It is Time to Censure a Lawless President

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, the maverick senator was condemned by the White House, ridiculed by Republicans and given the cold shoulder by most Democrats.

But, now, the Wisconsin Democrat who in March proposed that the Senate censure Bush for flagrantly disregarding the law has a federal judge on his side. And the question becomes: When will Democratic and Republican members of the Senate join Feingold in demanding that the administration be held to account for its assaults on basic liberties and the rule of law?

Ruling on a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who expressed concern that the National Security Agency's spying initiative had made it difficult for them to develop and maintain legitimate international contacts and professional relationships, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit determined Thuesday that the warrantless wiretapping scheme is unconstitutional and ordered its immediate halt.

Holding that the spying program that was authorized and defended by President Bush violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution, Taylor wrote in a 43-page opinion that: "Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution."

The decision by Judge Taylor offers vindication for Feingold, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution, who has argued since the NSA wiretapping was exposed last year that the president had dramatically overstepped his powers in authorizing the program.

"Today's district court ruling is a strong rebuke of this administration's illegal wiretapping program," Feingold said on Thursday. "The President must return to the Constitution and follow the statutes passed by Congress. We all want our government to monitor suspected terrorists, but there is no reason for it to break the law to do so. The administration went too far with the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program. Today's federal court decision is an important step toward checking the President's power grab."

The key words in that statement are "an important step." The ruling by Judge Taylor, while significant, does not mark the end of this fight.

This administration will continue to battle judicial efforts to require the president to follow the law.

Ultimately, the job of demanding accountability will fall to the Senate.

At this point, Feingold has only a handful of Senate allies. Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin and California Democrat Barbara Boxer have been with the Wisconsinite since he proposed censure in March. In May, Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry signed on. But most Democrats, including New York Senator Hillary Clinton and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, have refused to embrace the proposal.

With the courts stepping in, the time for Democrats and responsible Republicans to step up is now. A failure by senators to respect their duty to check and balance a lawless president makes those disengaged legislators as much a part of the problem as an abusive executive.

Comments (204)

1. As Mr. Nichols article points out...while the judges decision does give Feingold some amunition, the decision is not final until the appeals process has been exhausted. Why not wait and see what the Supreme Court says on the matter first?

   Posted by John B at 08/17/2006 @ 3:28pm

2. One also has to watch out for the threat of the neo-cons doing something typical like removing anything related to wiretapping from federal court jurisdiction or changing the law to conform to the President's desires.

   This also still has to survive the Sixth Circuit's scrutiny. Four of the judges are Reagan appointees, four are Carter's, three are Bush the Elder's, five are Clinton's and six are Bush the Stupider's.

   Posted by brunowe at 08/17/2006 @ 3:30pm

3. John B

   Because by the time SCOTUS gets to it (or denies cert.), at least a year could've passed. The point is that Congress is entitled to make it's own decisions re censure based on its take on the wiretapping program.

   Posted by brunowe at 08/17/2006 @ 3:31pm

4. And once again, Russ Feingold walking a tight-rope to keep the balance...

   between supporting censure (to keep his liberal base happy)...but not saying "impeachment" (to not get tarred with the same brush as they have).

   Posted by Mask at 08/17/2006 @ 3:32pm

5. We dont know what the surveillance was - Republican Conservatives have claimed it targeted only international calls of suspected terrorists but there is no basis to believe that other than to take their word.

   Posted by LiberalPride at 08/17/2006 @ 3:34pm

6. ZERO

   I believe he might have allegiances that go beyond - and, infrequently, supercede - his otherwise demonstrated concern for American democracy,

   Which allegiances would they be?

   Posted by brunowe at 08/17/2006 @ 3:44pm

7. zero,

   why would you WANT to get behind any one person, or wave a flag for him? is there anyone, but yourself, with whom you agree on every single issue?

   Posted by darladoon at 08/17/2006 @ 3:58pm

8. Instead, Feingold, eagerly jumped on board that Bush bandwagon.

   Posted by ZERO 08/17/2006 @ 3:38pm | ignore this person

   If ZERO...or anybody else, expects Russ Feingold to go "full-blown Blogosphere" and start sounding like FROMREDBIRD on Israel, they are REALLY going to be disappointed.

