unwisely.

10. "please let us tap your phones and listen to your conversations and please also put this microchip in your hand."

...need I say it again? Try to stay with the facts here. Either post as purely opinion or differentiate your own opinion from the facts. Quit pretending they are the same thing.

11. ""Can the NSA prove that their wiretapping HAS saved lives?""

Well, that is not the question, the question is, "Is the NSA wiretapping occurring with the interest of national security?". The big difference is that in order to prove your question national security would be compromised, so let's answer the real question, the one that the constitution itself agrees with.

12. "I mean, sure, the old saying is innocent until proven guilty"

That "old saying" is in the US Constitution, cheif. Try reading it every once in a while, since the entire basis for the argument here is regarding whether the Constitution allows for the NSA wiretapping to occurr or not.

13. "but on the turn of the foot, I do not recall seeing any terrorist activities thwarted by these wiretappings. I have seen better results from other countries (Britain) without those wiretaps."

National security...? Okay, to clarify and be fair, I can only answer with my personal opinion, which agrees with the general consensus of what the President and the NSA are saying to their defense: If we know how wiretapping has saved lives, so do the terrorists. If they know, they will learn how to beat our system. This is really more of the "common sense" to which you refered to in the previous paragraphs.

14. "I have seen better results from other countries (Britain) without those wiretaps."

Yes, and that's because Britian does many things that are "unconstitutional" here in the states, like doing random breath tests of vehicles driving down the highway without any warrents or "cause", searching persosns private belongings without their knowledge and lying about their own "privacy policies", etc. Again we digress...

15. "Another thing that really bugs me about all this is that we STILL do not have a document stating what the criteria for said wiretaps is.

How is this information obtained? If someone is not listening to something and stumble upon probable cause to wiretap someone, just how do we decide (and why) that someone gets taped?"

That's just something that we have to believe our government has the ability to do itself. Until we prove otherwise, I have no reason not to believe they have our best interests in mind here. Oh...and we may have that document yet, just because CNN hasn't blabbed about it doesn't mean it is non-existent.

16. "Lastly I would like to point out something that I am seeing less and less of. Checks and balances. The govt was built upon a system that no one person or organization could have nearly unlimited power or abilities to do things without another organization or power to counteract their actions. When a president goes around those checks and balances to be able to do something that is already quite controversial, I trouble believe they should be doing it start off with. If they are doing something that REQUIRES them to go around the "red tape" of the balances, then chances are that’s because those balances would deny these taps."

Here is your best argument. This one actually holds steam, takes the cake, if you will. The last statement, however, I respectfully disagree with. Resorting to opinion again: the reason I believe the government is avoiding the red tape is not because the steps would not be approved, but because the media has transformed into the terrorists biggest source of classified information. If the courts approve it, the terrorists learn of the measures before the government even implements them. The only way to beat terrorists is to always remain one step ahead of them, so revealing our own security measures is providing them with the data they need to counteract our every move.

So, all in all, your arguments have many facets of truth--but they all end up turning into nothing but opinion. I'm sorry, but America needs to believe in our government, now more than ever before, because if we cannot trust our own leaders, the terrorists have already won. This "war against terror" was never a battle of flesh and blood, but against principalities, powers, and against rulers of darkness of this age.

That is why we cannot afford to attack our own country, when we are already bleeding to death from our injuries already. Wake up, people!

Let's focus this war against terrorists and not our own country, shall we?

"That is why we cannot afford to attack our own country, when we are already bleeding to death from our injuries already. Wake up, people!

Let's focus this war against terrorists and not our own country, shall we? "

too many people on this forum are saying things like this but I believe them to be very misguided.

someone else on this forum correctly stated that this war wasn't about taking lives or land, and this is very true

the goal of a terrorist attack is to instill fear into the population, to to topple their institutions, to cause so much fear that they begin to make us change the way we live.

does no one here see that if things like "warrentless wiretapping" and "domestic spying" begin that the terrorists are winning, there isn't any need to attack any longer, they are already causing us to change the way we live by making us give up personal freedoms.

i'll bet Al-Zarqawi rolls in his grave every time a person says something like "we need to be safer" or "we need to stay one step ahead" and supports the giving up of liberty's in order to buy a little temporary safety.

and isn't that what makes us different from them in the first place? our civil liberties and freedoms? if we are willing to give those up to combat them then can't you see that we have already succumbed?

in order to combat them, we have become the very thing that we try so hard to destroy, not islamic fascists persay but fascists just the same.

and although I am not one to fall back on slippery slope arguments, this is the foot on the ice, anyone here read a little book called 1984???? I think thats all I need to say

I will end with a quote from Frederick Nietzche:

"whosoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he doesn't become one himeself, and if you stare too deep into the abyss the abyss stares also into you. "

and before you accuse me of being right or left, I will tell you I am neither and resent the limited two-party democracy we have in America. I have never voted for one of the two main candidates in my life

Yeah, sure. You don't support anyone but you surely sound like many Left Wing supporters. You want to sound right and good but your points are still the same.
When you say that wanting to increase protection by trying to be a step ahead of the terrorists would make them laugh, well, that's enough to say that you are Left Wing minded. It's not that your statements make you look any different from other Left Wing supporters, you tell us the same thing. If you weren't a Left Wing elector then you should become one because you are well trained to be one of them with all your statements about Big Brother 1984 and so on that might appear related to this but they are not and you are using them just to shock the readers and make them think " this guy must be right, he is not an extremist nor supporting anyone, so he must be cool and we must listen to him " ... Yep! Old tricks. Socialists in the '60s were promoting these tricks already, it's old stuff.

considering that england did most of the work, thats a pretty good line.

in my opinion the current admi9nistration is more corrupt than any other in the us history.

i will belittle their cause all i want though, as they are there for no good reason. its not our problem we should walk away.

I am not accusing you of being right or left because that is irrelevant anyway. "Domestic Spying" is a term one reporter gave to it, and CNN ran with it like it was the best thing since Jesus Christ rose from the dead. The media eats up catch phrases and "evil government spying, OOOOOOOOO!" because people like you actually believe them.

When you look at the legal part behind this, COMPLETELY DISREGARD what the media says about it as they are misguided--and you yourself, as an individual, not asking your friend, not googling it-- but if you look up the law behind it, Bush has every legal right to do what he is doing. That type of government oversight has been upheld time and time again in our nation's***ory, yet the media runs with a completely different idea.

Think for yourself. Look it up for yourself and prove me wrong. I'm begging you, stop listening to other people about this for once and find out the facts for yourself. Do your own research.

"the goal of a terrorist attack is to instill fear into the population, to to topple their institutions, to cause so much fear that they begin to make us change the way we live."

Yes, and look at how they've succeeded:

We are more divided as a country now than ever before. Between illegal immigration, port security, and rumors that our own government might be "spying" on us, the terrorists are indeed "rolling" everytime we say "we need to be safer"--because they know the news media is their biggest ally.

It is apparent you read part of my post but did not read all of it. I cannot blame you, it sure was a long one--but I can only expect you to reply to it if you read the whole thing, just as I read your entire post.

"in order to combat them, we have become the very thing that we try so hard to destroy, not islamic fascists persay but fascists just the same."

Yes, we have, but the danger is that you are unaware of just how they have done it. Before someone brings this up, let me be very clear: I never meant to imply that Bush has done a perfect job, in fact far from it. He has made many mistakes, most of them immediately after 9/11. I was a fool not to have seen this, but looking back, Bush really wasn't ready to handle this early on. He made too many promises he simply could not follow through on, and made too many assumptions of the American people's "resolve". His second term I thought at first he was his weakest, but know I realise more and more that this is his strongest time. Amist his own country turning against his cause, he still fights for our freedom. That is the way I see it.

If you stop rolling your eyes when reading my comments, and "play the Devil's advocate" just for a minute and hear me out, I am not such a hard-nosed Right-wingnut you think I am. Let's say, just for one minute, that I am right, and Bush is conscious of our right to privacy while he is forced to protect America against clear and present danger. Do his speeches suddenly look more serious after considering this? Do my words make more sense now, or are you unwilling to believe anything other than what you believe? Do you REALLY want to discover the truth, or only if the truth matches YOUR way of thinking?

Alright, time to come back to your own version of reality, so flame away...

More corrupt than any in US history? At least he doesn't have thugs breaking into the offices of the opposition party like another lovely US President.

I agree with you, thats just what I read our government's spin on this is.

Sounds too well timed for me.

Since when does approval ratings actually mean anythingthings at all? or polls for that matter? You are looking for answers as most people are. That's understandable. This country and it's leadership must not be so completely influenced by the opinions of other nations. I find it very hard to believe that it is all about growing the Bush bank accounts due to the fact that that can be done through other methods that did not require troops on the ground.

The biggest concept to this whole thing that people can't seem to wake up to is the fact that the world has never seen a war like this. It has everyone confused and thrown off balance. I can understand that. I do also understand that no US citizen wants to lose anything....their expectation of privacy, their freedoms, and certainly not their family members. There is however, a very serious need to just simply do what needs to be done. People want black and white answers here...and black and white sollutions. That's just not realistic in this kind of war.

