In the NSA Case, a Judge Says No to King George

In ruling on Thursday that the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program is unconstitutional and must be halted, U.S. district Judge Anna Diggs Taylor slammed the White House on several critical fronts.

For months, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and other administration aides have been defending--even championing--what they call the "terrorist surveillance program," under which the National Security Agency can intercept communications that involve an American citizen or resident without a warrant if one party to the communication is overseas and suspected of being linked to anti-American terrorists). They have maintained that the president has the authority as commander in chief to authorize such surveillance. Though the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) generally forbids wiretapping without warrants, the White House has contended that Bush is not bound by the limitations of that law. This claim--arising from the Bush administration's view of expansive (even supreme) presidential power--set up a constitutional clash. And in the first round of the legal battle, Judge Taylor has knocked out the White House argument.

In her decision, she accused the administration of dishonestly arguing that the lawsuit filed by the ACLU and others (including journalists, researchers and lawyers) against the NSA wiretapping should be dismissed because it would expose state secrets:

It is undisputed that Defendants have publicly admitted to the following: (1) the TSP [Terrorist Surveillance Program] exists; (2) it operates without warrants; (3) it targets communications where one party to the communication is outside the United States, and the government has a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda. As the Government has on many occasions confirmed the veracity of these allegations, the state secrets privilege does not apply to this information.

She added:

Defendants assert that they cannot defend this case without the exposure of state secrets. This court disagrees. The Bush Administration has repeatedly told the general public that there is a valid basis in law for the TSP. Further, Defendants have contended that the President has the authority under the AUMF [legislation authorizing Bush to use military force against Iraq] and the Constitution to authorize the continued use of the TSP. Defendants [the Bush administration] have supported these arguments without revealing or relying on any classified information. Indeed, the court has reviewed the classified information and is of the opinion that this information is not necessary to any viable defense to the TSP....Consequently, the court finds Defendants' argument that they cannot defend this case without the use of classified information to be disingenuous and without merit.

In other words, Bush cannot hide behind an it's-classified defense. (Taylor did say that the administration could do so in a related matter--the data-mining of phone records by the NSA. That's because not enough information has been publicly released about this covert program.)

The judge reserved her sharpest words for slicing and dicing the administration's contention that Bush had the authority to ignore FISA and, in essence, act outside (or above) that law. And she cited a favorite Supreme Court case of conservatives to make this point: Clinton v. Jones. In that case, the justices ruled that Clinton could be sued for sexual harassment by Paula Jones. Taylor wrote:

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. The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another. It is within the court's duty to ensure that power is never "condense[d]...into a single branch of government." Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 536 (2004) (plurality opinion). We must always be mindful that "[w]hen the President takes official action, the Court has the authority to determine whether he has acted within the law." Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 703 (1997). "It remains one of the most vital functions of this Court to police with care the separation of the governing powers....When structure fails, liberty is always in peril." Public Citizen v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 468 (1989) (Kennedy, J., concurring).

Though pundits, partisans and legislators have debated the legality of the warrantless wiretapping program, Taylor rendered a clear verdict:

The wiretapping program here in litigation...has undisputedly been implemented without regard to FISA and...in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Bush, as president, she added, has no extraconstitutional powers:

The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well....In this case, the President has acted, undisputedly, as FISA forbids. FISA is the expressed statutory policy of our Congress. The presidential power, therefore, was exercised at its lowest ebb and cannot be sustained.

She noted:

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

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

Once again, a court has told Bush that he is not all-powerful. He cannot create military tribunals on his own. He cannot detain American citizens as enemy combatants without affording them some elements of due process. Taylor's decision will probably be appealed by the Bush administration, and the case will wind its way toward the Supreme Court. But this decision reaffirms--and puts into practice--the bedrock principle that a president's power does not trump the workings of a republican government, even when it comes to war. Weeks before he took office in 2001, Bush quipped, "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." Democracy, though, is not easy. And a commander in chief has to abide by the rules, as various courts have now ruled. The administration's King George approach to governance has taken another blow. But it's royally unlikely this president is going to accept the decision and give up his claim to the throne.

Comments (253)

1. Before you break out the champagne, Mr Corn....look at a KEY article in this phrase of yours...

   "a court has told Bush that he is not all-powerful"..."A court".

   Good or bad...it doesn't really matter until it hits the Supremes!

   Posted by Mask at 08/17/2006 @ 4:03pm

2. Well, it's a start! Also makes it a valid talking point once again. I wonder if they will once again falsely raise the terror level or magically "find" OBL in time for the elections. (Or will they keep him at the Holiday Inn until 2008?)

   from the Julius Blog

   February 2002: A week after Ken Lay was subpoenaed by Congress to testify about Enron, and the media latched on to the Bush/Lay connection, Attorney General John Ashcroft called on "all Americans to be on the highest state of alert" after an FBI warning of a possible imminent terrorist attack.

   June 9, 2002: Whistleblower Coleen Rowley testified before Congress "that she had tried to notify her superiors about the suspicious flight students 9/11...compare[ing] the agency's bureaucracy to the 'Little Shop Of Horrors,' [and told] Congress the FBI could have done more to prevent the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Two days later, at a press conference in Russia, Attorney General Ashcroft announced the arrest of Jose Padilla, the "dirty bomb" suspect.

   July 25 through July 29, 2003: After delaying the publication of Congress' findings on 9/11, the government publishes them, but deleted 28 pages "believed to detail Saudi funding of members of Al Qaeda in the Untied States prior to Sept. 11." Shortly after U.S. troops were charged with beating Iraqi POWs and 15 U.S. soldiers died over 8 days in Iraq, the Department of Homeland Security "issue[d] a warning about the possibility of suicide attacks on airplanes."

   December 18, through December 21, 2003: During this period, 9/11 Committee Chair Thomas Kean pointed out that the attacks were preventable; a federal appeals court ruled the government can not detain U.S. citizen Jose Padilla indefinitely without pressing charges against him or allowing him access to the courts; the Wall Street Journal reported that Pentagon auditors accused Halliburton of refusing to hand over internal documents related to allegations that it overcharged the U.S. government in Iraq; and David Kay, the heads of the weapons inspection team in Iraq, quits, having found no WMDs. Secretary Ridge raised the terror threat level in time for the holidays

   Posted by leftofcenter at 08/17/2006 @ 4:12pm

3. great news, mask! thanks for showing your support to the administration!

   Posted by darladoon at 08/17/2006 @ 4:26pm

4. obviously mask didn't read the article:

   " Taylor's decision will probably be appealed by the Bush administration, and the case will wind its way toward the Supreme Court"

   Posted by darladoon at 08/17/2006 @ 4:31pm

5. william bennet? that dude is the most awful debater i have ever seen. he makes the most inane arguments (i.e. "we are at war").....and then when someone pummels him with facts and figures, he just huffs and puffs....

   Posted by darladoon at 08/17/2006 @ 4:32pm

6. Posted by DARLADOON 08/17/2006 @ 4:26pm | ignore this person

   No, DARLA....I merely ask "Why the hoopla over a decision that now goes to the JOHN ROBERTS Supreme Court?"

   Posted by DARLADOON 08/17/2006 @ 4:31pm | ignore this person

   Yes, I DID read it. It came after 12 para.s of "Hoop-de-doo, we won! We won!....atleast for a few weeks!"

   I think it's a GREAT decision. That power shouldn't be in ANY President's hands. 72 hours post facto is PLENTY of leeway from FISA. I don't trust ANY President with that kind of power....not even a future "President Feingold"!

   Posted by Mask at 08/17/2006 @ 4:36pm

7. I hope we listen to any and all conversations about terrorists attempting to drop planes or hurt us in anyway...I don't care if the phone calls that lead to the stopping of the terrorist in UK had warrents or not...what good will following the law in a case like that do me if they kill me while you are in court defending them?

   You rights won't matter if you are dead...common sense must prevail at some point on this blog...

   Posted by john maasch at 08/17/2006 @ 4:38pm

8. Take note, all:

   John Maasch supports "common sense" over the law.

   Posted by New Dawn at 08/17/2006 @ 4:45pm

9. Not to mention American citizen's rights.

   Posted by New Dawn at 08/17/2006 @ 4:46pm

10. oh god maasch, would you please just calm down.

    first of all, there is NOT A SINGLE DEMOCRAT who is advocating not surveilling terrorists. the warrants are easy to obtain, and one can retroactively get a warrant afterwards.

    scores of journalists and scholars (the plaintiffs in the case) made very sound, rational arguments that, in conducting business overseas, they didn't want to be listened to. would you?

    obviously, selling jewelry in nebraska has left you isolated from the reality that many scholars and journalists live in.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/17/2006 @ 4:46pm

11. Mask -

    You are (again) mischaracterizing things. Corn admits it is the "first round of the legal battle."

    It is an editorial. Corn is expected to write more than a wire story.

    It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules but keep in mind it will probably go to the 6th Circuit first. Judge Taylor wrote an opinion that has a pretty solid foundation, in my opinion. If the 6th Cicuit affirms, they will likely bolster it. If the Supreme Court reverses, they will have to do some pretty shady legal wrangling given the statutory history involved.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/17/2006 @ 4:48pm

12. well, we know where scalia, roberts and (who's the new guy again?) stand...

    Posted by darladoon at 08/17/2006 @ 4:52pm

13. Darla, I wouldn't be so quick to assume Scalia, Roberts and Alito (and Thomas I would guess) would hop on board with the Bush Administration here. Those conservative justices would have to ignore an awful lot of precedent to flip this case. Frankly I would not be shocked if it comes out 9-0 to affirm.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/17/2006 @ 5:04pm

14. HMAN23 08/17/2006 @ 5:04pm

    9 to nothing? Not a chance. Unlike Bush, those guys are actual conservatives. They love national security and executive power, but government surveillance is going to get under their skin.

    ZERO 08/17/2006 @ 5:07pm

    The big bust across the pond will turn out to be much less than it seemed at first, I predict. Here in MI it took only a few days to drop terrorism charges against a few guys who bought hundreds of phones at Wal Mart, and had (gasp!) pictures of the Mackinaw bridge. They were just trying to make some money. Damn those people and the way they hate our values!

    Posted by MyParadigm at 08/17/2006 @ 5:29pm

15. Posted by MYPARADIGM 08/17/2006 @ 5:29pm

    I mean 9-0 in favor up upholding Judge Taylor's decision (i.e. ruling the NSA program is illegal/unconstitutional)

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/17/2006 @ 5:33pm

16. What evidence do we have that the administration and the NSA are adhering to the judge's order?

    Posted by ZERO

    there can't possibly be much evidence either way given the decision is so recent.

    Posted by John B at 08/17/2006 @ 5:52pm

17. Just saw the judge on TV and heard the ruling...destined to the overturned bin...

    only one cheering are leftys on this blog, aclu clowns, and anyone whose calls we SHOULD be listening to...al aqueada, N Koreans...Cubans...all the lefts friends and supporters in the international movements against American crimes, and on and on and on..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/17/2006 @ 6:19pm

18. the only ones cheering, eh maasch?

    http://movies.crooksandliars.com/CaffertyFile-NSA-Ruling.wmv

    anyone who isn't cheering is in complete, utter denial of the law. the law states, very clearly, that you NEED a warrant. i have been saying this for months.

    and even if bush thinks he doesn't need a warrant, then why did he say, in buffalo in 2002, that they WERE getting warrants as per the law?

    because he's a bold-faced liar, that's why. and he knew the program was illegal from the start. that's why he was lying.

    maasch, i'm threw with you . you're going back in the ignore bin.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/17/2006 @ 6:25pm

19. Posted by MASK 08/17/2006 @ 4:03pm: Good or bad...it doesn't really matter until it hits the Supremes!

    Zorro once again demonstrates his minimal understanding of our system of government.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/17/2006 @ 6:29pm

20. Posted by JOHN MAASCH: You rights won't matter if you are dead...

    The mantra of scared bedwetting pansies everywhere.

    Mr. Maasch, under our system of government, if a law is inadequate, the correct response is to try to change it. The correct response is NOT to violate it repeatedly for 4 years.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/17/2006 @ 6:33pm

21. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/17/2006 @ 6:19pm

    John Maasch stands firmly against the rule of law. Why do you hate the American system of government, John?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/17/2006 @ 6:36pm

22. it really demonstrates how the "terrorists" are winning when basic constitutional protections are undermined, in the so-called 'land of the free, home of the brave.' the republicans can forever manipulate fear to forward their agenda, since we don't actually know who the enemy is.

    bush actually declared last week's capture a "victory against islamo-facism" despite the fact that many of the perpetrators are secular muslims.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/17/2006 @ 6:42pm

23. Maasch: Give me liberty or give me death. you have heard that one I suppose. it doesn't say take my liberty, so you can make me feel safe.

    let Bush get the goddamn warrants, then he can spy all the law allows.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/17/2006 @ 6:47pm

24. In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms ...

    They might have been less-than-serious, and arrested primarily as a media event.

    Posted by ZERO 08/17/2006 @ 5:07pm

    From what I've read so far it seems that some of these guys did have bad intentions but I think the real story here is that the Bush gang pushed for arrests now to coincide with israel's mass murder in Lebanon, which they jointly planned. The prosecutions are now immensely weakened not to mention that intelligence gathering must also have suffered by being cut short.

    The Bush admin's first priority, still, is the effort to rationalize aggressive war rather than fighting terrorism. Protecting America is an afterthought, if anything.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/17/2006 @ 6:50pm

25. The Republican Party- the authentically un-American party.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/17/2006 @ 6:53pm

26. whats all this silly crap about "constitution" and "rights" and all that crap? dont you people know? two words - JONBENET RAMSEY!!!!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/17/2006 @ 6:57pm

27. of course they don't want to protect america.

    they don't really care about (poor) americans.

    and they hate government.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/17/2006 @ 6:58pm

28. Posted by MASK 08/17/2006 @ 4:03pm: Good or bad...it doesn't really matter until it hits the Supremes!

    And MASK doesn't really matter after you hit the ignore link.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/17/2006 @ 6:58pm

29. What evidence do we have that the administration and the NSA are adhering to the judge's order?

    Posted by ZERO

    there can't possibly be much evidence either way given the decision is so recent.

    Posted by JOHN B 08/17/2006 @ 5:52pm

    Weren't you the one with the wild claim that Hezbollah was firing missiles from civilian buildings? When did you start worrying about evidence?

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/17/2006 @ 7:02pm

30. So I guess now with a ruling that the administartion is violating the Constitution, the impeachment proceedings will begin?

    I mean the last impeachment didn't even start with the findings of a court, so clearly the level for impeachment has been reached, no?

    Oh, who am I kidding. This congress wouldn't think about impeachment unless Gee Dubya was found guilty (not simply suspected) of killing someone. (Then again, our VP gets off after shooting someone in the face...so that might not even hold).

    Posted by BlueTexan at 08/17/2006 @ 7:38pm

31. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/17/2006 @ 5:26pm

    Always Clinton's fault huh? The judge was appointed by Carter, not Clinton. Don't let your knee-jerk Clinton hatred show so easily.

    "The judge in the case, Taylor, 75, was appointed by President Carter and has been on the Eastern District of Michigan bench since 1979. She is one of the first African-American women to sit on a federal court." (CNN.com)

    Posted by BlueTexan at 08/17/2006 @ 7:50pm

32. "only one cheering are leftys on this blog, aclu clowns, and anyone whose calls we SHOULD be listening to...al aqueada, N Koreans...Cubans...all the lefts friends and supporters in the international movements against American crimes, and on and on and on..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/17/2006 @ 6:19pm"

    Why do you keep acting like enforcing the law and forcing the aquistion of rubber-stamp, retro-active FISA warrants, which are confidential, will stop them from spying on any of the countries you named?

    "all the lefts friends and supporters in the international movements against American crimes"

    We should spy on left leaning Americans? Or people against American crimes??

    What the hell are you talking about?

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 08/17/2006 @ 8:28pm

33. bush issues signing statement to judge taylor (in my dreams)

    Upon being shown a copy of Federal District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's ruling in ACLU vs. NSA (Case #06-CV-10204) today, President G. W. Bush -- breathing laboriously with his tongue sticking out between his teeth and his brow furled -- painstakingly scrawled the following signing statement:

    "I did not read this. I am not going to read this. I am not going to have anybody read this to me. I forbid my staff and the entire Executive Branch to read this. You can tell by their responses that Attorney General Gonzales and spokesman Tony Snow have already not read it, and I affirm that all of us in this Administration will continue to not read it. This decision does not exist. It is a figment of the imagination of the self-loathing wimp-dog Godless atheist agnostic Muslim terrorist-supporting hippie Commie pinko bedwetter black-loving Al Qaeda liberal business-trashing traitor anti-American socialist pro-abortion gay homosexual Lesbyterian faggot coward media that hates our soldiers. Laura, put the goddam thing down and don't try to explain anything."

    Posted by slangist at 08/17/2006 @ 8:57pm

34. Posted by SLANGIST 08/17/2006 @ 8:57pm

    lesbyterian? never heard that one before...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/17/2006 @ 9:16pm

35. Gore's MLK-Day Speech on Wiretaps and the Rule of Law

    Let us remember Gore's MLK-Day speech [acslaw.org], where he said: I mentioned that along with cause for concern, there is reason for hope. As I stand here today, I am filled with optimism that America is on the eve of a golden age in which the vitality of our democracy will be re-established and will flourish more vibrantly than ever. Indeed I can feel it in this hall.