   The man's running for President in 2 years...he's got sound SOMEWHAT sane!

   Posted by Mask at 08/17/2006 @ 4:00pm

9. I believe he might have allegiances that go beyond - and, infrequently, supercede - his otherwise demonstrated concern for American democracy,

   Which allegiances would they be?

   The allegiances would go to whoever is paying for his (re)election and incidentally, the Jewish interests as well.

   Posted by type at 08/17/2006 @ 4:07pm

10. Mr. Nichols needs to get a life. This President has shown courage, character, integrity and principled leadership. He is working hard to do what is right for this country It's time the critics stop whining about the irrelevant..that's right IRRELEVANT and unite behind our President to win this war on terror. Stop the politics and look at the big picture. Anything else and articles like this play in to the hands of the enemy and embolden them!

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

11. Sorry to rain on Brunowe's parade but it's not possible to remove consitutional issues from federal court jurisdiction (only non-constitutional claims ie class action suits against McDonald's for obesity and the like). Second, the Judge's decision will be overturned. And let's keep in mind that the information that tipped the British off (and made sense out of Pakistan's info) to last week's attack was gathereed via NSA and Patriot Act. As was the busted plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. People want to be cute and sound important but absent these two authorities the attacks likely would've been successful.

    Posted by PACentral at 08/17/2006 @ 4:28pm

12. Actually Zero - it was not. You need to stop reading the NY Times for your information because it most certainly is not "All the News that's fit to print".

    Better that an internationalist clown. Ignore what you don't like.

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

13. not only that, zero, but those men haven't even been charged with anything yet. the bush admin pushed the brits to arrest prematurely....against the latter's wishes.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/17/2006 @ 4:37pm

14. 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.

    Posted by MJ Procko at 08/17/2006 @ 4:37pm

15. Dude, do you even know what "statist" means? Could it be, um, massive centralized power in the national government - precisely what your ilk has pushed for for years. Interesting too how your primary tack is to call names, no substance, just weenie-ism.

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

16. "You need to stop reading the NY Times for your information because it most certainly is not "All the News that's fit to print"."

    you mean the same NYT that was the primary media push for war in iraq? and in lebanon?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/17/2006 @ 4:39pm

17. another nationalist clown meets oblivion on the ignore list. >click<

    Posted by ZERO 08/17/2006 @ 4:32pm | ignore this person

    Don't fret it, PACENTRAL....At this point, ZERO has so many people on his Ignore List, he'll never have to see another opposing opinion!

    (Careful, you too DARLA, one divergence from ZERO Standard and he may Ignore you too!)

    Posted by Mask at 08/17/2006 @ 4:39pm

18. from where did all these 'stay the course' wingnuts come?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/17/2006 @ 4:40pm

19. " massive centralized power in the national government "

    hey pacentral, name a single congressional figure who is calling for massive centralized power?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/17/2006 @ 4:42pm

20. There's no such thing as a Constitution for wild eyed extreme liberals - as soon as they utter "a living breathing document" in describing it you know they mean "whatever the liberals decide".

    Posted by PACentral at 08/17/2006 @ 4:44pm

21. GARYMW

    that's right IRRELEVANT and unite behind our President to win this war on terror. Stop the politics and look at the big picture. Anything else and articles like this play in to the hands of the enemy and embolden them!

    The Constitution is always relevant, and protecting against an illegitimate power grab isn't politcs but is very much part of the big picture. The assertion that raising that issue somehow plays into the hands of the al-Qaida, etc. is typical McCarthyite nonsense.

    PACENTRAL

    First, Zero had it right regarding the Pakistanis and the British. Second, there is no proof that a WARRANTLESS program was required to capture anyone, even a hair-brained plot to take out the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch. Second, you're wrong about Congress. The only jurisdiction that is expressly granted the judiciary by the Constitution is the jurisdiction given the Supreme Court. SCOTUS stated this long ago in Mayor v. Cooper 73 U.S. 247 (Wall.) [laws.findlaw.com] By the way, I'm not hoping that Congress will do that, I'm worried that they'll do that if the Sixth Circuit upholds the opinion (which is entirely possible).