This is a war of ideas and religious philosiphy with an ultimate goal of world domination (much like Hitler).

The US is very differant from the rest of the world in the way it does things. The ways inwich it allows anyone to be a citizen. The enemy only appears stupid. But the enemy is smart enough to infiltrate and corrupt from the inside. This is where my only real grievance is with the President (border control).

When it comes to wiretapping: real understanding of the technology involved becomes even more important from the perspective of those that are already citizens. Things are such now that NO signal can be sent out of the home with ANY expectation of "privacy"....for anywhere in the world. It is interesting that people get so worked up about telephone wiretapping when most people won't even keep their online computers clean of spyware/adware. The enemy IS also listening. The enemy does hear and see just as the American public does. They will however use this against us.

We all know for a fact that people look up porn online and have affairs. We all know that aunt Betty has a prize winning recipe for baking pies. The idea is not nor has ever been to catch people in the act of cheating on their spouce.

It would be very interesting to find out that those in the US government that are so against this NSA thing, are actually aiding the enemy in one way or another. We have already seen how the major media networks wish the US to fail and the enemy to win.

It is quite sad to see people looking so desperately for answers that are so apt to believe whatever ABC, CBS, NBC, ESPN, CSPAN, The Newyork Times, The LA Times and others want them to believe. These people are not reporting the news. It has been proven time after time...the create the news. They know that there are alot of people that refuse to think for themselves and people that can think for themselves and need answers of some kind. If you want to be lead like sheep by these people....that's you. The problem is that once there are enough of those the blindly follow what comes out of the media, we end up with a population that is controlled by a tiny group of people with their own agenda and the citizens of the US no longer have a voice they can speak with.

I hear alot of talk about the idea that Bush knew before hand about 911. I hear nothing as to HOW hear might have known. If we are to actually believe in the idea of faulty intelligence, then this becomes a two sided arguemnet that cancels itself out. My question is....how differant would this arguement be if we were told that the President knew about 911 prior to it's happening due to the use of wiretapping?

How "differant" would this "arguement" be?

Bush would be guilty of treason and we would be arguing over whether he deserves the death penalty.

And if you believe the faulty intelligence excuse, you are as dumb as you sound.

I may disagree with alot of what bourgeoisdude is posting; but your posts are both frightening and funny at the same time.
If people reading here are gullable then they will get caught by your trick and follow you thru the noise you try to create in their heads, but if they don't fall asleep they won't let you and other Left Wing supporters make a fool of them. All your statements want to look good and right while they are deadly wrong and flawed.
They have a name for that noise, it is called thought; but seriously, you sound almost like a person on guard against having their views changed. Like you feel you must plug your ears and go "la la la" whenever anything that does not support your views arises. If the statements are so flawed, why not refute them?

You write a lot of theoretical stuff trying to negate reality.
And it seems you try to ignore what could potentially happen in favor of the present situation. I don't know about you, but when all is said and done and the unachievable goal of eliminating terrorism has been achieved, I want to have a country I still want to be a citizen of. And as far as hypotheticals go, they are the entire reason the Bill of Rights was created; because the creators of the constitution had the foresight and hindsight to realize governments will abuse their power if left unrestrained.

Reality is the fact that the Left Wing controls everything and judges are its puppets, the majority of them are always against the Right Wing and always trying to help criminals and terrorists and trying to say that the Right Wing is evil and such. Whoever keeps voting for the Left Wing anywhere in the world is actually voting for criminals and terrorists because this neo-communist Left Wing is helping them as much as possible as all of this clearly demonstrated once again.
Because if you are not with "us" you are against "us", right? I think you need to look up the definition of reality.

...fights for our freedom.
Just a nitpick, not trying to single you out, but I wish people would stop saying things like this. The "War on Terror" is not about fighting for our freedom, at best it is fighting for our safety and other people's freedom. I would actually debate if it could even be called a war, as wars usually have governments on both sides of the conflict. Aren't terrorists more like an international crime-boss' thugs than enemy troops?

...

One judge on a case like this means NOTHING.

An appeals court, and eventually the Supremes,
shall decide the issue.

...

The Computer Rodent

...

Yes, and they will likely agree.

Not if they go by the book, unlike the Judge in Missouri did. I agree with them, and I very much look forward to the arguments presented on our side. I say "our side" only because the entire purpose of this argument is whether or not the war on terror should continue. Nobody here will admit that, but that is the truth as I have come to see it.