    Watch the video [acslaw.org] (has a pdf transcript as well). Text Transcript [libertycoalition.net].

    Thanks.

    ps: See this Daily Kos diary about Gore's rebuttals to the recent smears by Peter Schweitzer on Gore and global warming: Peter Schweitzer lied about Gore and Kossacks were fooled [dailykos.com], by stardate, Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 03:52:25 PM PDT

    Posted by NL at 08/17/2006 @ 9:17pm

36. It is Time to send the Lawless Whitehouse occupants back to Texas

    John Nichols said: When Russ Feingold first argued that the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program was in clear violation of federal law and the spirit of the Constitution, and that the Senate must censure the president for his wrongdoing...

    Feingold's censure move came on March 13th. Earlier, on January 16th (Martin Luther King Day), Gore gave his rip-roaring speech with compelling arguments against the violation of the rule of law and breach of constitutional precepts by the "administration" (video, pdf transcript [acslaw.org], text transcript [libertycoalition.net]).

    Please see this Daily Kos diary where I assembled a 10-step course of action based on Gore's speech and suggestions from the blogosphere community: Warrantless Wiretapping, Gore's speech, and an ACTION plan [dailykos.com], by NeuvoLiberal, Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 04:36:50 AM PDT.

    Censure is better than nothing, but as such, it has no real binding consequences. For example, Bush can continue wiretapping illegally even after getting censured multiple times. Clearly, the real remedy is impeachment, but that is made hard by the Democrats not holding majorities in congress.

    The legal and judicial route offers perhaps the best course of action available currently, but a rigorous congressional investigation (by the 110th congress, if, as is likely, Republicans do not allow them in the current 109th one) and possibly an independent counsel investigation (I know, Fitzgerald's was anti-climactic, but he at least did put one crook out of business) will achieve more.

    Thanks.

    Posted by NL at 08/17/2006 @ 9:46pm

37. My apologies for posting the second comment above in this thread. I had meant to post it in John Nichols' post [thenation.com].

    Posted by NL at 08/17/2006 @ 9:50pm

38. How many times has chimpy been found to have broken the laws of The United States of America. Not just the laws, but the very fabric of our laws, the constitution. The one he took an OATH on a BIBLE to uphold. I count at least 3 heavy constitutional violations and 6-8 general violations (according to the Government Accountability Office [renamed by the rule of law president])

    and people like Luvvy, and sad to say Maasch the neo-libertarian, will fight against the very laws that separate us from nations like the Cuba or E. Germany. Go to a judge, get a warrant. That's the law, plain as day. Unless your world is Rummyworld, where the sky is kind of an off mauve this week.

    C'mon chimpy, get a blow job. Something to really get worked up about, not these picky things, like the constitution.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/17/2006 @ 9:56pm

39. lets see,

    1: Hamdan

    2: illegal use of proaganda from the Education dept.

    3 illegal use of propaganda from the Ag dept

    4: NSA wiretaps

    5: ejecting people from rallies because of the message on bumper stickers, T-shirts etc

    6: Illegal war in Iraq.

    7: kidnapping a Canadian citizen, then having him tortured.

    8: 750 signing statements

    King chimpy Rocks!

    I know I missed some, anybody...

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/17/2006 @ 10:09pm

40. You know what? Uncle Sam really doesn't need the NSA to spy on you. All they have to do is flash some $$$$ in front of anyone that knows you, especially friends and family. Trust me, they sing better than caged canaries. I ought to know, I have family in law enforcement. You should hear my brother's stories. :-)

    Posted by ACook at 08/17/2006 @ 10:31pm

41. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 08/17/2006 @ 6:58pm | ignore this person

    I'll forgive FROMRED...he may still be hung-over from his celebrations with Nasrallah and the Gang.

    Posted by Mask at 08/17/2006 @ 10:33pm

42. So what?

    Bush broke the law. He knew he was breaking the law. You knew he was breaking the law. I knew he was breaking the law. Congress knew he was breaking the law.

    Now the court has affirmed it.

    Yet, here we are.

    His crimes continue to go unpunished.

    Short of him committing an error – such as having an affair with an intern or Harriet Meier - , he probably slides safely into home plate.

    Pass the clicker; I want to change the channel.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 08/17/2006 @ 11:07pm

43. One of the few good reasons to vote dem this year. Maybe they get off their collective ass and do something, like hold the guy to his oath of office.

    A boy can dream, can't he?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/17/2006 @ 11:09pm

44. zero,

    you have completely mischaracterized the daily kos. markos is only responsible for 1/10, perhaps even less, of the material on that site. and a great deal is linkage to other sites, with loads of useful information, blogs, diaries, journalism, essays, philosophy, art, reports. you name it.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/18/2006 @ 12:16am

45. Just saw the judge on TV and heard the ruling...destined to the overturned bin...

    only one cheering are leftys on this blog, aclu clowns, and anyone whose calls we SHOULD be listening to...al aqueada, N Koreans...Cubans...all the lefts friends and supporters in the international movements against American crimes, and on and on and on..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/17/2006 @ 6:19pm

    Once again massch your ability to understand anything is brought forth into the light. Obvoiusly the view from such an intelligent anally retentive is not black and white but a fine shade of brown!

    Posted by dycel8r at 08/18/2006 @ 12:31am

46. ...I don't care if the phone calls that lead to the stopping of the terrorist in UK had warrents or not...what good will following the law in a case like that do me if they kill me ....

    You rights won't matter if you are dead...common sense must prevail at some point on this blog...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/17/2006 @ 4:38pm

    I guess the phrase "Live free or die" is not your philosophy?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/18/2006 @ 01:58am

47. How about not firing his VP after he shot that guy in the face when he was drunk out of his mind.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/17/2006 @ 10:47p

    Frank, I think a VP cannot be fired by a president. A VP is elected and so not subject to the whims of the president, I think.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/18/2006 @ 02:00am

48. A REAL WORLD EXAMPLE OF WARRANTLESS SURVEILLANCE:

    A cell phone is left behind in a public place - and someone has taken it. The owner has good relations with someone at Homeland Security - and asks for help in recovering the phone.

    The following occurs in TEN MINUTES:

    Homeland Security accesses its database of EVERY cell phone number, confirms the name and address of its owner, and pulls up the call history of the missing phone. Several calls have been made from the phone since it went missing.

    Homeland Security instantly compiles the list of calls, cross-referenced to the names and addresses of each individual called, vectored to the cell towers used to transmit the calls. Next they pull up the digitial recording of the calls made, listen to the calls, and ascertain that two teenage boys have stolen the phone and are using it to call friends.

    Homeland Security phones one of the call recipients to ascertain the identity and home address of the two boys.

    Next - a text message is sent to the two boys on the cell phonee they stole, informing them that they have exactly one hour to return the phone to a specific place of business known to be within one mile of the boy's present location, or they will be greeted by Federal Marshalls shortly thereafter.

    ELAPSED TIME - TEN MINUTES

    WARRANTS OBTAINED -

    ZERO

    If they can do this - what can't they do?

    Posted by plunger at 08/18/2006 @ 05:59am

49. .

    WHY IS NO MEDIA OUTLET REPORTING THIS REVELATION?

    F I S A

    W O R K S

    B U S H

    V I O L A T E D

    T H E

    L A W

    N E E D L E S S L Y

    O'Reilly Reveals Truth About FISA Courts in interview with Chertoff

    Homeland Security Sec'y Michael Chertoff on Foiled Terror Plot Friday, August 11, 2006 FOX NEWS INTERVIEW

    EXCERPT:

    O'REILLY: OK. Last question for you. The fact that the NSA was able to intercept some of these phone calls that were made in the United States to Al Qaeda in Britain by using the very controversial -- although I understand warrants were obtained for this by the FISA court. In your opinion, does that mean that the Bush administration is justified now in its original policy? Is this a big win politically for you guys?

    CHERTOFF: Well, Bill, of course I'm not going to confirm particular techniques were used, but I do think this.

    O'REILLY: You won't deny, though.

    CHERTOFF: Obviously I'm not going to discuss classified techniques.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207930,00.html

    Contrary to O'Reilly's SPIN, this revelation actually destroys the Administration's original claims relative to the FISA courts being too slow and cumbersome.

    Did the Administration CLASSIFY the fact that they used FISA?

    Did O'Reilly reveal classified information?

    Chertoff implied as much.

    .

    Posted by plunger at 08/18/2006 @ 05:59am

50. In testimony before the House Intelligence Committee in April of 2002, Hayden lied under oath about the NSA Domestic Spying Program:

    But as Media Matters noted in response to the earlier comparisons, in contrast with the Bush administration's surveillance program, the eavesdropping of U.S. residents conducted under Echelon was carried out in compliance with FISA, according to then-CIA Director George J. Tenet.

    In his April 12, 2002, testimony before the House Intelligence Committee Tenet denied that Echelon was used to spy on U.S residents without a warrant. He said, "We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department."

    Then-National Security Agency director Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden -- currently Bush's nominee for CIA director -- also appeared before the committee and testified, "If [an] American person is in the United States of America, I must have a court order before I initiate any collection [of communications] against him or her."

    By contrast, since the disclosure of their warrantless domestic surveillance program, Bush has asserted -- and administration officials such as Hayden have repeated -- that he possesses the authority to eavesdrop on U.S. residents' communications without FISA approval.

    READ ALL ABOUT THE MEDIA'S COMPLICITY IN THE COVERUP HERE:

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200605120018

    Posted by plunger at 08/18/2006 @ 06:00am

51. HITLER

    The Reichstag Burns

    Adolf Hitler, the new Chancellor of Germany, had no intention of abiding by the rules of democracy. He intended only to use those rules to legally establish himself as dictator as quickly as possible then begin the Nazi revolution.

    Even before he was sworn in, he was at work to accomplish that goal by demanding new elections. While Hindenburg waited impatiently in another room, Hitler argued with conservative leader Hugenberg, who vehemently opposed the idea. Hitler's plan was to establish a majority of elected Nazis in the Reichstag which would become a rubber stamp, passing whatever laws he desired while making it all perfectly legal.

    Hitler's storm troopers were about to reach new heights of power of their own and begin a reign of terror that would last as long as the Reich.

    President Hindenburg had fallen under Hitler's spell and was signing just about anything put in front of him. He signed an emergency decree that put the German state of Prussia into the hands of Hitler confidant, Vice Chancellor Papen. Göring as Minister of the Interior for Prussia took control of the police. Prussia was Germany's biggest and most important state and included the capital of Berlin.

    Göring immediately replaced hundreds of police officials loyal to the republic with Nazi officials loyal to Hitler. He also ordered the police not to interfere with the SA and SS under any circumstances. This meant that anybody being harassed, beaten, or even murdered by Nazis, had nobody to turn to for help.

    http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/burns.htm

    BUSH:

    POLICE LOOK ON AS HOMELAND SECURITY OFFICERS VIOLATE REPORTER'S CIVIL RIGHTS:

    Arrest Of AFP Journalist Christopher Bollyn Kurt Nimmo

    August 16, 2006

    "I was harassed, beaten, and shocked with a Tazer-like gun in my front yard before my wife and children, and then abused for 6 hours by the ADL-trained local police," explains American Free Press journalist and Republic Broadcast Network talk show host Christopher Bollyn on the RBN website. "I have every reason to believe it is because of my journalistic investigation into 9/11. I have been threatened before in my career as a journalist, but this is the first time I have been intentionally beaten and abused--by the cops…. I intend to seek asylum in Norway or Switzerland. I can read the writing on the wall."

    Indeed, the writing is on the wall. In the neocon "you're either with us or with the terrorists" political climate in America today, those who tell the truth are increasingly coming under the gun--or as in Bollyn's case, under a Tazer. It is a short step from accusations of treason and appeasement of terrorists, who work for the government--or are simply retarded patsies set-up to take a fall--and the sort of violence practiced by the Nazis and their goons after Hitler pulled off his Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich, or the Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich. Bush has come a long way in realizing his Ermächtigungsgesetz, or Enabling Act, and it won't be long now before minor complaints are dealt with in severe fashion, as they always are under fascist dictatorships.

    "And the administration has not only the right, but the duty, in my opinion, to pursue fifth column movements," Senator Lindsey Graham told AG Gonzales earlier this year. "And let me tell folks who are watching what a fifth column movement is. It is a movement known to every war where American citizens will sympathize with the enemy and collaborate with the enemy. And it's happened in every war…. and I don't think you need a warrant to do that."

    According to the Manichean dictum of the neocons--you're with us in the forever war against the Muslims, or you're with the terrorists--revealing certain facts, as Bollyn has done over the years, may result in, for now, arrest and abuse. However, next month or next year, certainly after the next staged terror attack, it will result in far harsher, even fatal retaliation, as it invariably does in fascist countries.

    http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m25819&l=i&size=1&hd=0

    9/11 INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST HARASSED AND BEATEN AT HIS HOME BY UNDERCOVER COPS

    http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=91920

    .

    Posted by plunger at 08/18/2006 @ 06:00am

52. Was Bollyn Attacked by Homeland Security, or Mossad?

    Or are they one in the same under Israeli Citizen Michael Chertoff?

    Israelis Hold Keys to NSA and U.S. Government Computers *PIC*

    Posted By: ChristopherBollyn Date: Thursday, 15 June 2006, 11:39 p.m.

    CRITICAL U.S. GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY COMPUTER NETWORKS USING ISRAELI "SECURITY" SOFTWARE

    Christopher Bollyn American Free Press

    The most critical computer and communication networks used by the U.S. government and military are secured by encryption software written by an Israeli "code breaker" tied to an Israeli state-run scientific institution.

    The National Security Agency (NSA), the U.S. intelligence agency with the mandate to protect government and military computer networks and provide secure communications for all branches of the U.S. government uses security software written by an Israeli code breaker whose home office is located at the Weizmann Institute in Israel.

    A Bedford, Massachusetts-based company called RSA Security, Inc. issued a press release on March 28, 2006, which revealed that the NSA would be using its security software:

    "U.S. Department of Defense Agency Selects RSA Security Encryption Software" was the headline of the company's press release which announced that the National Security Agency had selected its encryption software to be used in the agency's "classified communications project."

    AFP inquired with the NSA about its use of Israeli-made security software for classified communications projects and asked why such outsourcing was not seen as a national security threat. Why is "America's cryptologic organization" using Israeli encryption codes?

    NSA spokesman Ken White said that the agency is "researching" the matter and would respond in the coming week.

    American Free Press has previously revealed that scores of "security software" companies – spawned and funded by the Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence agency – have proliferated in the United States.

    Unisys integrated Israeli security software, provided by the Israel-based Check Point Software Technologies and Eurekify, into its own software, so that Israeli software, written by Mossad-linked companies, now "secures" the most sensitive computers in the U.S. government and commercial sector.

    The Mossad-spawned computer security firms typically have a main office based in the U.S. while their research and development is done in Israel. The Mossad start-up firms usually have short lives before they are acquired for exaggerated sums of money by a larger company, enriching their Israeli owners in the process and integrating the Israeli directors and their Mossad-produced software into the parent company.

    http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=89717

    Posted by plunger at 08/18/2006 @ 06:01am

53. COMVERSE INVESTIGATION TIED TO REPORTER'S BEATING AT THE HANDS OF HOMELAND SECURITY GOONS AS POLICE LOOK ON?

    Christopher Bollyn, investigative journalist for American Free Press, was beaten and arrested on trumped-up charges at his home in Hoffman Estates, Illinois.

    Excerpt:

    Apart from my un-disclosable investigation, the other calls were about how Jacob "Kobi" Alexander was able to flee with more than $60 million dollars last week, several months after it was public knowledge that he and the other Israelis working with Comverse Technology, Ltd. had swindled hundred of millions through fraudulent stock options trades. This has been going on for years, and The Wall Street Journal and Globes (Israel) reported the names and the amounts last March. For crying out loud, my newspaper, American Free Press, reported it in April 2005.

    I wanted to know from the SEC and the U.S. Attorney's office how this Kobi Alexander was able to wire $60 million to his account in Israel and flee New York without any body stopping him.

    http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=91920

    WHAT ROLE DID COMVERSE PLAY IN THE EVENTS OF 9/11?

    Well, according to this 4 part investigative series by FOX News, plenty:

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm

    It turns out that Odigo, the paging system owned by Comverse, was used to alert Israeli Nationals to steer clear of the World Trade Towers fully two hours before the attacks of 9/11.

    Comverse is also the company that handles all of the back-end billing for virtually every phone company in the United States – having built-in a backdoor to wiretap nearly every call made.

    Israel had spies crawling all over the United States at some of our most sensitive facilities prior to 9/11:

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/deareportisraelispying.html

    Bollyn had also revealed in a prior article that Michael Chertoff is actually a citizen of Israel:

    CONTROLLED PRESS HIDES CHERTOFF'S ISRAELI ROOTS

    Posted By: ChristopherBollyn Date: Friday, 4 March 2005, 1:32 p.m.

    http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=66175

    Remember that Chertoff had been tasked with tracking the funding behind 9/11 under the name "OPERATION GREENQUEST." In reality – this was an effort to coverup the funding trail:

    "The FBI-Justice move [to take over the investigation], pushed by DOJ Criminal Division chief Michael Chertoff and Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, has enraged Homeland Security officials, however. They accuse the bureau [Chertoff] of sabotaging Greenquest investigations--by failing to turn over critical information to their agents--and trying to obscure a decadelong record of lethargy [actually criminal obstruction] in which FBI offices failed to aggressively pursue terror-finance cases.