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

22. Although Zero can't see this, I've always thought a name says a lot about a person.

    Posted by PACentral at 08/17/2006 @ 4:47pm

23. Mr. Nichols needs to get a life. This President has shown courage, character, integrity and principled leadership. He is working hard to do what is right for this country It's time the critics stop whining about the irrelevant..that's right IRRELEVANT and unite behind our President to win this war on terror. Stop the politics and look at the big picture. Anything else and articles like this play in to the hands of the enemy and embolden them!

    Posted by GARYMW 08/17/2006 @ 4:26pm

    Sheesh, another wingnut apologist. Or is this Barry25/Aldurra/Libzsuk's latest iteration?

    Begone with you!

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

24. Mr. Nichols needs to get a life. This President has shown courage, character, integrity and principled leadership. He is working hard to do what is right for this country It's time the critics stop whining about the irrelevant..that's right IRRELEVANT and unite behind our President to win this war on terror. Stop the politics and look at the big picture. Anything else and articles like this play in to the hands of the enemy and embolden them!

    Posted by GARYMW 08/17/2006 @ 4:26pm

    ...... I think I may vomit and cry and crack up laughing all at once.

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

25. as i said, bruno, even if they did immediately need a warrant, they can obtain one, and then file for a warrant within 72 hours. to retroactively justify it.

    basically, bush is simply lazy and careless. remember, he was a C-student.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/17/2006 @ 4:49pm

26. Sheesh, another wingnut apologist. Or is this Barry25/Aldurra/Libzsuk's latest iteration?

    Begone with you!

    Posted by SKELETONMAN 08/17/2006 @ 4:48pm

    Couldn't be, Skel - not enough exclamation points!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/17/2006 @ 4:50pm

27. how much did american intelligence contribute to the british arrests anyways? any at all?

    and why haven't these guys been charged?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/17/2006 @ 4:50pm

28. Here is the BBC's take [news.bbc.co.uk] on the investigation, indicating that it was the Pakistani arrests and the info gained thereafter that got the British moving. Here's a perspective [atimes.com] from the Asia Times mentioning the penetration of the jihadis by Pakistani intelligence. I'm not convinced, by the way, of the conjecture re Pakistani agents provocateurs.

    Posted by brunowe at 08/17/2006 @ 4:55pm

29. and why haven't these guys been charged?

    Posted by DARLADOON 08/17/2006 @ 4:50pm

    It's so much simpler to hold them without charge, though. That way you can beat the snot out of them whenever you feel like it and are accountable to no one.

    Posted by skeletonman at 08/17/2006 @ 5:00pm

30. Posted by PACENTRAL 08/17/2006 @ 4:28pm

    Welcome to the site! Sorry to rain on YOUR parade, but most of the information was gathered by the British. And British law requires a WARRANT to listen in on telephone conversations. And the U.S. surveillance was had based on obtaining WARRANTS from the FISA court. So basically, this plot was uncovered by obtaining warrants as required by law.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/17/2006 @ 5:00pm

31. We dont know what the surveillance was - Republican Conservatives have claimed it targeted only international calls of suspected terrorists but there is no basis to believe that other than to take their word.

    Posted by LIBERALPRIDE

    And there is no basis to believe the conspiracy theories either... other than that is exactly what the far left want you to do. There has been no evidence (to my knowledge) that the wiretaps targeted anyone other than those linked to terrorists.

    Posted by John B at 08/17/2006 @ 5:26pm

32. Posted by BRUNOWE

    Sorry, did not mean to suggest that they "couldn't" proceed with censure, but to act as if one judges opinion on the matter means Bush did something illegal is a bit far-fetched. But if Feingold can drum up support for censure, then he should go for it. Somehow I doubt he will... at least until after the election.

    Posted by John B at 08/17/2006 @ 5:28pm

33. Poor Zero, moonbat conspiracy theories abound in his mind. He would rather die a fiery death by terrorism than allow our government the ability to search out and destroy the jihadist's. Too bad the clintonistas didn't do their job and accept the offer of OBL's capture. If you really feel that way about our Supreme court then you might as well move to France.

    Posted by liberpublican at 08/17/2006 @ 5:36pm

34. lvliberty,

    you're buried, dude. you're talking nonsense now......