The outcome of this issue, IMHO, will be much grander than any of you hope to admit. I'm afraid the wrong decision here could mean the end of a free America as we know it. To say that all we have fought for over the past 5 years is in vain, that we threw away lives because of one man's decisions--we might as well surrender to the terrorists. It matters not about our political viewpoints or petty opinions on the matter. What you call "victory" will be long term defeat here.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: At the rate of our moral and ethical decline, we will become a dictatorship in no more than 30 years time. "Victory" here will assure that. Americans will lose all faith in the political system, as will I, and the terrorists will win where it counts. We have the ability to stop them, but the civil war in our own homeland is preventing us from effectively resolving the conflict. Quit blaming Bush and start fighting for our freedom rather than attacking it!

There will be a dictatorship by voting for the Left Wing Democrats and negating secret agencies their role in order to help terrorists more and more.

...Okay aredo, time for a reality check again. Are you blindley against Left-Wingers just because you hate them? What is the reason you are being so hateful of them? Did they kill your father when you were little?

Yes, some political affiliations bug the living sh!t out of me. I can't stand the complete BS that CNN is broadcasting. Does that mean I should start ranting on CNN web pages and start calling them a terrorist organisation? No. EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE, no good would come from it.

I will place myself in your shoes. Okay, left-wingers really are neo-communists, they are here to make government a dictatorship. So what do I need to do? Call people Communists who disagree with Bush without hearing them out? That tactic has gained you little respect here, chief. As you can see, they have already begun to ignore you here.

I believe you are seeking truth in all of this, and you probably think in your own way that you are standing up for truth in a world full of deception, but listen: calling people socialists and labeling them with a group in which they may or may not have any affiliation is not helping here.

"Not if they go by the book"

No book to go by here, just the good ole constitution. Maybe you should re-read it and remind yoursefl why SO MANY DIED to uphold IT!

More died for IT than anyone lately.

So you must really think George Washington was an dummy who didn't want to protect our lands. Of course, in your mind GW is much smarter.

The NSA is above the ruling of one silly federal judge. That judge does NOT have access to information PROVING how very CLEARLY those warrantless wiretappings have saved lives. There is one thing above the constitution: preservation of life.

You prejudice your argument by calling the judge silly. And just how did you manage to get access to information "PROVING how very CLEARLY those warrantless wiretappings have saved lives"? Surely that judge would be much more likely to have access to that kind of information than YOU. And preservation of life is not necessarily above the Constitution (note the capital C?). Otherwise there would be no death row or death penalty allowed. Can you prove that the wiretappings have saved lives?

You need to back your arguments up.

You and I agree on the outcome, however, the Judge is giving the whole speech about the power not being given, whilest the NSA claims it is a measure made to protect America. The case now becomes a matter of proving that the wiretapping IS NOT justifyable as protecting America against terrorist threats. It isn't something that we just need some "could be" or "possibly" misused bullsh*t--the ACLU must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the NSA is conducting this wiretapping for issues other than national security. I'd wish her good luck, except it'll take a lot more than luck to prove that.

Prejudice is among Left Wing supporters like you and that judge that are against NSA whatever they do as much as they are again CIA and FBI as long as there is a Right Wing Administration leading the country while no one questioned anything during the Clinton Administration while terrorist groups infiltrated in the country and no orders were given to stop them and protect the population, and 9-11 happened as soon as a Right Wing leader got elected.

Nothing is above the constitution. It's the rule of law, not the NSA!!

How am I a Left Wing supporter? Do you even know what the Left Wing is? Do you have *any* support for your claims? Do you even have a clue?

Stop wasting our time and go back to taking your meds. Seriously, the meds are not a government conspiracy to shut you up. Really.

Perhaps he is misguided...nonetheless you have no substantial proof for your stance, other than stating opinions of news organisations and repeating them over and over again until even you cannot determine whether they are truth or not for yourself.

How did what I post have anything to do with "opinions of news organizations"? I very seldom watch the news. I wanted to know why he called me Left Wing. My reply was based entirely on his reply. And I pointed out the flaws in extremely well's logic. Reread our posts. My reply to extremely well was based entirely on extremely well's post.

"How am I a Left Wing supporter? Do you even know what the Left Wing is? Do you have *any* support for your claims? Do you even have a clue?

Stop wasting our time and go back to taking your meds. Seriously, the meds are not a government conspiracy to shut you up. Really. "

I replied to that post, chief :)

My question still stands. How did what I post have anything to do with "opinions of news organizations"? And he called me Left Wing. I'm registered as a Libertarian, however that does not mean that I believe everything to do with it or that I'm "Left Wing". Seems to me he was shooting from the lip.

"Libertarian" ... extreme Left Wing people, you are a communist indeed, it's not a different tag that would make it anything different. Libertarian groups are communism driven, nothing more than that.

Get a dictionary and a clue.