    "They (the FBI) won't share anything with us," said a Homeland Security official. "Then they go to the White House and they accuse us of not sharing … If they can't take it over, they want to kill it."

    So Who Is This Chertoff Guy?

    If you're a 9-11 researcher, then you already know that: "Chertoff's Cousin Penned Popular Mechanics 9/11 Hit Piece." The cousin goes by the name of Benjamin Chertoff, whom the Hearst (yellow journalism inc.) publication Popular Mechanics made the "senior researcher" for the piece. This Popular Mechanics article was so ridiculously bad, that it claimed:

    Popular Mechanics: "In the decade before 9/11 NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999."

    If you're not laughing out loud, it's probably because you're crying out loud.

    http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2872

    IT WAS CHERTOFF WHO SET FREE FIVE ISRAELI 9/11 SUSPECTS:

    It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to connect the dots of the dancing Israeli Mossad agents

    "Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."

    US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report.

    In fact, he said, the nature of the investigation changed after the names of two of the five Israelis showed up on a CIA-FBI database of foreign intelligence operatives, he said. At that point, he said, the bureau took control of the investigation and launched a Foreign Counterintelligence Investigation, or FCI.

    FBI investigations into possible links to the September 11 attacks are usually carried by the bureau's counterterrorism division, not its counterintelligence division.

    "An FCI means not only that it was serious but also that it was handled at a very high level and very tightly," the former official said. That view was echoed by several former FBI officials interviewed.

    According to ABCNEWS sources, Israeli and U.S. government officials worked out a deal -- and after 71 days, the five Israelis were taken out of jail, put on a plane, and deported back home.

    The men all underwent at least two polygraph tests each, the lawyer added. He said one of the Israelis took the test seven times, a very unusual total according to several polygraph experts interviewed by the Forward. All failed their tests.

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

    http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/Artstudents.htm

    http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/11/dancing-israelis-on-911.html

    LA Times: "When President Clinton took office, he fired all the U.S. attorneys who had served under his Republican predecessor except one: New Jersey U.S. Attorney Michael Chertoff."

    That's some exceptional guy, as the article shows. It reveals something quite out of the ordinary about Michael Chertoff.

    Not a word from anyone in power about Chertoff's successful defense of a known bin Laden financier. Even though the Bergen Record newspaper had published the facts of the case in a series of articles. This news was never picked up nationally -- somehow not being newsworthy enough to rate a few lines in the major press -- and they call this "freedom" and "democracy," ad nauseum.

    Michael Chertoff was confirmed by the senate in a vote of 98-0.

    http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2005/10/butcher-of-new-orleans.html

    http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/Artstudents.htm#_ftn24

    Think back to the Katrina debacle. remember how Bush stepped out in front of Chertoff and said "blame me" - not Chertoff?

    Bush was protecting Chertoff. What does Chertoff have on the Bush family?

    CHERTOFF CREATED TERROR PRETEXTS FOR US POLICE STATE

    http://www.newswithviews.com/Briley/Patrick4.htm

    Posted by plunger at 08/18/2006 @ 06:02am

54. How Much Cocaine Fits on a Department of Homeland Security Plane?

    Crimes of the State

    The answer is "5.5 tons." The DC9 drug plane, however, is not really from the Department of Homeland Security, even though appears to be so on the outside. It's CIA.

    Daniel Hopsicker of MadCow Morning News (madcowprods.com) has located a SECOND DC9, painted to look exactly like a "Department of Homeland Security" transport. Both of the planes, "were parked for several years at the general aviation terminal at Clearwater St Petersburg International Airport."

    The FAA has outright refused to release the ownership records of the seized plane (cover-up in broad daylight). But, the ownership records of the "sister ship" were sloppily left out in the open. Hopsicker traced the ownership back to Iran/Contra CIA front companies, including to Saudi billionaire arms merchant Adnan Khashoggi.

    Air America lives on (the CIA's aircraft network, not the fake alternative radio network).

    Now this is big news. Or, it would be if the controlled fascist press had the ability and the desire to investigate anymore.

    For starters, this explains Porter Goss' "mysterious" resignation, several weeks after the plane was seized. This is truly embarassing to the Bush administration, and it can't be talked away to officials of foreign governments, who know better (unlike the mooing masses here, who will swallow just about anything). So all the hyped media noise about "prostitutes and poker" was just so much distraction to draw attention from the real issue here: government conspiracy that imports massive amounts of drugs into the United States.

    The fact of a conspiracy is beyond question (and documented for decades now). It takes more than one person to put 5.5 tons of cocaine into "126 identical black suitcases at a jungle airstrip in the Yucatan," and load it aboard what appears to be a U.S. Department of Homeland Security aircraft. The cover-up after the fact implicates more people into the conspiracy.

    Once again, the actions of the people at the top expose as a great lie the phony "war on drugs." The longest and most expensive "war" in our nation's history is, and has always been, a great sham. The "war on drugs" serves only to raise the price of the commodity and to eliminate competitors. It's also an easy way to pass more repressive legislation, and to seize more funding and power for "law enforcement" agencies.

    http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2006/06/how-much.html

    Posted by plunger at 08/18/2006 @ 06:16am

55. Lawlessness

    Conservatives have always advanced the idea that the masses are too stupid for self-rule and many intellectuals agree with that assertion . . . up to a point. And lawlessness is that point.

    Every group of people from tribes to nations need leaders to establish and maintain order, and every society has traditions, customs, taboos and laws to achieve that end. No matter the form of government a society adopts, there are going to an "elite" who rule. Problems arise when the "elite" see themselves as above the law, which they invariably do. That's human nature and the unsolvable conundrum that every society has to confront.

    Democracy was devised to mitigate that conundrum, so we're back to self-rule. In spite of their many weaknesses, blunders, and irrational twists and turns, democratic societies are adaptable and self-correcting. Autocratic societies are not adaptable and self-correcting.

    The regime presently ruling the United States is trying to impose autocracy to perpetuate their dominance by usurping the rule of law. That is the definition of lawlessness.

    Posted by rabblerowzer at 08/18/2006 @ 06:34am

56. Posted by RABBLEROWZER 08/18/2006 @ 06:34am | ignore this person

    Seems like an argument for libertarianism even anarchism.

    Posted by Mask at 08/18/2006 @ 07:20am

57. TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1805 Prev | Next

    § 1805. Issuance of order

    (f) Emergency orders Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, when the Attorney General reasonably determines that--

    (1) an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained; and

    (2) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists;

    he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance.

    If the Attorney General authorizes such emergency employment of electronic surveillance, he shall require that the minimization procedures required by this subchapter for the issuance of a judicial order be followed. In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001805----0 00-.html

    EMERGENCY WIRETAPPING IS AUTHORIZED TO BEGIN IMMEDIATELY UNDER FISA!

    Duh.

    .

    Posted by plunger at 08/18/2006 @ 07:59am

58. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/18/2006 @ 12:02am

    He shall be known henceforth as Little Castro. And he calls himself Brave River. HA! Orwell has you pegged, SLB.

    If you guys want to live in a society that is governed by one mans, or a small groups, ideals, there are lots to choose from. cheney has connections in these places, maybe he could get you in. I, again, recommend Khasikstan, Uzbekistan, Cuba is nice, I hear they have new US resort at the east end.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/18/2006 @ 08:18am

59. Posted by MASK 08/18/2006 @ 07:20am

    ???

    Are you saying Rabbles comments (good ones too) are arguments FOR anarchy?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/18/2006 @ 08:20am

60. HMAN23 08/17/2006 @ 5:33pm

    Oops. Then we are agreed. Rhymes with "read" which is something I need to do more of ...

    I can't wait for this to get to SCOTUS. One of two things can happen: Bush gets the fatal slap from the same people who made him president, or the weirdo Scalia cabal ties itself in knots so obvious that no one will take them seriously any more. It's either the end of Bush worship or the end of the myth of the "conservative judge".

    Posted by MyParadigm at 08/18/2006 @ 08:22am

61. Here it is, in simple words even Rio should understand...

    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.

    But wait, I'm sorry. 9/11 changed everything, didn't it?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/18/2006 @ 08:28am

62. Hi David, Hope that wasn't a Dell Laptop you had. The thing to watch is congress. If they pass an ex post facto law that circumvents the Fisa Act of 1978, this ruling would be moot. From the noises the Republicans are making, this is possible. This would bypass the courts. The first and fourth admendments would be watered down. The article II of the constitution would be ignored and a president could supercede the congress and the courts by statng that the country is at war. Maude

    Posted by Maude at 08/18/2006 @ 09:08am

63. Maude, no matter what law congress passes, the courts have the last word. only an amendment to the constitution can bypass the supremes' power and judgement. and that is as it should be, some disastrous court decisions notwithstanding.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/18/2006 @ 09:28am

64. JRO

    Maude, no matter what law congress passes, the courts have the last word. only an amendment to the constitution can bypass the supremes' power and judgement. and that is as it should be, some disastrous court decisions notwithstanding.

    That is only the case regarding Constitutional interpretation, which I think is the weakest part of Taylor's opinion. Congress has the last word re statutory construction by amending the statute.

    Posted by brunowe at 08/18/2006 @ 10:20am

65. oh my God and an Afro- American woman besides. She definitely has no right to rule.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS

    Tell me Frank, why is it that the majority of people bringing up the "race" of the judge are so-called liberals? Is race really that important to you? Merits aren't good enough to support the judge without her race?

    Posted by John B at 08/18/2006 @ 10:31am

66. You really gotta love some of the posters here. Until this week, it was that the NSA program was not "proven" illegal because no court had ruled on it. Now that a court has, it is now only part of some left-wing conspiracy because the judge was a Carter appointee or the decision simply has no legitimacy for some reason. I am sure once SCOTUS affirms the decision, they still will not accept it.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/18/2006 @ 10:40am

67. Bruno, EVERY law that congress passes is subject to constitutional interpretation.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/18/2006 @ 10:41am

68. B:"why is it that the majority of people bringing up the "race" of the judge are so-called liberals?"

    this is just flat out false, a lie in other words.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/18/2006 @ 10:42am

69. ((I know, I know...he's on EVERYBODY's Ignore List, even mine...but saw this before Logging In...and it IS HILARIOUS!)

    "POINT THREE: CIA Drugs, MKULTRA sex, & Satanic rock and roll: why Jeb Bush has a Latina wife is that Jeb the South American/Venezeuelan connection to the Daddy Bush drug network through Texas Commercial Bank subsidiary: "Daddy Bush and son George W. Bush had financial and satantic cult links with the drug trafficking from Colombia through the Brownsville/Matamoros area. Brownsville is in the U.S. right smack on the Mexican border above Matamoros, Mexico. At one time Daddy Bush owned Texas Commerce Bank implicated in the drug traffic through their branch in Venezuela. That unit, starting about 1979, was run by Jeb Bush living in Venezuela with his latino wife. They laundered the drug proceeds from Colombia and from there, through Mexico to the U.S. The Bush Crime Family has for many years been business partners with the co-founder of the Medelin, Colombia drug cartel, Carlos Lehder. [See, the website series, www.skolnicksreport.com "The Chandra Levy Affair".]

    The satanic cult mass-murders revolved around in the Brownsville/ Matamoros area. Among those involved were El Padrino Cult; and located outside Matamoros, Rancho Santa Elena, having human sacrifice chambers; and the satanic ritual sacrifices and mind control conducted by Aldolfo De Jesus Costanzo with others. The Bush Crime Family with their dope trafficking, Colombia through Matamoros, Mexico/ Brownsville, Texas, were interlocked with these situations. The ranch was reportedly involved in snuffing out dozens and dozens of primarily latinos useful as "mules" in the drug trade and controlled through sexual satanic rituals and mind-control."

    Posted by RESE 08/18/2006 @ 08:44am | ignore this person

    ((I mean...just when you thought "Oh, how much further can he GO?"....ROFL))

    Posted by Mask at 08/18/2006 @ 10:48am

70. this is just flat out false, a lie in other words.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF

    I meant on this site. Read through the posts. The right wingers are bringing up the fact she was appointed by Carter (or some by Clinton in error), but I didn't see any that brought up her race.

    Posted by John B at 08/18/2006 @ 10:52am

71. Logically you would have assumed it would be filed in DC or Virginia. But Michigan, where is the relevance for the potential damage to journalists as claimed in the petition in that state?

    Ultimately I will be surprised if it doesn't get reversed 6-3 at SCOTUS.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/17/2006 @ 5:26pm

    Well, to my knowledge the government did not even try to tranfer venue or dismiss on grounds that venue in Michigan was somehow improper, so I think the burden is on you.

    As far as your prediction on SCOTUS, have you been ignoring the recent decisions on executive power, most importantly the lastest one on Gitmo?

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/18/2006 @ 10:57am

72. Posted by MAUDE 08/18/2006 @ 09:08am: If they pass an ex post facto law that circumvents the Fisa Act of 1978, this ruling would be moot.

    The ruling held that the program was not only a violation of existing statutes, but was also a violation of the 1st and 4th amendments. Congress can not pass a law that violates the Constitution.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 11:00am

73. OK who thinks the system is working to PROTECT Americans from their government?

    We have the FISA Law. It was ignored, then exposed to be ignored (after the President had declared in a Buffalo, NY speech that it was not being ignored and to ignore it would be wrong). Now exposed, it CONTINUED based on no authority except Gonzales' opinion that it was "constitutional".

    Now found by a FEDERAL COURT to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL it continues to be in operation pending appeal!!!!!

    I don't think I can carry on driving at 100MPH after being caught while I first wait for the court hearing and later wait after being found guilty for my appeal!

    Screw the appeal? Where is the penalty???? THE PRESIDENT KNOWINGLY BROKE THE LAW AND FAILED IN HIS OATH TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION. NOT ONLY SHOULD THE PROGRAM BE STOPPED IMMEADIATELY, BUT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE CARTED OFF TO JAIL!

    Posted by freedomplease at 08/18/2006 @ 11:01am

74. Posted by BRUNOWE 08/18/2006 @ 10:20am:That is only the case regarding Constitutional interpretation, which I think is the weakest part of Taylor's opinion.

    Why do you think this was weak? The program is a clear violation of the 4th amendment.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 11:02am

75. Posted by JOHN B 08/18/2006 @ 10:31am: Tell me Frank, why is it that the majority of people bringing up the "race" of the judge are so-called liberals?

    It's not. Go visit the whackjob websites of your buds, Johnny. They are all abuzz about this black woman's ruling.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 11:03am

76. Our Constitution states that we have the right "...to Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." We can have none of those, especially life, if we are in constant danger from a determined and merciless enemy. If you are doing nothing wrong, who cares if a security officer is monitoring your calls overseas to Achmed???? It isn't about your personal distrust of an American President. It IS about our security to conduct our lives normally. Think not? Then get a-load of the draconian laws that will take over if our Islamic-facist enemies succeed in killing a bunch more of us like what nearly happened in London. Accept some bad-tasting medicine now, or go in for major, slow recovery surgery later!

    Posted by John Powell at 08/18/2006 @ 11:20am

77. A Federal Judge has made her ruling, now, let her enforce it.

    I wish Bush would say this, but my God the uproar in the left-leaning media.

    It is not that big of a blow, it will no doubt be overturned on appeal, and the SCOTUS will side with the goverment.

    It is strange that in light of the terror plot that was uncovered by far more aggressive measures by the UK authorites, that a federal judge would make this kind of ruling using the language she did.

    Posted by CPT at 08/18/2006 @ 11:22am

78. It's amazing that the folks who regularly wipe their rear ends with the constitution try to use it for in the guise of protecting our rights when they really have only one sole reason.... to get back in power. Unfortunately their quest to get back in power is taking away the rest of America's right to be safe. Fortunately despite the press's, alcu, and the various entrenched holdovers at the CIA, most Americans still get it and thats why they are out of power.

    I'VE JUST CUT AND PASTED MY SAME POST FROM NICHOL'S COLUMN OF YESTERDAY SINCE THIS IS JUST MORE OF THE SAME MORONIC LIBERAL VIEWS IN THIS COLUM ALSO,JUST BY A DIFFERENT MORON. THIS IS WHY LIBERALS WILL NEVER RUN THIS COUNTRY.... WE'LL ALL END UP DEAD.

    Posted by MJ Procko at 08/18/2006 @ 11:26am

79. the judge's race was actually brought up by the right wing punditocracy; they brought it up because she was a civil rights lawyer.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/18/2006 @ 11:30am

80. Posted by JOHN B 08/18/2006 @ 10:31am: Tell me Frank, why is it that the majority of people bringing up the "race" of the judge are so-called liberals?

    It's not. Go visit the whackjob websites of your buds, Johnny. They are all abuzz about this black woman's ruling.

    Posted by ORWELL2005

    Acutually Orwelly, If you had bothered reading my clarification above, you would see that I was referring to THIS site. Somehow I don't see Bluetexan, Frankgrits or Slangist as right-wingers... and they are the only other ones to have brought up her race.