    Posted by darladoon at 08/17/2006 @ 6:00pm

35. Posted by JOHN B 08/17/2006 @ 3:28pm: Why not wait and see what the Supreme Court says on the matter first?

    Actually, John, until an appeals court rules otherwise, the Judge's ruling is the current state of the law.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/17/2006 @ 6:01pm

36. Posted by GARYMW 08/17/2006 @ 4:26pm

    Perhaps you are being sarcastic?

    If not, you can move immediately to the top of the list of extremist whackjobs that frequent this site.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/17/2006 @ 6:04pm

37. Posted by PACENTRAL 08/17/2006 @ 4:28pm: And let's keep in mind that the information that tipped the British off (and made sense out of Pakistan's info) to last week's attack was gathereed via NSA and Patriot Act.

    Really Pac? What is your evidence for this assertion?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/17/2006 @ 6:05pm

38. Posted by PACENTRAL 08/17/2006 @ 4:36pm: Actually Zero - it was not. You need to stop reading the NY Times for your information because it most certainly is not "All the News that's fit to print"

    Fine. You do not like the NY Times.

    But what is the mystery evidence that leads you to conclude that the NSA and the Patriot act were responsible for breaking up the alleged plot? That is certainly NOT what the UK is saying.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/17/2006 @ 6:07pm

39. Posted by PACENTRAL 08/17/2006 @ 4:44pm: There's no such thing as a Constitution for wild eyed extreme liberals - as soon as they utter "a living breathing document" in describing it you know they mean "whatever the liberals decide".

    Actually, in this case, it was a Federal judge deciding the obvious - that warrentless spying is unconstitutional.

    What has this got to do with Liberals? Aren't conservatives against breaking the law? Or was that pre 9/11 thinking?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/17/2006 @ 6:11pm

40. Posted by JOHN B 08/17/2006 @ 5:26pm: There has been no evidence (to my knowledge) that the wiretaps targeted anyone other than those linked to terrorists.

    How would such evidence come out? The Bush administration will not discuss who or what is targeted. They just say we need to trust them.

    But, a federal judge just ruled that the wiretaps are both illegal and unconstitutional. To most people, that would seem to indicate that there is evidence that the wiretaps are both illegal and unconstitutional, regardless of who they target.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/17/2006 @ 6:16pm

41. Posted by JOHN B 08/17/2006 @ 5:28pm: but to act as if one judges opinion on the matter means Bush did something illegal is a bit far-fetched

    There you have it. The whackjob view of our system of government. It would be far-fetched to accept the decision of one itsy bitsy little old judge against our Glorious Leader.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/17/2006 @ 6:19pm

42. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/17/2006 @ 5:53pm: It is of course not relevant that the ACLU carefully orchestrated this selection of a judge. Choosing a lifelong liberal Democrat; the daughter of a former Michigan Dem Congressman, Charles Diggs. All of that was circumstantial.

    Hey, its the scared little evangelical tax cheat.

    Hi, scared little evangelical tax cheat.

    So, in your system of government, decisions by Democratic judges can be ignored because democratic judges are not real judges, they are just partisan political operatives? Is it the case that only republicans can now be judges?

    I forget. What country are you from?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/17/2006 @ 6:23pm

43. The program continues

    The Justice Department said that it was appealing the decision and that the parties to the lawsuit had agreed to delay the judge's order until the appeal could be heard.

    Washington Post

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/17/2006 @ 6:09pm

    Actually, if you read the ruling, the judge was quite clear in declaring the program unconstitutional and ordering it halted:

    The defendants (i.e. the executive branch)

    "are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program in any way, including, but not limited to, conducting warrantless wiretaps of telephone and Internet communications, in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Title III..."

    If your boy continues it, he is without question in violation of the law and deserves impeachment and conviction.

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

44. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/17/2006 @ 5:58pm: I don't see any of you discussing Lamont and his further slide in the polls against Lieberman.

    Um... Scared little evangelical tax cheat, Lamont was down 24 points in the previous Q poll (July 20). Now, less than one month later, he is down just 11 points.

    If Lamont is sliding, he is sliding up.

    But keep on celebratin', scared little evangelical tax cheat.

    Praise the Lord!