Wow, he did surprise me with that one. Libertarians are arguably in the middle, if judging left and right...Left-wing prefers more government generally, and this issue is one of questioning whether or not they have too much power. In many ways, it is almost ironic that Democrats generally side with this argument as they are basically saying the government has too much power :)

it is almost ironic that Democrats generally side with this argument as they are basically saying the government has too much power
Shouldn't this be enough to send off alarms about the government over stepping its authority?

There is one thing above the constitution: preservation of life.
Have fun, safe in your cage, for the rest of your life.

"could be" or "possibly" misused bullsh*t

Do you really believe our government and the people running it are so special and infallible as to neither take advantage of nor abuse any and all power they are given? Hypotheticals were the basis for the Bill of Rights, hypotheticals based on what past governments had done.

...the ACLU must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the NSA is conducting this wiretapping for issues other than national security
You are so fond of citing case-law, you must realize that handling the case in this manner would set a precendent (or reinforce one I disagree with) making it so citizens and organizations of the US would be burdened with proving there was no warrantable reason to wiretap/search them. People would have to prove their lack of suspiciousness. It that closeness to the phrase "papers, please" that has the fine hairs on the back of many people's necks, including my own, standing on end.

The "sad" irony is that I don't really think about "Left" or "Right" or "Middle" or "Behind" when thinking about political matters. I just try to be logical and make sense of what I can.

Trying to equate my "party" with what my political beliefs must be won't work since being registered as a Libertarian doesn't mean that I agree with all the viewpoints and agenda of the Libertarian Party. It's just a better fit than the other political parties.

I'm a geek. I much rather be tinkering with computers and the like than doing anything with politics. :) Calling me a communist or whatever just makes a fool of the person calling me that.

Another neo-communist Judge of the Left Wing Clinton/Kennedy clans/gangs tries to help their muslim terrorist friends and criminals in general to attack the Right Wing and the Bush Administration.
The most dangerous thing is that thanks to the Left Wing propaganda thru the press, the media, tv network, Internet and Hollywood there is a vast majority of the popoulation that's so gullable to really think that a Judge like this is right while his action are putting in danger the whole population in the first place and only helping criminals and terrorists to do their dirty job.
Our democracy is pretty flawed since it allows a Judge to do such a thing and decide that criminals and terrorist must be protected in order "to save the Constitution" and silly things like that. This is why this neo-communist '68 Left Wing worldwide is so dangerous and such a friend of terrorists and criminals.

i do hope you are being sarcastic, i mean if you are so keen on not questioning your government...

i might implore you to vacation in China

I bet you are a Left Wing supporter/elector, then you surely would like the Chinese communistic regime way more than me, wouldn't you ?

Questioning the government.. yeah, sure.. from the same people that during the infamous Clinton Administration never dare to question anything while the Clinton clan was doing nothing (helping I bet...) to prevent muslim terrorists to enter the country so that 9-11 could have happened in case the population wouldn't have re-elected a Left Wing supporter....

This has nothing to do with that; its about fundamental freedoms offered by the constitution.

Some people should get their heads outta their a**es

I am a 24 year veteran of the United States Marine Corps. Approximately every 4 years when I re enlisted I swore to Protect and Defend the The Constitution of The United States. In my opinion the most dangerous thing in this country are knee jerk idiots like you from both the left and the right who would either subsume or revoke the Constitutional Rights of the citizens thereof.

As Ben Franklin said (you know who he is right?)

Paraphrase from memory:

"Those who would give up their freedom in the name security deserve neither and will soon lose both."

Stop listening to the Rush Limbaugh "Example of Idiocy In Broadcasting" network and find out what living in a free society is really about.

Stupid, ignorant, and insipid statements so loaded with logical fallacies that no one in their right (no pun intended) mind would give any credence to them. Let me guess. Everyone is evil except those who think like you do.

Actually you noglobal neo-communist '68 Left Wing people are the ones believing and claiming to be the only good ones and whoever doesn't support you simply deserves to die.

'68?

I like you, you're funny.

Wow, you are beginning to sound looney. Attack the cause and not the people representing it, then perhaps people will see the error in their cause. All you gain by attacking people is giving them that much more steadfast committment to their cause.

"Freedom" , "Constitution" .. yeah, right. Nice words Left Wing supporters use to defend their puppets and leaders actions while helping terrorist groups. And in fact judges like this one ruling against secret agencies are doing that just to help terrorists.

Aren't communists all about control of the people and the suppression of information and the truth? Wouldn't then a judge who said the government cannot tap your phone without a warrant be the opposite? Maybe I just misunderstood.

Actually, it would help if he knew what he was talking about. Communism and democracy are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are very similar. It is capitalism and communism that are opposites; and capitalism is nearer facism and dictorships than communism.