    And while I am certainly hawkish on the war and treatment of terrorists, I think you may find that we agree on other issues. But you probably can't see past the "He supports the war and thus is a far right nut" mentality. Can you?

    Posted by John B at 08/18/2006 @ 11:34am

81. the judge's race was actually brought up by the right wing punditocracy; they brought it up because she was a civil rights lawyer.

    Posted by DARLADOON

    On THIS site Darla, it was brought up by the left... NOT the right.

    Posted by John B at 08/18/2006 @ 11:36am

82. cpt:It is strange that in light of the terror plot that was uncovered by far more aggressive measures by the UK authorites, that a federal judge would make this kind of ruling using the language she did.

    not true. the brits require warrants.

    this terror plot has plotzed. this is another wannabe plot. they had no passports, no tickets, no explosives. they had been watched for more than a year. 48 hours indeed. have you tried to get a passport here or in england in 48 hours. they had been under scrutiny, how would anyone have given them a passport? or a plane ticket for that matter

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/18/2006 @ 11:41am

83. B, when you mindlessly repeat GOP talking points, don't be surprised that this defines you on this liberal site.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/18/2006 @ 11:42am

84. Posted by CPT 08/18/2006 @ 11:22am: Federal Judge has made her ruling, now, let her enforce it.

    I wish Bush would say this

    Amazing. The "Conservative" position is that the President is above the law. Amazing.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 11:42am

85. And while I am certainly hawkish on the war and treatment of terrorists, I think you may find that we agree on other issues. But you probably can't see past the "He supports the war and thus is a far right nut" mentality. Can you?

    Posted by JOHN B 08/18/2006 @ 11:34am

    I can, John, and you know it. But I note that you are also helping to fan the flames of the race non-issue. Let it go and move on.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/18/2006 @ 11:43am

86. Proco, you are a moron if you call others one. if you wish to join the discussion, mind your manners.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/18/2006 @ 11:44am

87. Posted by JOHN B 08/18/2006 @ 11:34am: Acutually Orwelly, If you had bothered reading my clarification above, you would see that I was referring to THIS site.

    Sorry, Johnny. I was responding to your post of 10:31am, prior to your clarification.

    Perhaps you should just try writing more clearly, so that you don't need follow-up clarifications.

    But you probably can't see past the "He supports the war and thus is a far right nut" mentality. Can you?

    Nope. I can't.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 11:49am

88. Why is the right wing so upset about this decision?

    The program goes on (American's constitutional rights continue to be ignored). The President is still King.

    So what's the problem?

    Posted by freedomplease at 08/18/2006 @ 11:53am

89. Posted by ORWELL2005 08/18/2006 @ 11:42am | ignore this person

    Typical, overstating

    Posted by CPT at 08/18/2006 @ 11:54am

90. Posted by CPT 08/18/2006 @ 11:22am

    A Federal Judge has made her ruling, now, let her enforce it.

    I wish Bush would say this, but my God the uproar in the left-leaning media.

    Great, another one here with no respect for the rule of law.

    It is not that big of a blow, it will no doubt be overturned on appeal, and the SCOTUS will side with the goverment.

    No doubt, huh? I'd sure like to hear how you can be so sure given recent SCOTUS rulings, but I guess I'll just save this post for a few months

    It is strange that in light of the terror plot that was uncovered by far more aggressive measures by the UK authorites, that a federal judge would make this kind of ruling using the language she did.

    Wrong again. British law requires WARRANTS. And U.S. surveillance was obtained through FISA warrants.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/18/2006 @ 11:56am

91. Posted by CPT 08/18/2006 @ 11:54am: Typical, overstating

    How am I overstating? You said that you wish that Dear Leader had said "A Federal Judge has made her ruling, now, let her enforce it." It certainly seems like you are arguing that Dear Leader should provoke a constitutional crisis by refusing to follow valid court orders.

    If that is not what you were saying, perhaps you could clarify.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 11:57am

92. Typical, overstating

    Posted by CPT 08/18/2006 @ 11:54am

    Really, Orwell. We're still in America, Bush isn't King. He'd only be King if the parliament were to do something outrageous like pass a rubber-stamp law that retroactively legitimizes whatever the King wants to do. You know, the kind of crap Saddam used to get away with. Get a grip, man, that could never happen here.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 08/18/2006 @ 12:01pm

93. Now what? Is the Bush administration is really going to stop what it is doing? Unless there is a change in the make-up of the U.S. Congress and the Senate to start impeachment proceedings, nothing is going to change. The administration will simply ignore the court's ruling.

    Posted by kevin99999 at 08/18/2006 @ 12:11pm

94. No suprise here, A liberal, Carter Appointed judge strikes down a tough terrorism surveillance program. Ever wonder why the ACLU when to this specific court to file the case?

    Just another contrast between the left and right when it comes to trying to protect American lives.

    Another reason why no one trusts the left to protect Americans from terrorists. Either you believe we are in a war, or you do not (as Pelosi admitted).

    Our enemies know this as well. Stay patient and the american people, then politicans will lost their nerve. If you dont believe me, just see THEIR OWN WORDS BELOW. Its an excerpt from a documentary that a terrorist created.

    "That's good. It means your boys are on the run all day long, seven days a week. And it is really devastating for them, especially if they are on their third tour and don't have our secret weapon -- patience."

    Posted by vinnyb at 08/18/2006 @ 12:14pm

95. yes Kevin, but they do so at their electoral peril

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/18/2006 @ 12:19pm

96. Just curious, how does a FED Judge or any judge for that matter make a ruling that a govt program is unconstitutional, when she has not even heard evidence about its day to day operations or its specific operating procedures?

    I am not lawyer, but it would stand to reason, that a JUDGE would have to hear FACTUAL, SPECIFIC evidence on the program to make such a determination.

    It would seem that, in this case, she is not being a very good judge.

    Posted by CPT at 08/18/2006 @ 12:20pm

97. Hey CPT. you are on a liberal website. Ther word "god" is probably not allowed here without a lawsuit.

    As for impeachment. I hope the democrats do try and impeach the president if they gain control. I would love to see the president get up and tell the american people, "If they decide to impeach me for doing everything possible to keep the american people safe, then so be it." It will certainly blow up in their face.

    As far as all these "infringements" on our civil rights. Can ANYONE on this board name ONE person they know who has been negatively affected by ANY of the programs implement by the Bush admin. I doubt it.

    Posted by vinnyb at 08/18/2006 @ 12:23pm

98. "The question... whether circumstances do not sometimes occur which make it a duty in officers of high trust to assume authorities beyond the law is easy of solution in principle, but sometimes embarrassing in practice. A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means." --Thomas Jefferson

    Posted by Scorch at 08/18/2006 @ 12:42pm

99. Posted by VINNYB 08/18/2006 @ 12:14am: No suprise here, A liberal, Carter Appointed judge strikes down a tough terrorism surveillance program.

    No. A Federal Court judge ruled that the President can not break the law and can not violate the 4th amendment.

    And whackjobs like you go nuts.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 12:42pm

100. Vinny,

     I (like you) am completely terrified at the prospect of another terrorist attack. I could give a damn about the constitution, the bill of rights, the rule of law or the three seperate but equal branches of government. Screw "give me liberty or give me death.....I say "give me safety at any cost and perhaps $2.00/gallon gas again".

     Us cowards have to stay united!

     Posted by freedomplease at 08/18/2006 @ 12:44pm

101. CPT, Rio, LVL and Scorch.....you guys are with me in my above post right.....gotsta stick together us cowards, huh?

     Posted by freedomplease at 08/18/2006 @ 12:46pm

102. Posted by CPT 08/18/2006 @ 12:20am: Just curious, how does a FED Judge or any judge for that matter make a ruling that a govt program is unconstitutional, when she has not even heard evidence about its day to day operations or its specific operating procedures?

     Because the general parameters about the program are sufficient to determine both its illegality and its constitutionality. Why do you think more specific information is necessary?

     I am not lawyer

     You have made that point abundently clear.

     but it would stand to reason, that a JUDGE would have to hear FACTUAL, SPECIFIC evidence on the program to make such a determination.

     She did. Have you even read her ruling?

     It would seem that, in this case, she is not being a very good judge.

     How so? What specific portion of her ruling do you object to?

     And besides, didn't you just say that Dear Leader should just blow off judicial rulings? Something about "You made your ruling, now try to enforce it". Why do you care about a ruling if it can just be ignored?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 12:46pm

103. Posted by SCORCH 08/18/2006 @ 12:42am

     Right Scorch. It's been a five year emergency. There just hasn't been time to correct the law. I mean, the President's been busy shoring up the defense of the pledge and trying to pass flag burning amendments. Who has time for fixing laws?

     But, one problem with your analysis, Scorchy. The Dear Leader administration has repeatedly maintained that no changes were necessary to FISA. Its working just fine, they told us. If it's working just fine, why have they been compelled to break it for the last 5 years?

     Oh and another problem, Scorchy. The ruling also found the program to be unconstitutional. I doubt Jefferson would have approved of that. Even in an emergency.

     I suggest that you go back to hiding under your bed. Or change your underwear. The dried piss is starting to smell.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 12:52pm

104. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 08/18/2006 @ 12:44am:

     Don't forget the favorite of the piss-in-their-pants set: you ain't got no rights if you're dead.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 12:53pm

105. Its an excerpt from a documentary that a terrorist created.

     Posted by VINNYB 08/18/2006 @ 12:14am

     Interesting source Vinny. But the people with brains aren't as willing as you to determine U.S. foreign policy based on what "Joe Terrorist" in clips uploaded to youtube.com. Does your "authority" even have a name? Or he just some random guy with a rocket launcher they pulled out of the desert?

     Can ANYONE on this board name ONE person they know who has been negatively affected by ANY of the programs implement by the Bush admin. I doubt it.

     Posted by VINNYB 08/18/2006 @ 12:23am

     uhhhhh . . . how about the plaintiffs in the case they just won?

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/18/2006 @ 12:57pm

106. Johanne is right, by calling Corn a Moron I gave her something to complain about instead of the inrefutable points of the post. Johanne hasn't spanked anyone yet for the "rightwing whackjob" type names yet, I guess only the name calling she agree's with is ok.

     Posted by MJ Procko at 08/18/2006 @ 1:00pm

107. Hman,

     How about anyone that has thought twice about placing an international call because of the thought that someone, without a warrant, might be listening?

     Ooops sorry I'm not in character.....uh I change the above to....Christ I'm scared of these terrorists I just wish there was some way, any way at all, including putting positional transponders up my ass and every other citizens ass that could keep me safe!

     Posted by freedomplease at 08/18/2006 @ 1:01pm

108. Posted by MJ PROCKO

     Quite right MJ. It is impossible for anyone here to rebut your "inrefutable" points made earlier. You certainly have the gift. Nice job.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/18/2006 @ 1:04pm

109. Posted by MJ PROCKO 08/18/2006 @ 1:00pm

     Hey Ba. How ya doing? Why the name change?

     instead of the inrefutable points of the post

     Your post had a point? What was it?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 1:05pm

110. I can write the Republican ad on this....can ANYBODY ...PLEASE tell me what the Democratic counter-ad will say (that will work)?

     "This November, American voters will need to make a big decision."

     "As President Bush tries to protect us against terrorism, liberal activists and liberal judges like Detroit's Ann Diggs Taylor want to help protect the rights of the terrorists to not be monitored (flash ACLU smiling outside Taylor courtroom, Taylor's photo)"

     "And Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, who would be Speaker if Democrats win the House, support her...(insert Pelosi press release text here)"

     (Potentially) "(Dem candidate in district/state ad is playing) endorsed the decision as well."

     (Also potentially) "Fortunately 'Judge' Taylor's decision to protect the rights of terrorists was thrown out by (6th Circuit or USSC)...but what about next time the ACLU and their friends in the Democratic Party want to 'protect the civil rights of terrorists'?"

     "Tell 'Speaker' Nancy, the ACLU, their liberal activist judges, and the rest who worry SO much about terrorists having their phone calls listened in on, that you WANT us protected from their attacks....even if it means Al Queda is on a party-line with the FBI!"

     (And that's just off the top of my head...not Rove and his goons working feverishly for the next month! "It won't work again"....oh yeah?....Wasn't that the hope in 2004, and the recent elections with Francine Busby, Marci Winograd, etc?)

     (And PLEASE, knee-jerkers, I'm not ENDORSING this....I'm asking how you FIGHT it....okay?)

     Posted by Mask at 08/18/2006 @ 1:05pm

111. B, when you mindlessly repeat GOP talking points, don't be surprised that this defines you on this liberal site.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF

     Mindlessly? So if someone disagrees with your views, they obviously haven't any intelligence? Keep in mind, I did correct myself and apologize when you showed that I was wrong on the issue of the stay. At least one of us is willing to be open minded.

     Posted by John B at 08/18/2006 @ 1:08pm

112. New Dawn... wasn't trying to fan the flames... just pointing out the typical hypocricy of people like Frank. (on this one issue, not in general)

     Posted by John B at 08/18/2006 @ 1:10pm

113. Freedom:

     That was basically the case with the plaintiffs in the Michigan case. The court held that plaintiffs have standing and that they sustained and/or will continue to sustain an injury based on the NSA program. Perhaps Vinny wants specific names for those who have been tapped without a warrant. A loaded question to be sure because, of course, the information necessary for proof is being withheld as classified. But the specifics of "who" is being bugged is immaterial since the Bush Administration has admitted what they are doing on a braod scale.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/18/2006 @ 1:10pm

114. Ooops sorry I'm not in character.....uh I change the above to....Christ I'm scared of these terrorists I just wish there was some way, any way at all, including putting positional transponders up my ass and every other citizens ass that could keep me safe!

     Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 08/18/2006 @ 1:01pm

     Are you sure there is room up CPT, Liberty, Rio, and Procko's asses for transponders? Wouldn't their heads be in the way?

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/18/2006 @ 1:12pm

115. And PLEASE, knee-jerkers, I'm not ENDORSING this....I'm asking how you FIGHT it....okay?

     How about:

     George W. Bush believes he is above the law. Courts have ruled that he has repeatedly violated the law and the constitutional rights of his countrymen. His republican rubber stamps in Congress want to protect the President by passing bogus legislation to retroactively change the law.

     The President is not a King. And we need a Congress that will explain that to George W. Bush. Not a rubber stamp for his lawbreaking.

     Had enough? Vote Democratic in 2006.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 1:12pm

116. You know what, CPT/(award for most ironic name goes too..)LUVLIB/Scorch, why don't we just declare martial law and get it over with? That's what you want, right. then you could shut down all of these traitorous sites, close the NYT, jail any dissenters and save the world from a tactic.

     Pplease tell me why Bush should not just declare martial law till the end of the conflict?

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/18/2006 @ 1:13pm

117. B, I'll take back the mindless in deference to your admitting an error. the rest stands.there are a few points I made you have not responded to.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/18/2006 @ 1:15pm

118. Mask -

     I won't try to write the voice-over, but how about clips of King George III, the Founding Fathers, the Revolutionary War, and the principles of freedom and liberty this country was founded upon, and how the Republicans say the terrorists "hate us for our freedom" yet those same Republicans are doing everything possible to chip way at those freedoms, changing the principles and system of government our country was founded upon, and in effect, committing a "lay down" to those same "terrorists." Tell the Republicans that our nation does not have to sacrifice its own glorious identity to protect us from the threats of terrorist attacks.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/18/2006 @ 1:19pm

119. JR, I missed you. You are one of the reasons I started reading this blog, funny, knowledgable and wordly. You left right about when I started, made me sad. Now I happy again.

     How did you escape from Gitmo?

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/18/2006 @ 1:19pm

120. Procko, Johannes is a man's name, has been so for thousands of years. I'm less sure about Rolf. I had a dog named Rolf once, he was male also. Why my father insisted on Rolf is a mystery never to be solved. Johannes was a bit oldfashioned at the time.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/18/2006 @ 1:19pm

121. Mask, show a picture of the constitution and explain that it is what sperates Us from Them. I know, it is a difficult concept that the masses won't accept. Unless we can tie it into Jon Beney somehow.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/18/2006 @ 1:21pm

122. JRo

     Bruno, EVERY law that congress passes is subject to constitutional interpretation.

     I am aware of that. But a judicial ruling based on statutory construction rather than on its constitutionality can be subject to a Congressional override. It goes like this--SCOTUS says this is what the statute says (note, not a Constitutional ruling but one of statutory construction), Congress can pass an amendment to the statute specifically overturning that ruling. They actually did it with a civil rights act in the 80s. For example here, Congress could pass a statute amending FISA to give the President what he wants, that would overturn any part of the decision based on the construction of FISA. Repubs in Congress are actually pushing for just that.

     ORWELL

     Why do you think this was weak? The program is a clear violation of the 4th amendment.

     Because of the border search exception. In UNITED STATES v. RAMSEY, 431 U.S. 606 (1977) [laws.findlaw.com], SCOTUS upheld a statute permitting warrantless inspection of postal packages coming in from a foreign country. A key paragraph reads:

     "That searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border, should, by now, require no extended demonstration. The Congress which proposed the Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment, to the state legislatures on September 25, 1789, 1 Stat. 97, had, some two months prior to that proposal, enacted the first customs statute, Act of July 31, 1789, c. 5, 1 Stat. 29. Section 24 of this statute granted customs officials 'full power and authority' to enter and search 'any ship or vessel, in which they shall have reason to suspect any goods, wares or merchandise subject to duty shall be concealed . . . .' This acknowledgment of plenary customs power was differentiated from the more limited power to enter and search "any particular dwelling-house, store, building, or other place . . ." where a warrant upon 'cause to suspect' was required. 12 The historical importance of the enactment of this customs statute by the same Congress which proposed the Fourth Amendment is, we think, manifest."