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/17/2006 @ 6:25pm

45. the right wing's main stance is now, "it'll go to the supreme court" because "congress authorized the president to use whatever means necessary to protect americans" against terrorist attacks, "even if it means breaking the law." they also claim that revealing the program would disclose "state secrets."

    a judge in michigan struck down all of these arguments with relative ease.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/17/2006 @ 6:30pm

46. Posted by DARLADOON 08/17/2006 @ 6:30pm: a judge in michigan struck down all of these arguments with relative ease.

    And SCOTUS already ruled against the congress-authorized-it argument in the Hamden case.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/17/2006 @ 6:39pm

47. I do not believe the opinion of a liberal senior status judge nominated by Carter has anymore sway than feingold has over his fellow senators. If he meant what he says then bring a resolution to censure the president. He knows he would not win - coward!

    Posted by soccer409 at 08/17/2006 @ 6:48pm

48. This President has shown courage, character, integrity and principled leadership.

    when?

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

49. "I do not believe the opinion of a liberal senior status judge nominated by Carter has anymore sway than feingold has over his fellow senators. If he meant what he says then bring a resolution to censure the president. He knows he would not win - coward!"

    oh great,

    it's another "must support the president....must support the president"

    Posted by darladoon at 08/17/2006 @ 6:55pm

50. i just heard o'reilly encouraging so-called 'criminal profiling' but not 'racial profiling', which would mean profiling "muslims aged 16-45".

    hmmmm.....how is that not racial profiling?

    he calls this "common sense".

    nevermind that some terrorists in the past haven't been muslims, per se. and nevermind that, should this policy be implemented, terrorists could more easily avoid being detected by hiring someone who doesn't fit the profile.

    he also said, "if the aclu doesn't like, then too bad" nevermind that the aclu would easily win this in court....

    can someone tell me why o'reilly still has a job?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/17/2006 @ 7:04pm

51. and i love how they trash the judge who passed the verdict:

    1. she was appointed by carter (so what? that means she's invalid?)

    2. she's a civil rights judge and african-american

    3. she supports terrorism

    and on and on and on...

    Posted by darladoon at 08/17/2006 @ 7:09pm

52. Oh please yes, try to censure him. Try to impeach him. Repeat Newt's mistake in 1998 exactly, please. It worked so well for him and the Republican majority.

    Posted by Mgmax at 08/17/2006 @ 7:15pm

53. "I think we should gather up all the wingnuts and instead of putting them in camps, put a uniform on them, give them a gun and put them on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan and let the troops who have suffered there come home."

    I'll take that deal if we can gather up all the bleeding hearts and make them pay all the taxes that pay for all the social welfare programs instead of taxing suffering right wing billionaires.

    Posted by Mgmax at 08/17/2006 @ 7:16pm

54. Frankgrits, easy on the sending them to camps. there may be some in the audience who have actually been sent to camps, or their children.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/17/2006 @ 7:30pm

55. suffering right wing billionaires.

    Posted by MGMAX 08/17/2006 @ 7:16pm | ignore this person

    There's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/17/2006 @ 7:20pm

    Well, obviously, Frank, you've worked for a living your whole life and have no idea just how painful a hemorrhoid from sitting on your fat ass can be.

    Show a little compassion for the so afflicted, will ya?

    Posted by skeletonman at 08/17/2006 @ 7:40pm

56. Frank, be careful, lest you turn into that which you rail against. no camps, not even rhetorical ones.

    Rio, you are clueless, as usual. the german prisoner of war camps here in the US were a fine idea. many germans didn't want to go home at war's end. the japanese internment camps were a terrible idea, and we did say we're sorry. the concentration camps were an abomination, I have seen one, Mauthausen. Guantanamo and Abu Graib are also abominable, a blot on the US conscience for years to come.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/17/2006 @ 8:21pm

57. What nonsense.

    First, the plaintiffs had no standing. This will certainly be reversed.

    Second, the Court said the program "obviously" violated the Fourth Amendment. The Judge gave no reasons or analysis. What a joke. This is not "obvious" at all. These are international communications and it appears quite reasonable for the government to monitor them. If you think not, explain why.

    Third, more recent legislation granted the President authority to do this. If you or the Court disagrees, please explain why. In all that opinion, the Judge failed to do so. All she did was essentially cite news reports and bald, difficult to believe allegations of harm, and web pages. Again, what a joke.