...Not that I am not greedy. :)

She went on to say that "the president of the United States ... has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders."

Finally someone had the juevos.

She should be arrested immediately. She is a noglobal punk, that's what she is. And the Left Wing behind her it's putting all of us in serious danger.

shut it troll, she doing her job based on the evidence

That's what it says at all. Unfortunately Beta News either edited the opinion or drew it from a news source that did not give the full context of how the Judge ruled
Quote from another source:

“Predictably, the war on terror of this administration has produced a vast number of cases, in which the states secrets privilege has been invoked,” Judge Taylor wrote. She noted that the Supreme Court has held that because the president’s power to withhold secrets is so powerful, “it is not to be lightly invoked.” She also cited a finding in an earlier case by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that “whenever possible, sensitive information must be disentangled from nonsensitive information to allow for the release of the latter.”

Judge Taylor said “the President has acted, undisputedly, as F.I.S.A. forbids,” thus defying the express will of Congress, and she was unpersuaded by the government’s stance that it could not defend itself in the lawsuit without doing the country harm.' (There is no direct reference to the 4th Amendment in her ruling, that was drawn from a quote by one of the ACLU's Lawyers. In regards to the Bill Of Rights the brief reads: “It was never the intent of the Framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights.”)

“Consequently, the court finds defendants’ arguments that they cannot defend this case without the use of classified information to be disingenuous and without merit,” she wrote.

So in my opinion she really didn't rule on the Constitutionality of the Govt's case for the NSA wire taps, only challenges to the use of the taps could be heard in Court without the Govt disclosing sensitive material to defend it's actions.

Ní dhoirtfear fuil neamhchiontach choíche. Ach sruthóidh fuil na n-olc mar abhainn.

A Elbereth Gilthoniel a menel palan-diriel, le nallon si di'nguruthos! A tiro nin, fanuuilos!

This is the first piece of good news I have heard on the unethical and un-American activities of the current administration and weakling politicians in a very long time. They all need to be removed and replaced by 6th graders that actually might understand the meaning of the Constitution.

LOL - good words, my man - really a gimmick! I like it, gives an earnest matter at least a smile, though keeping it earnest . . .

Another Dip Wad heard from, you are as bad as that idiot aredo I responded to above. You should get your news and opinion from some other source than the Comedy Network.

Oh come on. :) Jon Stewart and his crew do a great job. Not only are they more entertaining, but they are probably (probably, I said) less biased than a lot of news shows.

We are a country of people which has given to government only the powers granted in the Constitution. We are not subjects under an elected tyrant. The constitution protects us from the fearmongers and quislings.

You neo-commies Left Wing supporters always claim that a piece of paper it's so important to negate truth and fact and reality to gullable people that trust your words while your people like this Judge are putting all of us in serious danger.

spam spam

Putting all of us in serious danger? How so? Are you actually claiming that the USA will likely fall if these *warrantless* wiretaps are not allowed? You *really* need to back up your claims and not just sprout nonsense.

Thank God for this really independent judge. That woman must have courage, indeed. Go ahead, Your Honor, and tailor the true freedom! And may the Lord of Lords bless you!

No detailed comment...yet. Needless to say I do think this is absurd and un-American, as national security IS one of the "powers" that the President is given from the constitution. More to come...

Oh - so that's why they killed J.F. Kennedy . . . He must have been a "security issue" then, and, how grateful we should be, Nixon then was the one who could start the war in Vietnam. Yes, wars, my man, that's what you are talking about. Security has always been the No. One rationalisation to spy on the people and rob them off their civil and human rights and then - turn them into cannon fodder . . . Proud to be an American . . . Am deutschen Wesen soll alles genesen . . . L'état c'est moi . . . etc etc etc

"He must have been a "security issue" then..."

Hence the debate continues--is wiretapping truly being used a a security measure, or is it an excuse? Since nobody in this forum can prove otherwise, I think it is being used legitimately. If we can prove otherwise, however, this does indeed need to be addressed.

The problem is that people don't trust GWB, but the fact that we don't trust him does not mean that he is guilty until proven innocent--at least not in our legal system.

The Left Wing propaganda is always trying to push in people mind the fact that any Right Wing leader is evil and dangerous and must not be trusted. And if you don't trust Bush but you are listening to the Left Wing propaganda then you are gullable and doing what neo-communists want people to do. That's their point.

yu sound like a right wing conspiracist

you believe in lizard people too?

Conspiracy is known to be Left Wing people best way to fool the population into believing their own words.
Just like during the war in Iraq with the Left Wing and all its supporters worldwide accusing Bush to have oil interests in the area while China, France and Germany "the pro-peace" countries were the only ones that signed agreements with Saddam Hussein and his regime regarding oil and weapons...