     One can make a good argument that international call, emails, etc. come under the same exception. At the very least, Judge Taylor's opinion should've addressed the exception and explained why this case was distinguishable.

     CPT

     It is not that big of a blow, it will no doubt be overturned on appeal, and the SCOTUS will side with the goverment.

     It is strange that in light of the terror plot that was uncovered by far more aggressive measures by the UK authorites, that a federal judge would make this kind of ruling using the language she did.

     The UK doesn't have a Constitution. Further I haven't heard that the UK or Pakistani authorities used warrantless wiretaps. Where do you get that from?

     Just curious, how does a FED Judge or any judge for that matter make a ruling that a govt program is unconstitutional, when she has not even heard evidence about its day to day operations or its specific operating procedures?

     I am not lawyer, but it would stand to reason, that a JUDGE would have to hear FACTUAL, SPECIFIC evidence on the program to make such a determination.

     It would seem that, in this case, she is not being a very good judge.

     Because the facts presented to her were that the program involved warrantless eavesdropping on international calls made where the individuals involved on either end may have had al-Qaida ties. The day-to-day operations don't change the fact that no warrants are involved and they don't change the legal arguments re inherent Presidential power, FISA or AUMF.

     Posted by brunowe at 08/18/2006 @ 1:22pm

123. New Dawn,

     Good point the average ass of the average Bush sychophant is a crowded place!

     Posted by freedomplease at 08/18/2006 @ 1:23pm

124. Crabwalk, that is very kind. this puts a smile on my face sure to last all day and longer. it was a self imposed silence, but since I kept reading it was just a matter of time before the dam burst.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/18/2006 @ 1:24pm

125. B, using the border analogy, what if the package had already been picked up by a US citizen? Would a warrant be necessary then?

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/18/2006 @ 1:25pm

126. MASK 08/18/2006 @ 1:05pm

     Well, that's an easy one. In contrast to the breathless and overtly fearmongering ads we'll get from The Party, the Democratic ads have the luxury of sticking to facts that people have seen on the news for literally years running.

     Example: take clips of Bush at Republican fundraisers blustering about how terrific the economy is thanks to his tax cuts, interspersed with one graph after another showing that growth is anemic at best. You could punch it up by tossing in a few showing the catastrophic rise in the deficit.

     Or replay Cheney saying "help is on the way" for the military, while reprising the statistics about extended deployments and flat recruiting.

     How about some footage of "we need an energy policy" plus prominently mentioning Cheney's big closed-door pow-wow, contrasted with three dollars and climbing gas prices.

     All you have to do is show how they've lied about absolutely everything. Do that, and all the we're-the-real-Americans bullshit will be meaningless.

     They've been given enough rope. It's time for the hanging.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 08/18/2006 @ 1:32pm

127. Crabwalk

     I think so. The search actually had to take place at the border. I believe that it must still pass the "reasonableness" requirement even if a warrant a probable cause aren't necessary.

     Note that it doesn't have to be the physical border as long as it's the functional equivalment of a border. In the case I mentioned, the search was at a post office receiving international mail.

     Here's [tinyurl.com] an interesting piece I just found (and have only skimmed through) on the FAS website on the exception. It seems that the main Fourth Amendment issues are, was the search reasonable and how does one define "border" when tapping international calls and emails. Taylor's opinion doesn't discuss these.

     Posted by brunowe at 08/18/2006 @ 1:36pm

128. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/18/2006 @ 1:31pm

     2 words, Martin Niemoller. Or Patrick Henry

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/18/2006 @ 1:37pm

129. Posted by HMAN23 08/18/2006 @ 1:19pm | ignore this person

     Posted by CRABWALK 08/18/2006 @ 1:21pm | ignore this person

     Guys, I REALLY DO wish that would work. But the issue has been "cemented" in not as "They're listening to US", but "They're listening to the terrorists...and since I'M not one, who cares?"

     When "NSA-Spygate" was "hot" back in Winter-Spring of this year, polls were showing like 60-65% APPROVALS for it.

     I think instead of a court case (and come on, Diggs-Taylor will likely be overturned by the 6th...and CERTAINLY be overturned by the Roberts USSC)...the move should have been to "educate the public" and then let the political fallout hit the Administration.

     But right now, despite the cheers of victory and "devastating blow to the Bush Administration" in the MS Media...I think the ACLU and Taylor gave Bush and Rove EXACTLY what they wanted, at EXACTLY the right time

     Posted by Mask at 08/18/2006 @ 1:38pm

130. Posted by MYPARADIGM 08/18/2006 @ 1:32pm | ignore this person

     "graphs"?...."statistics"?...and Cheney's energy policy task force of 2001?

     Okaaaaaay.

     Posted by Mask at 08/18/2006 @ 1:39pm

131. Orwell,

     I don't recall offerring an "analysis", rather I posted a quote by Jefferson, whom I personally hold in high esteem.

     I seriously doubt that Jefferson would engage someone who is incapable of separating rational dialouge from political self interest. I know I won't.

     Scorch

     Posted by Scorch at 08/18/2006 @ 1:40pm

132. Posted by BRUNOWE 08/18/2006 @ 1:22pm: But a judicial ruling based on statutory construction rather than on its constitutionality can be subject to a Congressional override.

     But the ruling is NOT primarily based on a statutory construction. The ruling asserts that even if the AUMF is construed as to authorize the warrentless wiretaps, the program would still be unconstitutional.

     Because of the border search exception.

     The Border Search exception is intended to allow the country to control who and what comes across its borders. It is a real stretch to apply this exception to the informational content of phone calls and emails. A real stretch.

     It is also a real stretch to apply this exception to searches that have nothing whatsoever to do with the border. While internal searches have been allowed under the border exception, they have only been allowed when the search takes place at the first point of arrival within the country. It is hard to see how this type of exception would apply to email or phone calls.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 1:43pm

133. think the ACLU and Taylor gave Bush and Rove EXACTLY what they wanted, at EXACTLY the right time

     Posted by MASK 08/18/2006 @ 1:38pm

     Now why I am not surprised that this is your take?

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/18/2006 @ 1:44pm

134. When "NSA-Spygate" was "hot" back in Winter-Spring of this year, polls were showing like 60-65% APPROVALS for it.

     Posted by MASK 08/18/2006 @ 1:38pm

     In those polls, take a look at hwo the question was asked - and what was left out.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/18/2006 @ 1:45pm

135. Posted by BRUNOWE 08/18/2006 @ 1:22pm: At the very least, Judge Taylor's opinion should've addressed the exception and explained why this case was distinguishable.

     A Judge is only expected to address arguments specifically made by the litigants. A Judge is not expected to address all possible arguments.

     Did the government argue that the warrentless wiretaps were allowable under a border search exception?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 1:46pm

136. Judge Says No to King George? Hold on just a minute. While it's true that the judge who ruled against the Bush authority to wiretap American citizens with impunity it is far from the end of the issue.

     Those who have looked at any of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions lately can see that this latest District court ruling is only a bump in the road in Bush's quest for absolute power that allows him to do as he pleases. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit said the surveillance by the NSA violates the rights to free speech and privacy, as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. Duh! Like, what's new?

     This is the same sort of scenario that the Bush mob were squealing with delight over when the lower courts, both state and federal, in the Bush Vs Gore 2000 election, were intent on permitting a full recount of votes in all of Florida's 67 counties. In stepped the activist, partisan Republican members of the Supreme Court, one of whom was appointed by the petitioner's daddy, who decreed an end to the recount immediately and declared Bush the winner via a 5-4 fiat.

     That is exactly where the Bush mob is today, only now their position is strengthened by the addition of two more Bush supporters, Roberts and Alito, who are waiting in the wings, eager to rubber stamp G. W. Bush's unchecked, absolute authority to continue his dismantling and assault on the U.S. Constitutional protections of civil liberties and freedoms. With at least four of the hard right wing justices, Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia (RATS) "slam dunk," automatic pro-Bush judges + one so-called swing vote, i.e., Anthony Kennedy, will issue the final 5-4 decision, virtually assuring Bush's unilateral, plenary powers.

     I see this latest decision by District Judge Taylor as nothing more than another Schadenfruede moment where G.W. Bush's critics can smile a bit longer, brief as that moment will be.

     Never underestimate the power of tyranny, especially when it comes from the chief executive and his Star Chamber judiciary. How can G.W. Bush be above the law when he IS the law?

     Posted by richard38 at 08/18/2006 @ 1:49pm

137. Zorro: When "NSA-Spygate" was "hot" back in Winter-Spring of this year, polls were showing like 60-65% APPROVALS for it.

     No they were not. The polls varied with the specific phrasing of the question.

     And you know that Z. Why do you feel the need to lie to make your arguments?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 1:49pm

138. Brunowe,

     I have to agree with Orwell in this instance.

     An arriving international passenger (American or foreign) can "reasonably" be searched by borders / customs agents......once the passenger has passed that point it would be unreasonable to search the passenger without warrant. It is to properly defend the country from smuggled contraband and to collect customs / excise payments that are attempting to be dodged.

     The search provision appears to be based on physical items not on intelectual items.

     Posted by freedomplease at 08/18/2006 @ 1:51pm

139. Posted by MASK 08/18/2006 @ 1:38pm: I think the ACLU and Taylor gave Bush and Rove EXACTLY what they wanted, at EXACTLY the right time

     This is how the reptilian brain works. Whatever happens, it is good for Dear Leader. If a Judge rules in favor of Dear Leader, it is good. If a Judge rules against Dear Leader, it is good.

     If Weepy Joe wins the CT primary, it is good. If Weepy Joe loses the CT primary, it is good.

     If there are no terrorist attacks in the US, it is good. If there are terrorist attacks in the US, it is good.

     Its all good. No matter what.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 1:51pm

140. Posted by SCORCH 08/18/2006 @ 1:40pm: I don't recall offerring an "analysis", rather I posted a quote by Jefferson

     Sorry Scorchy. I thought there was some reason that you posted the specific Jefferson quote. I did not realize that you were simply posting random Jefferson quotes.

     My bad.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 1:55pm

141. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/18/2006 @ 1:35pm

     Welcome back, coward. Can't say I missed you since you cut-and-run from our last conversation.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/18/2006 @ 1:56pm

142. And Mask, since you brought up polls, how about these:

     CBS News Poll. May 16-17, 2006

     "In order to reduce the threat of terrorism, would you be willing or not willing to allow government agencies to monitor the telephone calls and e-mails of ordinary Americans on a regular basis?"

     Willing - 30%

     Not Willing - 68%

     Unsure - 2%

     May 16-17, 2006

     CNN Poll

     "As you may know, the Bush Administration has reportedly been wiretapping telephone conversations between U.S. citizens living in the United States and suspected terrorists living in other countries without getting a court order allowing it to do so. Do you think the Bush Administration was right or wrong in wiretapping these conversations without obtaining a court order?"

     Right - 44%

     Wrong - 50%

     Unsure - 6%

     May 16-17, 2006

     Newsweek Poll . "As you may know, there are reports that the NSA, a government intelligence agency, has been collecting the phone call records of Americans. The agency doesn't actually listen to the calls but logs in nearly every phone number to create a database of calls made within the United States. Which of the following comes CLOSER to your own view of this domestic surveillance program? It is a necessary tool to combat terrorism. It goes too far in invading people's privacy."

     Necessary Tool - 41%

     Goes Too Far - 53%

     Unsure - 6%

     May 11-12, 2006

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/18/2006 @ 1:56pm

143. is anyone else getting the feeling that we are witnessing the rise of a type of facism in this country?

     Posted by darladoon at 08/18/2006 @ 2:00pm

144. Thank you liberty. you would be amazed how difficult it was to hold my tongue, while I kept reading. I must say I did enjoy your and Bird's slam during the Israel war. I was glad not to have to take sides on that one. there is one thing required of a human being regarding that conflict. Pity. I found it to be in very short supply during that time, and not just on these pages.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/18/2006 @ 2:00pm

145. B, I'll take back the mindless in deference to your admitting an error. the rest stands.there are a few points I made you have not responded to.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF

     I appreciate that. I did not mean to miss any points... can you re-post them or point me to the approx time they were posted? (I will also look for them, but any help would be appreciated)

     Posted by John B at 08/18/2006 @ 2:00pm

146. Posted by HMAN23 08/18/2006 @ 1:45pm | ignore this person

     Yes, HMAN...but if you ADVERTISE THE CAMPAIGN, in accordance with the poll question that got those kind of numbers (60%+) then you win.

     Of course the GOP isn't going to run the "more sensitive to your personal civil rights" question in their ads, and I'm not sure the Democrats can pull off doing it in THEIRS.

     And YES (Posted by HMAN23 08/18/2006 @ 1:44pm) that is "my take" on it, because when I see a triple-amputee like Max Cleland lose in 2002, or a decorated Navy vet like Kerry lose in 2004, for being "too soft on terrorism"....I get a strong suspicion that things that are "good for civil rights" can be turned around by Karl Rove no matter HOW "late in the game" it is!

     Posted by Mask at 08/18/2006 @ 2:01pm

147. Are you sure there is room up CPT, Liberty, Rio, and Procko's asses for transponders? Wouldn't their heads be in the way?

     Posted by NEW DAWN

     It is posts like the above that remind me not to be drinking anything while reading these posts. Damn near choked. At least it wasn't on a pretzel...

     Posted by John B at 08/18/2006 @ 2:02pm

148. I think it's a GREAT decision. That power shouldn't be in ANY President's hands. 72 hours post facto is PLENTY of leeway from FISA. I don't trust ANY President with that kind of power....not even a future "President Feingold"!

     Posted by MASK 08/17/2006 @ 4:36pm

     I think instead of a court case (and come on, Diggs-Taylor will likely be overturned by the 6th...and CERTAINLY be overturned by the Roberts USSC)...the move should have been to "educate the public" and then let the political fallout hit the Administration.

     But right now, despite the cheers of victory and "devastating blow to the Bush Administration" in the MS Media...I think the ACLU and Taylor gave Bush and Rove EXACTLY what they wanted, at EXACTLY the right time

     Posted by MASK 08/18/2006 @ 1:38pm

     So Mask supported the decision before he opposed it. Thought it was a GREAT decision before he decided it would be overturned. Thought limiting the the power of the president was a good thing, before he decided this limiting action was EXACTLY what Rove wanted.

     Sure Mask, I think we see it quite clearly now.

     Posted by Lillian at 08/18/2006 @ 2:03pm

149. Sure Mask, I think we see it quite clearly now.

     "It" being the rather shifty, nebulous, (some would say...hypocritical) nature of your opinion regarding this ruling re: the illegality of the NSA wiretap program.

     Posted by Lillian at 08/18/2006 @ 2:07pm

150. It is posts like the above that remind me not to be drinking anything while reading these posts. Damn near choked. At least it wasn't on a pretzel...

     Posted by JOHN B 08/18/2006 @ 2:02pm

     hee hee hee

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/18/2006 @ 2:08pm

151. It was really refreshing to hear this decision finally stated so clearly and emphatically by the court. Using Clinton v. Jones to support it was a nice touch. It's scary to think that when this finally gets to the supreme court, if it is affirmed, it will probably not be by a unanimous decison.

     Posted by tpc at 08/18/2006 @ 2:14pm

152. I'm not sure the Democrats can pull off doing it in THEIRS.

     Posted by MASK 08/18/2006 @ 2:01pm

     Really? Hard to "pull off" the following?:

     "In the War on Terror, Republicans think it is necessary for the government to monitor the telephone calls and e-mails of ordinary Americans on a regular basis (from Poll #1 I cited); wiretap telephone conversations between U.S. citizens living in the United States and suspected terrorists living in other countries without getting a court order allowing it to do so (Poll #2); and collect the phone call records of Americans (Poll #3)"

     and then get into what I posted at 1:19.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/18/2006 @ 2:14pm

153. Posted by BRUNOWE 08/18/2006 @ 1:22pm | ignore this person

     And ORWELL

     I found this article written by a pretty good lawyer, who is equally critical...i do get tired of being right.

     Amateur Hour? A judge's first-year failing-grade opinion.

     By Bryan Cunningham

     The Honorable Anna Diggs-Taylor probably means well. The lone judge in American history to order a president to halt in wartime a foreign-intelligence-collection program that has undoubtedly saved lives probably sympathizes with the journalists, and others, who are suing to stop the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) in which NSA intercepts foreign-U.S. terrorist communications. She probably feels in her heart the program is wrong, and undoubtedly hears the footsteps of the federal judicial panel moving towards taking this case away from her and consolidating it with others.

     We can sympathize with her motives, and even share some of her gut feelings of uneasiness about the program. But we cannot accept the stunningly amateurish piece of, I hesitate even to call it legal work, by which she purports to make our government go deaf and dumb to those would murder us en masse. Her bosses on the Court of Appeals and/or the United States Supreme Court will not accept it.