    Please stop calling people who disagree with you ugly names . . . it does not support your argument at all. What do you mean by "wingnut" anyway? Can you people not deal with the merits?

    Posted by Steven Willis at 08/17/2006 @ 8:25pm

58. Posted by SOCCER409 08/17/2006 @ 6:48pm: I do not believe the opinion of a liberal senior status judge nominated by Carter has anymore sway

    And yet another whackjob winner of the i-dont-understand-our-system-of-government award.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/17/2006 @ 8:48pm

59. Posted by STEVEN WILLIS 08/17/2006 @ 8:25pm: What nonsense.

    First, the plaintiffs had no standing. This will certainly be reversed.

    Thank you Steven Willis. But, apparently, the Judge disagreed with you.

    Second, the Court said the program "obviously" violated the Fourth Amendment. The Judge gave no reasons or analysis.

    Actually, the Judge issued a 44 page ruling, explaining the decision. Did you read it, Steven.

    Third, more recent legislation granted the President authority to do this.

    The Judge disagreed, Steven. Do you know more about this case than the judge?

    These are international communications and it appears quite reasonable for the government to monitor them. If you think not, explain why.

    They are breaking the law.

    And, what they are doing is a violation of the 4th amendment. Have you read the 4th amendment, Steven?

    What do you mean by "wingnut" anyway?

    You.

    Can you people not deal with the merits?

    On the merits, the Judge ruled that the actions undertaken by Dear Leader are both illegal and unconstitutional.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/17/2006 @ 8:56pm

60. Steve, it bears repeating. yes surveillance may have its advantages but lawful spying with warrants is even better. and that is what this case is about.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/17/2006 @ 9:20pm

61. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/17/2006 @ 9:20pm

    Johannes, it is not that lawful spying is better. It is that unlawful spying is NOT an option.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/17/2006 @ 9:25pm

62. can someone tell me why o'reilly still has a job?

    Posted by DARLADOON 08/17/2006 @ 7:04pm

    he appeals to the worst nature of man - angry, proud, vain, and full of easy answers that make angry, proud, vain and at least half ignorant people feel good about their impotance.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/17/2006 @ 9:27pm

63. unfortunately this will end up in supreme court. yup.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/17/2006 @ 9:30pm

64. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 08/17/2006 @ 9:30pm: unfortunately this will end up in supreme court.

    That is not unfortunate in the least. The Supreme Court has shown, in both the Hamdi and Hamden decisions, that they do not agree with Dear Leader's assertions of unlimited powers.

    The administration knows it will lose in the Supreme Court. That is why they have strived relentlessly to avoid adjudication of these issues.

    The unfortunate thing is that Dear Leader's minions in the Congress will certainly try to pass something that save's Dear Leader's ass. And the media will undoubtedly frame the Congressional action as a battle between those who want to defeat the terrorists and those who want to protect the rights of the terrorists.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/17/2006 @ 9:41pm

65. Posted by ORWELL2005 08/17/2006 @ 9:41pm

    really? you think so? i hope you are right.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/17/2006 @ 9:47pm

66. 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 to hold the "administration" accountable.

    Thanks.

    ps: I had mistakenly posted this comment in David Corn's post [thenation.com]. I would appreciate if the duplicate comment there is deleted, and this one is preserved. Thank you.

    Posted by NL at 08/17/2006 @ 9:54pm

67. Posted by NL 08/17/2006 @ 9:54pm

    fitz's investigation HAS been anticlimactic. well thought out post. will check out.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/17/2006 @ 10:03pm

68. Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/17/2006 @ 10:00pm

    i understand - but i would still like to put some on trial.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/17/2006 @ 10:04pm

69. I can't get behind Feingold so easily. Sorry about that.

    Posted by ZERO 08/17/2006 @ 3:38pm

    Feingold is DOA after his support of israel's latest mass murder. What would be his position if israel decided to bomb Americans again ( like when they murdered 34 American sailors in 1967 [tinyurl.com] )? Would Feingold oppose the unconstitutional wiretapping of Americans while supporting israel's murder of them? The Democratic Party can't move forward as long as it's morally hobbled like this.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/17/2006 @ 10:12pm

70. What nonsense.

    First, the plaintiffs had no standing. This will certainly be reversed.