What are your credentials and your evidence?

And what are yours, comrade, uh ? You Left Wing people are pathetic, indeed.

How dare you call me Comrade (notice the capital C). I'm certainly not Russian. And me Left Wing? How so? What is your reasoning? You need to stop sniffing the paint on that broad brush you are using.

So you resort to personal attacks? Is this how you treat your family when their thinking doesn't match yours? This guy is clearly a little over the edge, but for you to say he is "sniffing paint" is probably the most immature and desparate thing you can do. Geez, I'm I the only one who's taken a class about argumentation?

My family doesn't call me Left Wing or a Comrade (or comrade) or so on. Seems to me his brain is a bit fried. For all I know, he could be a glue or paint sniffer (though probably not). One thing's for sure. He's either a troll and/or not rational. I'm guessing he has mental illness.

Whoever is not a Left Wing guy and doesn't agree with you and doesn't say that Bush is evil and your sweet judges ruling against secret agencies and defending terrorists aren't good then you accuse them to be mad. That's another old Left Wing/socialists/communists trick. Why are you involving your own family way to call you in the discussion ? Being a Libertarian as you stated surely doesn't make a Right Wing anyway, Libertarians are communists so you are a Left Wing supporter, and extreme Left Wing one.

Also, use of drugs is what you Libertarians promote along with the Left Wing Democrats and similar groups worldwide. I never used any drugs nor I will ever do that. Right Wing supporters/electors do not use drugs, the vast majority of them do not but a minority gets affected by the Left Wing propaganda in our society that since the '60s has been spreading the idea that "drugs give you joy" and being a drug addicted would be a smart thing and so on... That's what you Left Wing people do and claim.

But remember who installed Saddam Hussein as leader in Iraq.

You don't have to listen to "Left Wing propoganda" or be a neo-communist to criticize Right Wing leaders. That's just another left-over from decades of scaring people for "the red evil".

In the case of Bush: every sane man would criticize him and his administration.

It's not that it was done because they wanted to do it, they had to avoid a worst case scenario and choose an option among a serie of bad options, there were no simple joyful options to choose from. If they did otherwise we might have had a USA Vs URSS conflict and an escalation of it to an unknown extent.

"the red evil" ? Are you referring to the '50s ?
Since the '60s the Left Wing put a lot of effort to make communistic regimes like China and North Korea and Cuba look good, nowadays the Left Wing propaganda is against the Jews and pro-Muslims and their regimes.

You Left Wing people are kinda pathetic and pretty racist, you consider everyone that doesn't agree with you to be mad and a disgrace, every Right Wing Administration in the world has to be "criticized" (read: condemned whatever they do).

It's not possible to avoid the Left Wing propaganda since over 90% of the news, the media, the press and tv networks and Hollywood is controlled by Left Wing puppets that desire to obey to their leaders in order to get some favours from them.

You actually managed to spell Muslims with a capital M. Some improvement there. So if I'm "Left Wing" as you so blindly called me, wouldn't I be anti-Jew? My wife's uncle and grandmother would be quite surprised to find that out. They happen to be Jewish. Imagine that.

Let's replace "You Left Wing people are" in the second paragraph with your name and the word "is". Ah, that's more like it.

No Left Wing commentary? How disappointing. And it's spelled USSR.

Having relatives and friends being Jews doesn't mean anything, really. Your statements like those of the majority of Left Wing supporters fooled the world into thinking that they were Jews best friends for 60 years or so since WW2 and now they always defend the Muslims and say that Jews are not that good anymore and too much connected with the Right Wing, even when the Jews happen to be Left Wing ones.. So, go figure...

The acronym is written differently in other languages....

My wife told me this morning that technically she's Jewish. Anyways, having in-laws that are Jewish does mean something to me. It may not mean anything to you, but then I'm more interested in what things mean to me. Your postings lack substance and the rhetoric that you keep spewing just makes you seem like a kook. You also seem quite ignorant about Jews and I really do think you have mental issues. In summary, I have better uses for my time than to reply to your ignorant and baseless statements. Call me what labels you want. It will not change what I am.

Agreed. However, we are using English.

I do not use drugs and have no use for them. Do not call me Left Wing or Right Wing or whatever. And don't be so stupid. I did not involve my family. Someone else mentioned them. So shut up and learn to read before making yourself even more of an idiot. Even better, take a class on logic so that you stop putting your foot in your mouth. Libertarians do not equal Communists. And people have been known to use drugs whether or not they are "Left Wing" or "Right Wing". So stop being a kook.

http://www.google.com/se...=en&q=define%3Akook and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kook_(person) in case you don't know what "kook" or "crank" means.

