Gov't/Bush Ok'd Wiretapping.. NOT OK..says judge

2»

Comments

  • sweet adeline
    sweet adeline Posts: 2,191
    inmytree wrote:
    you are not missing a thing...you are spot on...

    this nation was built on a system of checks and balances...if they (bush and company) have nothing to hide, what's the big deal...? go to the court after the fact and get needed permisson...

    like the old saying, "its better to ask for forgiveness than permission".
  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    Milhouse VanHouten wrote:
    An article in The New Yorker from about a month ago covered some of this. Before 9/11, the CIA and FBI were notorious for refusing or at least being reluctant to share information with each other. Bureaucratic infighting and secrecy between the two agencies kept the FBI unaware that the men who would become the 9/11 highjackers had entered the United States...

    Very true...so now we have the bloated DHS to bring this together.
  • acutejam
    acutejam Posts: 1,433
    sweet adeline wrote:
    good point. apparently reports titled, "bin laden plans major attack on u.s. soil" weren't cause for concern for this administration.

    Nor the previous one. Nor for the people themselves, I don't think any of us were really concerned prior to 9/11 and we'd seen terrorist acts against us since the early 80s.
    [sic] happens
  • Kat
    Kat Posts: 4,973
    Thanks all...no doubt left...now I understand. It's just playing politics before this election season. I hope people everywhere keep discussing these things so it's clear to all.

    Have a great one.

    Love,
    Kat
    Falling down,...not staying down
  • YieldInHiding
    YieldInHiding Posts: 1,841
    Kat wrote:
    Thanks all...no doubt left...now I understand. It's just playing politics before this election season. I hope people everywhere keep discussing these things so it's clear to all.

    Have a great one.

    Love,
    Kat

    The problem is getting the right people to participate in this type of discussion so they're more informed. Things would be a lot different if people were more informed when they voted.
    No longer overwhelmed it seems so simple now.
  • WMA
    WMA Posts: 175
    Any judge, no matter their political leaning, would have to come to the same conclusion if they determined that the matter could be heard in court. After they failed to get the case thrown out because of the classification, they offered no defense at all, which was an automatic win for the plaintiff.

    The judge ruled that the case would go foward because of the amount of info they have already released to the public. They already admitted to doing the spying, all they have to do is justify it to people who know law. (terror!, 911!, death! doesn't work as a legal defense usually)

    They could have easily argued their right under law to do the surveillance, and how it doesn't infringe on 4th amendment rights if they felt they had a strong case, but instead are pretty much saying "We did spy, but we don't have to explain ourselves as we are above the law"

    So, lets see. They can flagrantly break any law they want so long as they don't give security clearance to any judges.

    Maybe the next judge will be one of those 'activist' judges they installed and will agree that the admistration doesn't have to be held accountable or even explain itself even when admitting to breaking a law.

    Edit: Doh, 4th amendment ;)
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    FredFlintstone wrote:
    Typical activist judges actively rooting for the terrorists to win.


    so your'e not in to the whole freedom thing?
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    Commy wrote:
    so your'e not in to the whole freedom thing?
    FredFlintstone wrote:
    I guess sarcasm doesnt come through well in the Pit.


    nevermind...
  • Purple Hawk
    Purple Hawk Posts: 1,300
    What are you people going to say when this decision is overturned?
    And you ask me what I want this year
    And I try to make this kind and clear
    Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
    Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
    And desire and love and empty things
    Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
  • IamMine
    IamMine Posts: 2,743
    Purple Hawk wrote:
    What are you people going to say when this decision is overturned?

    Hubby and I were talking about that...

    We think it will be, unfortunately. :(

    They'll take it all the way up to Supreme Court?

    They're not gonna let a Detroit judge stop 'em. ( I say Detroit cuz we're from there :D)

    (off/kinda related topic, Karl Rove got "cleared" for the leak information.... so.... hmm?)
    JA: Why do I get the Ticketmaster question?
    EV: It's your band.
    ~Q Magazine


    "Kisses for the glow...kisses for the lease." - BDRII
  • WMA
    WMA Posts: 175
    Purple Hawk wrote:
    What are you people going to say when this decision is overturned?

    I'll be dissapointed that the terrorists won.

    You know, keeping people afraid enough to sacrifice their rights. That is what terror is isn't it? Using fear as a tool to get what you want.
  • Uncle Leo
    Uncle Leo Posts: 1,059
    Purple Hawk wrote:
    What are you people going to say when this decision is overturned?

    I don't know, but that is pretty much a done deal (at that point I will need to be reminded who the activist judges are). Most people will say..."which is your favorite American Idol contestant so far." It won't get the kind of attention that, say, Terry Schiavo did.

    Of those that even notice, 2/3 will say "Great. No more giving comfort to the enemy. I don't talk to terrorists on the phone so this will not affect me."

    The other third will recognize it as having no legal basis and/or suggest that this loss of rights undermines what we are all about.

    Either way, this likely will not be stopped and more drug busts will likely occur.
    I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
  • 1970RR
    1970RR Posts: 281
    WMA wrote:
    Any judge, no matter their political leaning, would have to come to the same conclusion if they determined that the matter could be heard in court. After they failed to get the case thrown out because of the classification, they offered no defense at all, which was an automatic win for the plaintiff.

    The judge ruled that the case would go foward because of the amount of info they have already released to the public. They already admitted to doing the spying, all they have to do is justify it to people who know law. (terror!, 911!, death! doesn't work as a legal defense usually)

    They could have easily argued their right under law to do the surveillance, and how it doesn't infringe on 1st ammendment rights if they felt they had a strong case, but instead are pretty much saying "We did spy, but we don't have to explain ourselves as we are above the law"

    So, lets see. They can flagrantly break any law they want so long as they don't give security clearance to any judges.

    Maybe the next judge will be one of those 'activist' judges they installed and will agree that the admistration doesn't have to be held accountable or even explain itself even when admitting to breaking a law.
    The crazy thing here is that this was allowed to move forward because the administration admitted it was going on and couldnt hide behind the state secrets defense to get the case dismissed . I would assume from this that anything deemed necessary to fight the War on Terror would not be subject to these kind of lawsuits if the administration simply refuses to acknowledge its existance.

Categories