    Sez you.

    Second, the Court said the program "obviously" violated the Fourth Amendment. The Judge gave no reasons or analysis. What a joke. This is not "obvious" at all. These are international communications and it appears quite reasonable for the government to monitor them. If you think not, explain why.

    Some of us were paying attention in civics class.

    Third, more recent legislation granted the President authority to do this. If you or the Court disagrees, please explain why. In all that opinion, the Judge failed to do so. All she did was essentially cite news reports and bald, difficult to believe allegations of harm, and web pages. Again, what a joke.

    The Congress cannot pass a law which is unconstitutional. It can only propose an amendment to the Constitution which must be approved by the states. And guess what, Wilbur, unlimited spying would not make it.

    Please stop calling people who disagree with you ugly names . . . it does not support your argument at all. What do you mean by "wingnut" anyway? Can you people not deal with the merits?

    Posted by STEVEN WILLIS 08/17/2006 @ 8:25pm

    The Republican Party- the authentic un-American party.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/17/2006 @ 10:17pm

71. I am puzzled by Mr. Nichols' call for "responsible Republicans" to vote for censure. "Responsible Republicans" is an oxymoron, like "compassionate conservatism" or "the law-abiding Bush Administration."

    Posted by sgoodman at 08/17/2006 @ 10:29pm

72. now, enough of responding to the "conservatives". the cross of their idiocy has been carried a day further by americans and the world impacted by americans.

    Posted by ZERO 08/17/2006 @ 10:09pm

    I just ignored GARYMW, PACENTRAL, MJ PROCKO, LIBERPUBLICAN, SOCCER409, STEVEN WILLIS. They're all the same person, by the way. He must not have realized that there WAS someone here dumb enough to agree with him.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/17/2006 @ 10:30pm

73. Hypothetically speaking, if it were feasible to round the wingers up and put them inside of some type of fence where they will be forced to read michael Moore books, watch Fahrenheit 9/11 and listen to Air America with al Franken, could we put Dick Cheney in there also and give him a shotgun?

    Anybody else have any suggestions how we could make them comfortable?

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/17/2006 @ 10:18pm

    How about sentencing them to life on The Jerry Springer Show?

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/17/2006 @ 10:35pm

74. Frank, if you want others to praise you, don't praise yourself.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/17/2006 @ 10:52pm

75. Orwell, of course,

    I was using understatement as a literary device

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/17/2006 @ 10:56pm

76. that's Ok Frank. your passionate posts are appreciated.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/17/2006 @ 10:58pm

77. I guess we have to pick and choose on issues, who we support. I too was disappointed that Feingold signed onto the nonbinding Senate statement in support of Israel, with total disregard for the Lebanese people and state being destroyed by US-made Israeli-dropped bombs. But I am glad for this ruling that provides us, non-legal professionals, with an understanding of what the Law is and why this administration and President are in violation of it. I am heartened and support Feingold in efforts to legally censure this president for transgressing my Constitutional rights and liberties.

    Posted by prairdog at 08/17/2006 @ 11:21pm

78. the Chinese will not war with us. we owe them a LOT of Money.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/17/2006 @ 11:29pm

79. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/17/2006 @ 11:29pm

    That's true. But then, that could also be a weapon.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/17/2006 @ 11:51pm

80. what's your beef with the kos, zero. lot of very thoughtful people, such as yourself, regularly post on there. it's truly an amazing place....

    Posted by darladoon at 08/18/2006 @ 12:20am

81. screw markos, dude. there are dozens of writers on that site. maybe more.

    there are links to hundreds, nay millions, of different sites and opinions.

    markos can't possibly contain it all.

    and how do you know how we works?

    i agree that it's a front for the DNC, but who cares?

    let me put it this way, there are FAR more thoughtful people on that site, than this one. and i happen to think that markos is spot on about the DC "bubble".