     Much will be said about this opinion in the coming days. I'll start with this: I wouldn't accept this utterly unsupported, constitutionally and logically bankrupt collection of musings from a first-year law student, much less a new lawyer at my firm. Why not? Herewith, a start at a very long list of what's wrong with Judge Taylor's opinion.

     Process Fouls. When you sue your plumber over a disputed $50 invoice, before deciding who wins, the judge is required to jump through some minor constitutional hoops like actually hearing evidence (as opposed to press reports), holding hearings, and reading and understanding the briefs filed and the laws at issue. Judge Taylor appears to have taken none of these rudimentary steps before issuing one of the most sweeping wartime legal rulings in our nation's history. Experts on both sides agree it is impossible to decide the crucial Fourth and First Amendment issues in this case without detailed, factual knowledge of precisely what the government is doing (see, e.g., the brief I filed with the Washington Legal Foundation, at www.morgancunningham.net, and the excellent testimony of David Kris, at http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr/index.html). Judge Taylor apparently needs no more facts than what she reads in the papers.

     Worse, the judge clearly failed to do enough homework to understand the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act itself, much less the Fourth Amendment. She gets basic provisions of the statute itself wrong, e.g., apparently believing that a provision explicitly dealing with foreign agent/non-U.S. persons communications constitutes an "exception" to FISA's warrant requirements. She also seems to make the elementary and fatal mistake made by many commentators, that the government can, under FISA, listen in on conversations for 72 hours without meeting FISA's substantive and procedural tests. This is simply false. NSA cannot lawfully, under FISA, listen to a single syllable of a covered communication until it can prove to the Attorney General (usually in writing) that it can jump through each and every one of FISA's procedural and substantive hoops. These basic errors could have been corrected had the court bothered to gather any evidence or hold substantive hearings.

     More worrisome still are the judge's breathtaking mistakes in analyzing the Fourth and First Amendments--errors that would earn our first-year law student an "F." Here's one of several examples: The judge asserts that the Fourth Amendment, in all cases, "requires prior warrants for any reasonable search, based upon prior-existing probable cause." She cites no legal authority whatsoever for this colossal misstatement of the law, because none exists. Instead, there are numerous situations where our courts have found no prior warrant is required, so long as a search is "reasonable." Fatal to her position is the very Supreme Court case she herself cites. This landmark 1972 electronic-surveillance decision, the Keith case, makes clear that, though it establishes a warrant requirement for purely domestic security cases (decidedly not what the TSP is, raising the alarming possibility the judge may think the TSP is a "domestic" program), the Fourth Amendment does not always require a prior warrant for government searches. Rather, the need for warrants depends on a balancing of the government's legitimate needs, such as protecting us from attack, against other constitutional interests.

     Lest there be any doubt as to whether Keith supported Judge Taylor's view about the warrant requirement for communications with overseas terrorist groups, the Keith court stated that "the instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country."

     While Keith at least left open the question, a post-FISA case, also cited by Judge Taylor herself (In re Falvey), could not have more clearly dispensed with her claimed warrant requirement: "When, therefore, the President has, as his primary purpose, the accumulation of foreign intelligence information, his exercise of Article II power to conduct foreign affairs is not constitutionally hamstrung by the need to obtain prior judicial approval before engaging in wiretapping."

     Apparently Judge Taylor failed to read that portion of the Falvey opinion. She makes similarly striking mistakes on the issues of standing and separation-of-powers. Which brings us to the heart of the problem with the judge's missive.

     Ignoring Contrary Authority. Under legal-ethics rules, deliberately failing to call to a court's attention legal authority contrary to one's position is grounds for disciplinary action. In addition to the above, here are several more examples of this unpardonable legal sin in Judge Taylor's opinion.

     Appeals Court Cherry-Picking. The judge relies heavily on the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals plurality (less than majority) opinion in Zweibon v. Mitchell. That case suggests in dicta (language not necessary to decide the case, and, therefore, of no precedential value) that all electronic surveillance, even for foreign intelligence involving an overseas connection, may require prior warrants. Judge Taylor fails to mention, however, that, while Zweibon didn't actually reach this question, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (the appellate court set up explicitly to have the foreign-intelligence and national-security expertise Judge Taylor clearly lacks) did. Here's what it said (in 2002): "[A]ll . . . courts to have decided the issue, held the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.'

     Utterly ignoring this 2002 FISA Court of Review opinion, as well as the numerous 1970s-'80s federal appeals and district court decisions directly opposed to her position, Judge Taylor offers instead an extended discussion of a 1765 case from England.

     Selective Reading Redux. The judge discusses at length Justice Jackson's concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet and Tube, without bothering to mention:

     --that Justice Jackson himself, in that very opinion, disavowed the application of the opinion beyond that case's primarily domestic context (seizure of U.S. steel mills in the face of a union strike);

     --that our courts long after Youngstown emphasized its limitations to primarily domestic cases and that other legal authorities more appropriately govern primarily foreign-affairs/foreign-intelligence-collection cases, such as the TSP; or

     --most importantly, the entire line of Supreme Court and other decisions, most famously including Curtiss-Wright Export, cited many times since Youngstown, making clear the president's constitutional primacy in foreign-affairs/foreign-intelligence collection, upon which neither Congress nor the courts may intrude.

     Lawyers and judges are free to argue that contrary authority does not control a particular decision. They are not free ethically to disregard the vast majority of cases rejecting their position, selectively citing the single case arguably supporting them.

     Trivial Pursuit. Perhaps most disturbing about the judge's opinion is the trivial way it treats the Fourth and First Amendments to our Constitution. In landmark cases balancing wartime needs with cherished principles in the Bill of Rights, our great judges and justices have painstakingly analyzed all applicable authority, soberly balancing our crucial national interests and values. Judge Taylor spends a total of three double-spaced pages addressing the Fourth Amendment and little more than two addressing the First Amendment. Her reasoning, to the extent one can follow it, is little more than one would find in watching a surreal "Schoolhouse Rock" episode. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches. All searches without warrants are unreasonable (which, as noted above, is flatly wrong). Therefore, with no case support cited, Judge Taylor finds the TSP unconstitutional. The First Amendment protects free speech, which, defying the dictionary meaning of the word, she asserts the TSP "regulates." FISA prohibits targeting persons for surveillance solely for activities protected by the First Amendment (FISA, of course, being a statute, not a constitutional provision, and the administration having stated publicly they do not target individuals on that basis). Therefore, says Her Honor, the TSP is unconstitutional.

     Such trivial (if not incomprehensible) legal analysis would be unacceptable in our $50 plumbing-bill case. Using it to justify shutting down a program protecting us from terrorist attack in war is tantamount to an abrogation of the judge's oath to support and defend the Constitution. Though unlikely based on what has been publicly reported, it is possible that a court armed with all the facts could conclude that the TSP runs afoul of the First or Fourth Amendments. It is not possible to decide that based on press reports and platitudes.

     Amateur hour Judge Taylor, a law professor, has been on the bench since 1979. She is decidedly not an amateur. So, how to explain her first-year failing-grade opinion? Regrettably, the only plausible explanation is that she wanted the result she wanted and was willing to ignore and misread vast portions of constitutional law to get there, gambling the lives and security of her fellow Americans in the bargain.

     Whatever Judge Taylor's motives, it is critical to understand the impact of her decision, were it allowed to stand. Among many damaging results, the Terrorist Surveillance Program, publicly credited not 72 hours ago with helping to prevent the "9/11 Part 2" British airline bombings, will be shut down and our enemies will know it. Worse, neither politically accountable branch of government (even working together) would be able to modify FISA in a way that did not require prior judicial warrants based on probable cause and particularity as to the person targeted. In other words, there would be no lawful way, short of amending the Constitution, to ever collect catastrophic-terrorist-attack warning information unless we knew in advance it was coming, and the identities of the precise individuals who were going to communicate it.

     As Judge Taylor's new favorite justice, Robert Jackson himself, warned, the courts should not "convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact." I will put my daughters to bed tonight confident that the Court of Appeals and our Supreme Court will not allow Judge Taylor's giant step in that direction to stand.

     Bryan Cunningham served in senior positions in the CIA and as a federal prosecutor under President Clinton, and as deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council under President George W. Bush. He is a private information security and privacy lawyer at Morgan & Cunningham LLC in Denver, Colorado, and a member of the Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security in the Information Age. Along with the Washington Legal Foundation, he filed an amicus brief in this case, and has testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

     * * *

     Posted by CPT at 08/18/2006 @ 2:21pm

154. Crabwalk, good citation of Niemöller, a more complex character than I for one was aware of.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/18/2006 @ 2:32pm

155. Rio - It's telling you lead with "even without the in depth legal analytical abilitiy." Because the public's lack of analytical thought of any kind seems to be what the current administration relies upon.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/18/2006 @ 2:51pm

156. Posted by LILLIAN 08/18/2006 @ 2:03pm | ignore this person

     LILLIAN, in your knee-jerk response to oppose EVERYTHING I say, you missed a few points...and see if you DISAGREE with them-

     1. The ruling from Taylor was good, I support it.

     2. The ruling will likely be overturned, more likely by the John Roberts USSC (note to the Feingoldians, Roberts was slapped on the back by Russ and "welcomed aboard"...so as to give him political cover for filibustering Alito....ignore this part, LIL)

     3. Karl Rove is a fiendishly clever political operative, who can turn ANYTHING against the Democrats....especially when it involves terrorism.

     4. The Democrats have a poor track records since 2002 of stopping him.

     Posted by Mask at 08/18/2006 @ 2:53pm

157. CPT -

     Cunningham is certainly no slouch, but he DID author an amicus brief on the side of the government (in another NSA case addressing the same issues). So, he does have a stake in this. His article reads like his brief (without the snide remarks directed to the bench, of course). No problem with that. But we could all sit around and play dueling legal briefs. It's doesn't make your point of view "right." Fact is, your point of view lost the first round. And judging the most recent SCOTUS decisions to come down regarding executive power, I wouldn't be as confident as you seem to be.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/18/2006 @ 2:54pm

158. RIO

     No argument here, I thought it is curious that a FED Judge would rule a govt program unconstituional without hearing ANY evidence on it. I would think that is basic judgemenship 101.

     Posted by CPT at 08/18/2006 @ 2:57pm

159. Posted by HMAN23 08/18/2006 @ 2:14pm | ignore this person

     That's great HMAN...now find a photo of some NSA guy listening into "Frank and Joyce" in Muncie or Toledo or Sedalia.

     Seriously, do you see a Dem ad talking about how they and the ACLU have "protected average Americans from being spied on" working as well as a "them liberals are using hand-picked judges to fight for the rights of terrorists...AGAIN"?

     I wish they could...I do. But UNLESS the Supreme Court knocks this down, with the strength that it knocked down the military tribunals....I don't see this EVER being turned into a "winner" for Democrats and I think if it had happened AFTER November 8th, it would be "justice delayed", for sure, but MUCH better politically!

     Posted by Mask at 08/18/2006 @ 2:58pm

160. HMAN,

     But the CPT / RIO position does win out in all practicality.

     A court ruled against it, but yet the UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW BREAKING action is ongoing, even today, with EXPLICIT court authority!!!!

     She should have shut it down.....forcing the government to seek an injunction and a stay from a higher court. In short, Taylor should have put some teeth into it.

     Posted by freedomplease at 08/18/2006 @ 2:58pm

161. HMAN

     The right, that i am referring to is my earlier post, that this FED Judge made a ruling saying a govt program is unconstituional without hearing ANY detalied evidence on that program.

     If the TSP is un-constitutional, then facts to support that must be presented. She doesnt have them, but ruled anyway. A ruling should be based on more than the parameters of what is known, as Brunowe maintains.

     FED JUDGES should know better, my original post was just a simple observation, i then found the article

     Posted by CPT at 08/18/2006 @ 3:04pm

162. "Like all leftists, you cannot describe any liberties you have lost or anyone else you know."

     LVLIBERTY1 - You are SO right! They make such sweeping statements but can't come up with any 'rights' that they have lost due to the Bush Admin.

     Posted by woodyee at 08/18/2006 @ 3:23pm

163. ORWELL

     But the ruling is NOT primarily based on a statutory construction. The ruling asserts that even if the AUMF is construed as to authorize the warrentless wiretaps, the program would still be unconstitutional.

     Assuming the constitutional portion of the ruling survives. A appellate court could overturn the Fourth Amendment argument and leave only the construction of the AUMF.

     A Judge is only expected to address arguments specifically made by the litigants. A Judge is not expected to address all possible arguments.

     By that logic, she shouldn't have addressed the Fourth Amendment issue at all. The government's motion to dismiss was based on the state secrets and the standing issues. Since she chose to address the Fourth anyway, then she had an obligation to give it more than a superficial analysis.

     The Border Search exception is intended to allow the country to control who and what comes across its borders. It is a real stretch to apply this exception to the informational content of phone calls and emails. A real stretch.

     It is also a real stretch to apply this exception to searches that have nothing whatsoever to do with the border. While internal searches have been allowed under the border exception, they have only been allowed when the search takes place at the first point of arrival within the country. It is hard to see how this type of exception would apply to email or phone calls.

     The issue is untested there is no SCOTUS case either way regarding raw data rather than a physical object. Note that the 4th Circuit did apply to exception to a search of a PC at the border. With email or phone calls, the ISP or telephone service provider is the first point of entry. If the information could involve a criminal conspiracy of some sort, then there is the same government interest in intercepting it that there is in intercepting drugs. Indeed, SCOTUS said in Ramsey that "The border-search exception is grounded in the recognized right of the sovereign to control, subject to substantive limitations imposed by the Constitution, who and what may enter the country. It is clear that there is nothing in the rationale behind the border-search exception which suggests that the mode of entry will be critical." This may be dictum but it's Supreme Court dictum. I don't say the issue is a slam dunk, but it certainly makes the Fourth Amendment argument weaker than the FISA argument.

     Posted by brunowe at 08/18/2006 @ 3:29pm

164. Luvvy, woodyee,

     I did not know anybody killed on 9/11, does that mean I was not angered, enraged, pissed off at what happened?

     Do you know anybody that has had their right to practice their christianity in their church, home, field, curtailed? That does not stop you from railing against the ACLU, now does it?

     I do not know him personally, but a local cleric was hauled off, put in jail for a year then expelled for a minor immigration violation. His name was trumpeted across the airwaves as a terrorist, then dropped when nothing was proven. He did good work in the community, was a fine man by ALL accounts. Had he been christian you would have been screaming bloody murder, but he had a funny name so he was fair game.

     My Niemoller reference was to his famous (at least it is thought he said it) quote:

     "First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

     Pastor Martin Niemöller

     Luvvy, arguing against a pastor? Shame.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/18/2006 @ 3:38pm

165. it is quite dishonest to ask who has been harmed by the warrantless spying. this is a secret program. all of the supporters of the warrantless spying keep repeating that for our security we must spy. yes we must, but we must not trash the constitution in the process, or the terrorists will have won. this is a cliche used by all sides, I admit, but when they turn our open society and rule of law into what they are used to, closed societies and dictatorships, then they will indeed have won. don't let's be handmaidens to these efforts, out of fear. this is by no means the most serious threat faced by this country, and all the fearmongering in the world will not make it so.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/18/2006 @ 3:51pm

166. LuvIrony, from your link:

     In 1931 Niemöller became a pastor in a wealthy Berlin suburb. As a German nationalist he initially supported Hitler, but as the Nazis began to interfere in church affairs, he moved into opposition. In 1934 Niemöller founded first the Pfarrernotbund (Pastors' Emergency League), then the Bekennende Kirche (Confessing Church), a branch of the German Protestant (Lutheran) Church. In 1937 he was arrested because of his outspoken sermons, and sent to Sachsenhausen concentration camp. In 1941 he was moved to Dachau, where he stayed until the end of the war.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/18/2006 @ 3:51pm

167. After the war, Niemoller emerged from prison to preach the words that began this post, that all of us know... He was instrumental in producing the "Stuttgart Confession of Guilt", in which the German Protestant churches formally accepted guilt for their complicity in allowing the suffering which Hitler's reign caused to occur. In 1961, he was elected as one of the six presidents of the World Council of Churches, the ecumenical body of the Protestant faiths.

     Niemoller emerged also as an adamant pacifist and advocate of reconciliation. He actively sought out contacts in Eastern Europe, and traveled to Moscow in 1952 and North Vietnam in 1967. He received the Lenin Peace Prize in 1967, and the West German Grand Cross of Merit in 1971. Martin Niemoller died in Wiesbaden, West Germany on Mar 6, 1984, at the age of 92. [from the Encyclopedia Britannica].

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/18/2006 @ 3:53pm

168. Liberty, Niemöller is indeed a complex character, but from what I can tell he started out as an antisemite, very widespread in europe AND the Us by the way, but he did not stay an antisemite, and that is more important. I remember hearing about a fellow named Saul who became the apostle Paul, with a similar story.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/18/2006 @ 3:53pm

169. Was Niemoller a Great Man? Not for me to say. But if you don't understand the meaning behind his famous quote, any version, then I cannot help you.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/18/2006 @ 3:55pm

170. very thorough, Crabwalk. the statement stands no matter who wrote it

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/18/2006 @ 3:56pm

171. And I've done it again, wasted another fine hour listening to Cartalk, er arguing with the wingnuts. See you all late tonight.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/18/2006 @ 4:02pm

172. C, it was not a waste of time for us, quite the contrary, but this dialogue is addictive. I too need to get back to my books.

     for those who haven't read it: Sinclair Lewis, "it can't happen here"

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/18/2006 @ 4:14pm

173. Posted by CPT 08/18/2006 @ 2:21pm: I found this article written by a pretty good lawyer, who is equally critical...i do get tired of being right.