Maybe alt.usenet.kooks would be a more comfortable place for you.

I suggest that we don't go counting the chickens before they hatch. I have some mighty strong opinions on some NSA and govermental activities, but this is only a step in the judicial process. There will be a fast appeal on this and you can almost bet the Supreme Court will have an opportunity to review this case.

You can bet the both the government and the plantiffs are going to work hard on research and likely solicit some of the country's best legle "beagles".

At a minimum those who follow this case will have an opportunity to witness a conclusion that will have major historic significance.

One thing for sure, our flaming in a forum will have absolutely nothing to do with the outcome.

Agree with all of your statements. I do believe this will eventually land in the US Supreme Court, and that is where the history will be made.

Yeah, but let's flame as long as we are allowed to flame . . .

Thanks be to Allah and his prophet Mohammed (Peace Be Upon Him), that this judge has been given the wisdom to rule on what is right.

Her understanding is truly filling my heart with happiness.

We will make sure that she will be one of the last to meet Allah.

"We will make sure that she will be one of the last to meet Allah."

So all anti-muslims are going to meet Allah instead of going to hell . . . how charming.

I think that I smell an impeachment!!!! This could be considered treason which could mean some harsh jailtime. Doubt that Bush's deep pockets can get him out of this one.

LOL.. don't forgot his daddy's deep pockets too!

I don't know which would be worse. Having d*** Cheney as president or keeping Bush as president.

impeachment is impossible at this moment. it's going to take a lot more than that before this congress turns it's back on the President. Nothing is going to go anywhere in this country, unless the mid term elections help to restore a balance of powers.

no one gets impeached for real crimes. The secret of all governments is that they don't follow their own rules. Remember how pissed people were to pay taxes on tea like 250 years ago, if these people lived now they'd probably be already busy overthrowing this government. Law and reality are two different things.

Voting for the Left Wing regime it's not going to restore any balance, if the population wants to allow muslim terrorists to do whatever they want inside the US and transform the country into a mixed communistic and muslim regimes then they can vote for the Clinton/Kennedy clans/gangs and their puppets and leaders. But if they are not sleeping they will keep voting for the Right Wing and for the Neo-Cons that are the democracy only hope.
There is no balance right now because the Left Wing has control over the Justice/Judges in courts, the media, Hollywood, Schools and Universities, the press, tv networks and too many internet sites and forums. The situation is so much unbalanced that over 80-85% of these key places in our society are under control of the Left Wing and its supporters and puppets.
This is the only real truth and people must be both gullable and sleeping for not seeing this and voting for the really dangerous Left Wing that wants to sell all of us to muslim terrorists and their regimes.

Simple solution:

Impeach Cheney first! :)

Oh my friggin gawd. Now who's gonna protect me! Help me, help me, there's a terrorist hiding in my bathroom....

Bush isn't going to get impeached since what he has done is not against the law. The only thing that will happen at most is having the courts decide if in the future the President has this power or not.

You really think if President GotMyp****Sucked in the oval office and lied about it, didn't get thrown out of office, that President Bush will be thrown out of office for over stepping his powers on something that has never been ruled on before?

Show me a ruling on the exact powers of the President after an event like 9-11 with a specfic topic of National Security.

All I know is something must be working, since I can think of at least 5 seperate news events that I have no doubt were known because of the increased secruity on all parts of this current administration.

"You really think if President GotMyp****Sucked in the oval office and lied about it, didn't get thrown out of office, that President Bush will be thrown out of office for over stepping his powers on something that has never been ruled on before?"

LMAO! It is good to have some comic releif in here every once in a while! You make good points, as well...

While I will try avoid any arguments between Bush and Clinton, I would say there is a big difference between sexual acts in the oval office and warrantless wiretaps.

Those that are asking the question "where is the line drawn" are getting to the point.

In fact Clinton actions were a shame for humanity and showed zero respect for the country and its population and Clinton's own role as The President. Bush actions are all to protect the population and attack its enemies, if he wanted to protect his own interests like Clinton did then he wouldn't have done what he did, he would have pleased the Left Wing Democrats, he would have found agreements with Clinton and Kennedy clans he would have done nothing to stop terrorists (Left Wing best friends) just like Clinton did when his administration allowed terrorists to infiltrate the country like never before in its history.

Bush isn't going to get impeached since what he has done is not against the law.
Yeah, it is not like he has lied about anything while under oath. Of course, the Republican dominated congress has until recently not been doing much more than taking turns cleaning his rectum with their tongues. So he has not been put under oath to defend his actions.