     Let me see if I understand. You are right because you found someone who agrees with you. If that is the case, why did you bother seeking out external opinions? You could have just quoted Scared Little Boy. He agrees with you.

     If I point you to an article, written by a pretty good lawyer, that explains why Dear Leader is a war criminal who should be jailed for the remainder of his life, will you concede that I am right?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 4:15pm

174. In 1931 Niemöller became a pastor in a wealthy Berlin suburb. As a German nationalist he initially supported Hitler, but as the Nazis began to interfere in church affairs, he moved into opposition. In 1934 Niemöller founded first the Pfarrernotbund (Pastors' Emergency League), then the Bekennende Kirche (Confessing Church), a branch of the German Protestant (Lutheran) Church. In 1937 he was arrested because of his outspoken sermons, and sent to Sachsenhausen concentration camp. In 1941 he was moved to Dachau, where he stayed until the end of the war.

     Posted by CRABWALK 08/18/2006 @ 3:51pm

     Does anyone think that LVLIBERTY1 would have gone to a concentration camp in 1937 for speaking out against Hitler?

     Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

     Posted by fromredbird at 08/18/2006 @ 4:17pm

175. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/18/2006 @ 2:48pm:

     Speaking of Scared Little Boy, here he is!

     Hi, Scared Little Boy.

     What is most amazing is that...the majority of Americans sees this as another case of "sham" justice perpetrated by a leftwing activist judiciary member which will obviously be overturned.

     How do you know what the majority of Americans think of this? Do you have a poll to quote or did you hear it directly from THE LORD?

     political motivated anti-american judiciary would be more accurate

     Scared Little Boy thinks the judiciary is anti-american. You are quite the fascist, Scared Little Boy.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 4:19pm

176. Posted by CPT 08/18/2006 @ 2:57pm: I thought it is curious that a FED Judge would rule a govt program unconstituional without hearing ANY evidence on it.

     You have repeated this "without hearing any evidence" assertion several times. It is false. Read the ruling.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 4:21pm

177. Okay, here's where I lose my respect for "peace activists"...

     "He received the Lenin Peace Prize in 1967"

     Posted by CRABWALK 08/18/2006 @ 3:53pm

     The "LENIN Peace Prize"? I'm sorry, but if you are taking peace prizes from the Soviet Union, you're living up to Lenin's apochryphal term "useful idiot".

     Posted by Mask at 08/18/2006 @ 4:28pm

178. Posted by BRUNOWE 08/18/2006 @ 3:29pm: The border-search exception is grounded in the recognized right of the sovereign to control, subject to substantive limitations imposed by the Constitution, who and what may enter the country. It is clear that there is nothing in the rationale behind the border-search exception which suggests that the mode of entry will be critical.

     I am not arguing about the mode of entry. I am arguing that what is entering the country is not a physical entity. It is simply information. The border exclusion is intended to allow the country to control its physical borders. There is no court case that I am aware of that recognizes the general right of the federal government to control the information that flows across its borders.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 4:33pm

179. If the TSP is un-constitutional, then facts to support that must be presented. She doesnt have them, but ruled anyway. A ruling should be based on more than the parameters of what is known, as Brunowe maintains.

     Posted by CPT 08/18/2006 @ 3:04pm

     Read Section II of the opinion (if you care to read the actual opinion that is, instead of relying on others to tell you what it said and did not say). It is the section dealing with the state secrets privilege asserted by the defendants (rejected by Judge Taylor). It makes very clear that many FACTS were submitted to the court - in the form of sworn affidavits and declarations, and documents included in the parties' motion papers as exhibits. Some of these were viewed by the judge in camera (without the other side seeing them). Also look at Section III on standing.

     The government has admitted (and did not dispute) the conduct that Judge Taylor found violative. And the plaintiffs submitted facts showing that the TSP has caused and will cause injury SPECIFIC TO THEM. The facts necessary for that determination WERE submitted to the court, even if done without an evidentiary hearing (which I am not sure is even the case). It is wholly within a judge's discretion is to rule without an evidentiary hearing.

     You seem to demand the presentation of evidence that on such and such a date Agent A wiretapped Citizen B. That sort of evidence is simply immaterial to ruling on the legality of the continuation of the program itself, for which the government admitted (1) that the TSP exists; (2) it operates without warrants; (3) it targets communications where one party to the communication is outside the United States.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/18/2006 @ 4:33pm

180. Posted by BRUNOWE 08/18/2006 @ 3:29pm: By that logic, she shouldn't have addressed the Fourth Amendment issue at all. The government's motion to dismiss was based on the state secrets and the standing issues.

     But the Plaintiff asserted that the program was a violation of the 4th amendment. She had to address it.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 5:04pm

181. What the sympathizers with totalitarian government here insist on completely ignoring is the fact that anti-terrorist enforcement is not in the least obstructed by Constitutional requirements and that the Bush Republicans do not want to just monitor terrorists but monitor completely without oversight which means that they can monitor any citizen that they choose to. The rankest imbecile should be able to deduce that this is bad.

     It's utterly amazing that Americans almost 225 years ago were informed and thoughtful enough to realize this and that so many today are not. They have compounded their ignorance and made it fatally dangerous by transforming the Republican Party into a virus-like mechanism whose life cycle objective is to destroy it's host, the Republic.

     Posted by fromredbird at 08/18/2006 @ 5:08pm

182. But the Plaintiff asserted that the program was a violation of the 4th amendment. She had to address it.

     This was a preliminary motion. She could've limited herself to the motion. However, if she was going to address the 4th Amendment argument, she should've done a more thorough job, which entails looking at the border exception.

     Posted by brunowe at 08/18/2006 @ 5:20pm

183. There is no court case that I am aware of that recognizes the general right of the federal government to control the information that flows across its borders.

     There is no court case either way, but if data is searchable, there is arguably no rationale for treating if differently from anything else that can be searched for evidence of criminal activity. Remember, evidence of conspiracy can involve simple communication

     Posted by brunowe at 08/18/2006 @ 5:22pm

184. The point now is whether we will have anyone in the Congress willing to follow through with impeachment proceedings that Bush, as well as Cheney, so clearly deserve. Seems that violating the first and fourth amendments is not nearly as much a concern to the Republican party as a president lying about his sex life. Where is the logic in this one??? Hey Democrats, are you awake????

     Posted by Linda Sutton at 08/18/2006 @ 5:23pm

185. BUSH LOSES! Lying Conservative losers.

     Posted by rmjlattanzi at 08/18/2006 @ 5:25pm

186. Thank you liberty. you would be amazed how difficult it was to hold my tongue, while I kept reading. I must say I did enjoy your and Bird's slam during the Israel war. I was glad not to have to take sides on that one. there is one thing required of a human being regarding that conflict. Pity. I found it to be in very short supply during that time, and not just on these pages.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/18/2006 @ 2:00pm

     The only thing required is justice. Justice is what eliminates conflict. Pity is an afterthought and an unnecessary one unless one pretends to use it as a replacement for justice.

     In this case- justice for the Palestinians. This latest conflict is, once again, tributary to the original injustice of the vicious expropriation of the property and homeland of the Palestinians. Why should upholding the most rudimentary justice be something that's difficult to take sides on? You answer the question.

     Posted by fromredbird at 08/18/2006 @ 5:38pm

187. Posted by BRUNOWE 08/18/2006 @ 5:22pm: There is no court case either way

     Agreed.

     but if data is searchable, there is arguably no rationale for treating if differently from anything else that can be searched for evidence of criminal activity.

     The difference is that there is nothing tangible in email or phone calls. They are purely electronic transmissions. Nothing is physically entering the country.

     My understanding of the border exception is that it exists to allow the country to control who or what enters the country. The issue of searching for criminal activity arises from the reasonable need of the government to prevent criminals from entering the country.

     I just don't see how this applies to email traffic. Or telephone calls.

     But, we apparently disagree on this. And I am sure that the issue will be taken up in the subsequent appeals. So we will see how it goes. Hopefully I am right.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 5:42pm

188. BRAVO, you are a true drone. Wake up.

     Posted by rmjlattanzi at 08/18/2006 @ 5:51pm

189. "Under [the TSP] the National Security Agency can intercept communications that involve an American citizen or resident without a warrant if one party to the communication is overseas and suspected of being linked to anti-American terrorists."

     So in light of what Cheney has said about Ned Lamont, if I were to go overseas and call Lamont on the telephone, could the NSA wiretap our conversation?

     Posted by mdt187 at 08/18/2006 @ 5:58pm

190. All of the legal analyses I have read indicates that this decision is legally obtuse, professionally inadequate, and bound to be reversed on appeal. Even the WaPo has laughed at it. The plaintiffs went venue shopping and found a Jimmy Carter legacy, and got the result they wanted, temporarily.

     And the decision will be forgotten by the moonbats as soon as it is reversed, just as so many other 'issues' have come out in the wash. And the moonbats, here and elsewhere, will resume their baying at the moon.

     Posted by pontificus at 08/18/2006 @ 6:10pm

191. Posted by DARLADOON 08/18/2006 @ 2:00pm

     yes

     obverse democratic fascism - the politics of neoconservatism.

     obverse - classic fascists in the 1920's and 30's took over government then co-opted business. obverse fascists come from the private sector and use their wealth to take over government, especially by gaining control of the media and using it to filter and skew news.

     democratic - seemingly oxymoronic, but not really. fascism depends upon playing up national mythologies and cherished ideals (even if they no longer apply) and democracy, freedom, liberty, and all those other patriotic catch phrases are indispensible for modern american fascists. with control of the media and madison avenue bullshitting this is do-able.

     fascists - glorifying the nation and its military, blah blah blah - google it...

     obverse democratic fascism - moving toward it or already there?

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/18/2006 @ 6:16pm

192. Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/18/2006 @ 6:10pm: All of the legal analyses I have read indicates that this decision is legally obtuse, professionally inadequate, and bound to be reversed on appeal.

     Ponty, you read? Who knew?

     Even the WaPo has laughed at it.

     The WaPo did not say it would be reversed on appeal.

     The plaintiffs went venue shopping

     Where'd ya read that one, Ponty? It seems all of the whackjobs are babbling about venue shopping.

     and found a Jimmy Carter legacy, and got the result they wanted, temporarily.

     So you are claiming that decisions issued by Judges that were appointed by Carter are meaningless. Why is that Ponty?

     This vilification of the judiciary is good for America, Ponty. Keep it up. You are a true Patriot.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 6:18pm

193. Unfortunately, the decision yesterday by a federal district court in Detroit, striking down the NSA's program, is neither careful nor scholarly, and it is hard-hitting only in the sense that a bludgeon is hard-hitting. The angry rhetoric of U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor will no doubt grab headlines. But as a piece of judicial work -- that is, as a guide to what the law requires and how it either restrains or permits the NSA's program -- her opinion will not be helpful.

     http://tinyurl.com/jz99c

     All the hot air served up by David Corn and his fellow moonbats, in and out of the judiciary, won't amount to a hill of beans. Even the liberals at the WaPo know this is a loser from the get-go.

     But don't let the facts stop you folks. Bay on!

     Posted by pontificus at 08/18/2006 @ 6:19pm

194. Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/18/2006 @ 6:19pm: But don't let the facts stop you folks.

     The facts? What facts? You think a WaPo editorial trumps a court ruling.

     That is why you are the blogger formerly known as moronificus.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 6:23pm

195. Posted by ORWELL2005 08/18/2006 @ 6:18pm

     The WaPo did not say it would be reversed on appeal.

     Sounds to me like they did:

     ...her opinion, which as the first court venture into this territory will garner much attention, is unhelpful either in evaluating or in ensuring the program's legality. Fortunately, as this case moves forward on appeal and as other cases progress in other courts, it won't be the last word.

     Posted by pontificus at 08/18/2006 @ 6:25pm

196. Posted by ORWELL2005 08/18/2006 @ 6:23pm

     Owooooooooooo!!!!woo!woo!woooooooooooooooooooooooo!

     Say again, ORWELL?

     Posted by pontificus at 08/18/2006 @ 6:27pm

197. Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/18/2006 @ 6:25pm: Sounds to me like they did:

     Sounds to me like they didn't:

     The judge may well be correct in her bottom line that the program exceeds presidential authority, even during wartime. We harbor grave doubt both that Congress authorized warrantless surveillance as part of the war and that Mr. Bush has the constitutional power to act outside of normal surveillance statutes that purport to be the exclusive legal authorities for domestic spying.

     That hardly sounds like the a claim that the ruling is bound to be overturned.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 6:34pm

198. Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/18/2006 @ 6:27pm: Say again, ORWELL?

     Sure thing, Ponty.

     The facts? What facts? You think a WaPo editorial trumps a court ruling.

     That is why you are the blogger formerly known as moronificus.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 6:35pm

199. Posted by ORWELL2005 08/18/2006 @ 6:18pm

     The judge may well be correct in her bottom line that the program exceeds presidential authority, even during wartime.

     Hmmm..I guess what they're saying is that her conclusion may or may not be right, but we'd never know from her opinion, because it provided no substantive legal reasoning. Perhaps you're right, they're not predicting reversal. They're just saying her decision is legally meaningless and we'll have to rely on superior courts to do the adult work of legal analysis.

     But you go right ahead and hang your hat on her work, it'll tide you over til the next kerfuffle, then you can forget all about it when she gets reversed on appeal. God knows none of the leftists here will remind you.

     Posted by pontificus at 08/18/2006 @ 6:43pm

200. Here's one analysis that I base my opinion on. Obviously, the WaPo has the same rather low opinion of Judge Taylor's (lack of) legal reasoning. If you folks on the left can't even get your own ducks in a row, you're looking at defeat on this one.

     Anyone who knows what legal analysis and legal argument look like -- anyone who knows the requisites of legal reasoning -- must look on the handiwork of Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in the NSA case in amazement. It is a pathetic piece of work. If it had been submitted by a student in my second year legal writing class at the University of St. Thomas Law School, it would have earned a failing grade.

     On the issue of the legality of warrantless interception of enemy communications, for example, it is entirely conclusory. It does not address precedent. It assumes its conclusion, essentially framing the issue as whether the president can break the law. It simply asserts that the NSA eavesdropping program is "obviously in violation of the Fourth Amendment" -- apparently because it is warrantless. (Wrong.) She sagely observes that the "President of the United States is himself created by that same Constitution" -- you know, the one with the Fourth Amendment that she apparently thinks requires warrants in all cases.

     Judge Taylor is like the big bad wolf in the fairly tale. She huffs and she puffs. I think she's facing the brick house that can't be blown down -- she at least can't blow it down -- but the end of this unedifying fairy tale has yet to be written by a higher and presumably more competent authority.

     http://www.powerlineblog.com/

     Posted by pontificus at 08/18/2006 @ 6:49pm

201. Or perhaps, as I suspect, you only believe things that come from liberal news sources:

     ...on CNN's The Situation Room, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin conveyed that "this was a very liberal judge" who "almost exclusively cites other liberal judges." Toobin informed viewers that the case was likely to be overturned as he was "certain that other courts will see this differently."

     Posted by pontificus at 08/18/2006 @ 6:54pm

202. But hey, ORWELL, why argue about it? I a few months time, Judge Taylor will be reversed, by which time all of this will be forgotten. And if I remind you of this little controversy, you can always say 'Judge Who'?

     Posted by pontificus at 08/18/2006 @ 6:57pm

203. king chimpy rocks

     Ha Ha Ha Ha

     Posted by Will C. at 08/18/2006 @ 7:00pm

204. king who

     Posted by Will C. at 08/18/2006 @ 7:01pm

205. I can't wait for the strict constructionist chimp appointments to our supreme court to suddenly see all kinds of writing in article two of our constitution...

     that ain't really there

     Posted by Will C. at 08/18/2006 @ 7:03pm

206. Posted by ORWELL2005 08/18/2006 @ 6:35pm

     I'm sorry to keep beating you up so thoroughly on this, ORWELL, but here's one last thing you should see. The decision was pretty thoroughly trashed by a legal analyst at the DailyKos, so don't complain to me about it:

     http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/18/1950/58256

     Posted by pontificus at 08/18/2006 @ 7:09pm

207. I'll let Hugh Hewitt speak for me as my last post on this subject:

     Anna Diggs Taylor is a Jimmy Carter appointee, and so she's even given us a twofer today: Illustrating the vast dangers of liberals running national security, and the lasting impact of liberal presidents on national security.

     Carter lost Iran to the Islamist fanatics; engineered the deal that brought North Korea nukes, and now his judicial legacy is trying to blind us to the terrorists.

     Don't run for your life in the fall. Vote for your life. Every vote for a Democrat (except Joe Lieberman) is a vote against victory.

     Posted by pontificus at 08/18/2006 @ 7:13pm

208. Carter was president of Iran?

     That guy sure does get around

     Posted by Will C. at 08/18/2006 @ 7:33pm

209. and carter gave the axis of evil speech?

     Posted by Will C. at 08/18/2006 @ 7:34pm

210. and carter was so lame he couldn't cross the street to get a warrent?

     no wait... that's ol gee dubya

     Posted by Will C. at 08/18/2006 @ 7:35pm

211. Don't run for your life in the fall. Vote for your life. Every vote for a Democrat (except Joe Lieberman) is a vote against victory.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/18/2006 @ 7:13pm

     Vote for your life?

     Ha Ha Ha Ha

     Evangelic conservatives are pussies... they should not be controlling our country

     Posted by Will C. at 08/18/2006 @ 7:39pm

212. they should concentrate on controling their bowels and bladders

     Posted by Will C. at 08/18/2006 @ 7:40pm

213. Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/18/2006 @ 6:57pm: But hey, ORWELL, why argue about it?

     You call cutting and pasting other people's words arguing, Ponty?

     I a few months time

     See, when you get to your own words, they don't make any sense.

     Judge Taylor will be reversed, by which time all of this will be forgotten.

     You mean that when the appeals court reverses the decision, we won't remember what the decision was? How strange.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 8:15pm

214. Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/18/2006 @ 7:13pm: I'll let Hugh Hewitt speak for me as my last post on this subject

     Gee, that's really nice of you. Lettin ol' Hugh speak for you and all.

     Is there a reason that you can't speak for yourself, Ponty?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 8:19pm

215. It's ok if your like, mentally challenged, or something. Us liberals, we look after the weak and the afflicted.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 8:20pm

216. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/18/2006 @ 7:50pm: Funny you should think polls so important!

     Yeah, they're a real scream, Scared Little Boy.

     But, actually, I was responding to your statement that the overwhelming majority of americans see through this sham decision. I was curious as to how you know what an overwhelming majority of americans.

     (In case you haven't noticed, Rio, most people don't really think like you do.)

     If that is the case why did you give no recognition or credible arguements for the validity of polls when I showed you Lieberman out pacing Lamont by double digits in the race to the elections in connecticut? Or, does that information just not track with YOUR biases for polling numbers?

     You mean the Q poll in which Lamont is trailing by 11 points. That would be the same poll in which he trailed by 24 points on July 24th.

     Gee, Scared Little Boy. I did respond to the good news about Lamont closing the gap. I still don't understand why you think that Lieberman losing 13 points off a 24 point lead in 4 weeks is good news, but

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 8:24pm

217. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/18/2006 @ 8:20pm: If there's no case here and it is discovered to be a long stretch attempt to hurt Bush, americans will see it for what it is.

     Why do you think there is no case here, Frei? What aspect of the ruling do you disagree with?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 8:26pm

218. Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/18/2006 @ 5:37pm

     FRANK, that'd be a good ad....against the war in Iraq.

     But the war's already unpopular. The problem for Democrats is breaking the back of the "Elect Dems and they'll 'be nice' to terrorists" thing that's been going on for 4 years.

     Posted by Mask at 08/18/2006 @ 8:32pm

219. The problem for Democrats is breaking the back of the "Elect Dems and they'll 'be nice' to terrorists" thing that's been going on for 4 years.

     Posted by MASK 08/18/2006 @ 8:32pm

     We have some very nice accommodations waiting for the terrorists in one of our comfy cozy supermaxes

     (I hear they're very nice)

     Posted by Will C. at 08/18/2006 @ 8:39pm

220. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/18/2006 @ 8:44pm: So, when does your divorce from reality become final?

     My lawyer says it will take some time. We're still fighting over who gets the kids.

     Lamont and the Demoncrats already see the "handwriting on the wall"!

     What does the handwriting say, Scared Little Boy?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 8:52pm

221. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/18/2006 @ 8:44pm

     wait

     homosexual americans can marry reality but not each other?

     Posted by Will C. at 08/18/2006 @ 8:52pm

222. and after the divorce... was any of it ever real?

     Posted by Will C. at 08/18/2006 @ 8:53pm

223. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/18/2006 @ 8:52pm: Sounds like you don't know anything about what is really occurring in that race at all ORWELL!

     Tell me, Scared Little Boy, what is really occurring in that race?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 8:54pm

224. Redbird, Pity is beyond you, as is humanity.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/18/2006 @ 8:54pm

225. Tell me, Scared Little Boy, what is really occurring in that race?

     Posted by ORWELL2005 08/18/2006 @ 8:54pm

     lieberman is selling out to the republicans... for power

     (he'll make a good republican)

     Posted by Will C. at 08/18/2006 @ 8:56pm

226. Redbird, Pity is beyond you, as is humanity.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/18/2006 @ 8:54pm

     Gee, that hurt. Let's gather around the campfire and listen to some more of your israeli myths. I won't characterize them since you appear to be already sore.

     Posted by fromredbird at 08/18/2006 @ 9:02pm

227. Posted by WILL C. 08/18/2006 @ 8:56pm: (he'll make a good republican)

     He's already a pretty good warmonger.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 9:06pm

228. It's interesting what a little analysis can turn up. I think Jason Ditz has caught these skanks red handed. Literally, in the case of former communist, now imperialist, John Reid.

     Well-Timed Terrorism? [tinyurl.com]

     "If any real threat existed, surely Tony Blair would not have abandoned his country and gone on vacation."

     Posted by fromredbird at 08/18/2006 @ 9:09pm

229. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 08/18/2006 @ 9:09pm

     we have an election coming up and once again the chimps start playing with the color coded terror alert. And they haven't messed with that since... the last election.

     maybe it's really elections that scare the crap out of them and terrorism is just the ruse

     Posted by Will C. at 08/18/2006 @ 9:16pm

230. The judge may well be correct in her bottom line that the program exceeds presidential authority, even during wartime. We harbor grave doubt both that Congress authorized warrantless surveillance as part of the war and that Mr. Bush has the constitutional power to act outside of normal surveillance statutes that purport to be the exclusive legal authorities for domestic spying.

     That hardly sounds like the a claim that the ruling is bound to be overturned.

     Posted by ORWELL2005 08/18/2006 @ 6:34pm

     "The war"-- what an f'n joke. This should have been a police action that was wrapped up by the middle of 2004. The Republicans have been doing everything they can to turn it into a global, long term war and they still have to use bogus arrests and prosecutions to get in the evening news.

     And all the while any efforts to improve port security, etc., have been virtually nonexistent. All the money is being spent on deadend, counterproductive, wars of aggression against foreign populations who were more than glad to ignore us until we started murdering their children.

     Posted by fromredbird at 08/18/2006 @ 9:28pm

231. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 08/18/2006 @ 9:09pm

     we have an election coming up and once again the chimps start playing with the color coded terror alert. And they haven't messed with that since... the last election.

     maybe it's really elections that scare the crap out of them and terrorism is just the ruse

     Posted by WILL C. 08/18/2006 @ 9:16pm

     Don't be surprised if Bin Laden shows up again after six years. That's why Bush wanted to leave him on ice and he hasn't spared any effort to leave all the gates open for him.

     Posted by fromredbird at 08/18/2006 @ 9:31pm

232. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 08/18/2006 @ 9:28pm: This should have been a police action that was wrapped up by the middle of 2004.

     Actually, this should have been no action.

     In which case, it would have wrapped up before it began.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 9:32pm

233. dude freiheit---

     the law is clear, you need to obtain a warrant from the (secret) fisa court, in order to spy on american citizens. period. there is no grey area.

     bush stated, for two years, that they were in fact obtaining warrants.

     when the NYT broke the story, bush changed course and stated that he hadn't been obtaining warrants, but that he didn't need to anyway, because congress had given him the authorization to, i suppose, do as he wishes to "protect the country from attack."

     not only was congress was unaware that they had given this form of executive authority to bush, but even if they had given this to him, there are still no clearly delineated boundaries as to what bush can and cannot do to protect the country from attack.

     furthermore, bush has still not clearly defined what the war in iraq has to do with the 'war on terror.'

     what the michigan judge ruled has absolutely nothing to do with "getting back" at the bush administration. they are clearly breaking the law. gonzalez keeps saying, we have a federal statute, i just can't show it to you. wtf?!

     Posted by darladoon at 08/18/2006 @ 9:37pm

234. gonzalez, cheney and bush keep saying that they need to keep their intelligence operations a secret, otherwise they will put american lives at risk.

     if this is true, then so long as they are in power, they will always keep their intelligence operations a secret.

     what's worse, is that they can do much more than just intelligence gathering. they can spy on journalists, democrats, scholars, intellectuals, dissidents, artists. they can gather information on anyone in the name of "national security."

     does not this frighten everyone on this forum?

     Posted by darladoon at 08/18/2006 @ 9:42pm

235. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 08/18/2006 @ 9:28pm: This should have been a police action that was wrapped up by the middle of 2004.

     Actually, this should have been no action.

     In which case, it would have wrapped up before it began.

     Posted by ORWELL2005 08/18/2006 @ 9:32pm

     Got my dates wrong trying to type. I meant to type "by the middle of 2002", i.e., Afghanistan. I believe that the US was justified in going after Bin Laden (AFTER determining that he was responsible).

     As we now know, that wasn't the Bush administration's objective at all. It was just a perfunctory prelude to the real objective- the idiotic attempt to park themselves on all that oil.

     Posted by fromredbird at 08/18/2006 @ 9:44pm

236. what's worse, is that they can do much more than just intelligence gathering. they can spy on journalists, democrats, scholars, intellectuals, dissidents, artists. they can gather information on anyone in the name of "national security."

     does not this frighten everyone on this forum?

     Posted by DARLADOON 08/18/2006 @ 9:42pm

     The democrats and dissidents part scares me- a little. Are they going to leave the seditionists alone?

     Posted by fromredbird at 08/18/2006 @ 9:48pm

237. redbird, you are playing Torquemada here. it is incidental which side you are on, without humanity and pity there can be no justice. I suggest you read the grand inquisitor section of "the brothers Karamazov". you are incapable of seeing any side but your own, let alone of reasoned discussion. you are merely the flip side of the extreme Tories, one of the grr kill kill crowd.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/18/2006 @ 10:17pm

238. Seriously, do you see a Dem ad talking about how they and the ACLU have "protected average Americans from being spied on" working as well as a "them liberals are using hand-picked judges to fight for the rights of terrorists...AGAIN"?

     Posted by MASK 08/18/2006 @ 2:58pm

     Yes, did you even look at the polls I cited? The GOP spin machine would like everyone to believe it's a loser, but it's not because freedom resonates. Americans like their freedom and they like their privacy - whether it's the freedom to own guns, the freedom of speech, reproductive freedom or freedom from the government listening in on our communications without any judicial oversight. And you cite a poll for your earlier view, yet when I cite polls on the subject that swing my way, they are somehow meaningless on public opinion?

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/18/2006 @ 10:19pm

239. They're just saying her decision is legally meaningless and we'll have to rely on superior courts to do the adult work of legal analysis. But you go right ahead and hang your hat on her work, it'll tide you over til the next kerfuffle, then you can forget all about it when she gets reversed on appeal. God knows none of the leftists here will remind you.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/18/2006 @ 6:43pm

     Pontificus - we had plenty of back and forth on this issue, so no need to rehash the issues. But, is this the best you can come up with now? Sorry to burst your bubble, but the decision is hardly "meaningless." Maybe that is YOUR opinion, but it was handed down by a federal judge, and can't be overturned merely because some op-ed writers think it was poorly written. And I'll bet you haven't read word one from the opinion.

     Now that a judge has ruled on the NSA program, you and others try to cut down the messenger while ignoring the merits that do not sit very well in your favor.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/18/2006 @ 10:36pm

240. Still at it I see.

     The "shopping" charge; Maybe it was done in MI because that is where two (at least) plaintiffs live. Nazih Hassan is a resident of Ypsilanti Mi, Noel Salah is an immigration attorney in Detroit.

     I am constantly amazed at the people that attack our legal system relentlessly then accuse anyone that disagrees with Bush of being anti-American. What could be more American than bringing a case against the government, and it being able to go through? Can't do that in Cuba. Or Iran. Or China. Or Iraq. Or Afghanistan. The more I read what these people say, the more it sounds like they want to live behind the Iron Curtain, safe from The Law.

     Did anybody else catch the cartoon "Non-Sequitor" a few days ago? It showed Ann (Ms. Sunshine) Coulter in her Burhka, the result of having her wish of all liberalism wiped from America granted.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/18/2006 @ 11:03pm

241. The "LENIN Peace Prize"? I'm sorry, but if you are taking peace prizes from the Soviet Union, you're living up to Lenin's apochryphal term "useful idiot".

     Posted by MASK 08/18/2006 @ 4:28pm

     Can't argue with that Mask.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/18/2006 @ 11:04pm

242. Wow....

     Read the whole thread, and my mind is boggled.

     I EXPECT, many people to disagree with me on social issues (abortion, gay rights, etc.)

     I expect them to disagree on how much tax, who pays and what do we spend it on.

     I even try to understand those who see our imperialism in a positive light.

     But I really thought most Americans valued our system of government, their Constitution, their privacy and liberties (except anything to do with sexuality/reproduction apparently).

     Why do those who claim to value this country, on it's merits, not their citizenship, seem intent on destroying it?

     Eric

     Posted by Malcontent at 08/18/2006 @ 11:16pm

243. Posted by CRABWALK 08/18/2006 @ 11:03pm

     there is nothing more American than having your day in court...

     which is probably why hamster conservatives take issue with it

     Posted by Will C. at 08/18/2006 @ 11:17pm

244. that is the great ponderable, isn't it mallethead? Why indeed? I think ORWELL is right, fright over ideals.

     (sorry, couldn't resist.)

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/18/2006 @ 11:28pm

245. JOHANNESROLF, I venture to say that I have one face while you are a man of many. Humanity and pity, indeed.

     redbird, you are playing Torquemada here. it is incidental which side you are on, without humanity and pity there can be no justice. I suggest you read the grand inquisitor section of "the brothers Karamazov". you are incapable of seeing any side but your own, let alone of reasoned discussion. you are merely the flip side of the extreme Tories, one of the grr kill kill crowd.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/18/2006 @ 10:17pm

     fromredbird: After bemoaning the way in which Indians were treated in America in this same thread I hope you are not now going to rationalize israel by saying "we did it to the Indians", as you have in the past.

     this is a calumny. I said no such thing, not now, not in the past. you are having trouble sticking to the point.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/04/2006 @ 1:56pm

     Even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians. There are cases in which the overall, final good justifies harsh and cruel acts that are committed in the course of history.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/21/2005 @ 11:51pm

     Posted by fromredbird at 08/19/2006 @ 02:42am

246. Seriously, do you see a Dem ad talking about how they and the ACLU have "protected average Americans from being spied on" working as well as a "them liberals are using hand-picked judges to fight for the rights of terrorists...AGAIN"?

     Posted by MASK 08/18/2006 @ 2:58pm

     MASK, you must be a mullethead who takes an eight hour smart pill at 6:00 in the morning.

     Posted by fromredbird at 08/19/2006 @ 02:44am

247. The Republicans- the authentically un-American Party.

     Posted by fromredbird at 08/19/2006 @ 02:49am

248. Bird you are a liar, I never wrote that statement about the indians. anyone can paste together anything.I will not argue anything with you, let alone Israel, where any inconvenient facts are just ignored by you.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/19/2006 @ 10:20am

249. "We believe, strongly believe, it's constitutional," the president added. "And if Al Qaeda is calling into the United States, we want to know why they 're calling."

     Read this carefully because it is more of the same dishonesty that we are subject to every day of this administration. The decision yesterday, by the federal court judge, was, of course, correct. This above is political madness. If Al Qaeda calls you tonight, folks, the government can listen to it, and does not, I repeat, does not have to get a warrant. This is why this statement is a lie. Al Qaeda has no privacy rights that have to be respected, no reasonable expectation of privacy.

     On the other hand, you and I and all other citizens have privacy rights, so unless the govt has probable cause against you, or has justification under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), you have a right to your privacy. There was nothing left wing, radical, or pro-terrorist about the decision. All it did was said the constitution still exists. It is amazing that the administration is busy fighting over this because they can SPY on anyone they want; all they have to do is tell Congress (certain members) what they are doing or request a FISA warrant. Of course, they do not want to do either; they want to continue to operate their shadow govt in secrecy, w/o oversight. This is a serious, serious, crisis of the so called Republic.

     Posted by bgil at 08/19/2006 @ 12:07pm

250. Thank GOD, for brave, patriotic Americans, like Judge Anna Diggs Taylor.

     Posted by Krashkopf at 08/19/2006 @ 2:02pm

251. How can the Congress still not bring some impeachment charge against Bush with this latest ruling by the court -- even if another court overthrows it and/or the saps in Congress pass legislation making the NSA illegality "more" legal.

     Posted by sicilian at 08/21/2006 @ 01:35am

252. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/18/2006 @ 5:00pm

     So Islamists take a page from the American political campaign handbook, and appropriate portions of Michael Moore's film for use in their own propaganda.

     Of course, this makes Michael Moore an Islamist sympathizer.

     How convenient it must be to have a sphincter that doubles as a hatband.

     Posted by drhammer at 08/21/2006 @ 3:14pm

253. I also think you've been on this site under another name in the past, haven't you John.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS

     In that your are 100% wrong Frank. Now all you have is my word, so it is up to you to accept it or not.

     Posted by John B at 08/23/2006 @ 5:20pm