    Posted by darladoon at 08/18/2006 @ 12:44am

82. and who cares what he gets paid? does it really matter?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/18/2006 @ 12:44am

83. I think you made a mis-statement here. George Bush IS a tyrant.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/17/2006 @ 10:12pm

    i kind of disagree. i think he is a half clueless front man for tyrannical oligarchs. same difference i suppose. like when napoleon III duped duke maximillion, a fairly decent fellow, into accepting the puppet emperorship of mexico in the 1860's. max was an ok guy, but when it was all said and done, and he was captive of the mexican forces after the french cut and ran, benito juarez still had him executed.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/18/2006 @ 09:50am

84. Actually, John, until an appeals court rules otherwise, the Judge's ruling is the current state of the law.

    Posted by ORWELL2005

    Actually Orwell, that is incorrect, as a stay was issued while the appeal process was undertaken.

    Posted by John B at 08/18/2006 @ 10:02am

85. But, a federal judge just ruled that the wiretaps are both illegal and unconstitutional. To most people, that would seem to indicate that there is evidence that the wiretaps are both illegal and unconstitutional, regardless of who they target.

    Posted by ORWELL2005

    Wow, a federal judge carefully picked out by those who intiated the lawsuit because they knew she was very likely to rule in their favor... ruled in their favor. Shocking. Let's wait and see what the 6th does.

    Posted by John B at 08/18/2006 @ 10:06am

86. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/17/2006 @ 11:29pm

    and we will not war with them. they make all our plastic crap and more. including lots of military related stuff. furthermore, they have nukes and scare the hell out of us, because they are big and bad ass.

    lesson to countries around the world - want to get invaded and messed with by the usa? IF you dont develop weapons of mass destruction, do more of less play by the rules, but vehemently disagree with our plans for a new american century, we will at the very least bully and threaten you, at the worse, invade you and screw up your country for decades. develop weapons of mass destruction, build your military, and let us know you will use them on us if attacked and...well...look at north korea. the plans for a new american century stop at your border.

    how many times has the united states threatened to use nuclear weapons on our enemies, including enemies who do not possess such themselves? how many nukes, chemical and biological weapons does the usa have? how long, in a world in which historically backwater nations achieve the technology and developmental levels to allow them to produce weapons of mass destruction, can we continue to hypocritically and imperiously demand anything of anyone?

    NEWS FLASH - not everyone around the world wants to be like us. not everyone around the world thinks we are as awesome as we think we are. other countries like to feel secure from invasion and attack as well, and with us running around talking about making this the "new american century", vainly, arrogantly, and ignorantly assuming everyone around the world really wants to be like us, and demonstrationg our willingness to attack those whodo not possess weapons of mass destruction, we send the message loud and clear...

    if you do not want to be our lackey, and you disagree with our holy, omniscient vision of how things should be, you had better develop weapons of mass destruction if you wish to remain FREE of the autocracy of self proclaimed freedom, the NEW AMERICAN EMPIRE.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/18/2006 @ 10:07am

87. There you have it. The whackjob view of our system of government. It would be far-fetched to accept the decision of one itsy bitsy little old judge against our Glorious Leader.

    Posted by ORWELL2005

    Again, you are right... it would be ridiculous to ONLY take the opinion of the hand-picked judge rather than wait and see what happens throughout the appeals process.

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

88. If your boy continues it, he is without question in violation of the law and deserves impeachment and conviction.

    Posted by SKELETONMAN

    Incorrect. Because a stay of the judges order was granted while it goes through the appeals process.

    Posted by John B at 08/18/2006 @ 10:09am

89. re: GaryMW's This President has shown courage, character, integrity and principled leadership.

    Bwah-ha-ha-ha.....whoo-hoo

    You're really a web-version of Allen Funt right? You're gonna jump on and say "Gotcha...you're on Candid WebScam" right?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 08/18/2006 @ 10:34am

90. some good points, Ibble. I especially like the point about the fact that China is not just making toys and clothing, but also parts for our military establishment. I forget who made the absurd point a while ago that we stop trading with China, did they WIN the cold war? it's an impossibility.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/18/2006 @ 10:39am

91. FrankG & co.

    Good stuff...sorry I missed it all. Was at a Union organizational social thing. Used my bar tickets for Crown Royal Doubles..... Was a good night!

    Here's a thought....we build the compound along the Mexican border so it shares a fence. Then we hire asstd immigrant to patrol the entire US perimeter. That way the only way they can run is into Mexico as illegal immigrants!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 08/18/2006 @ 10:43am

92. B,

    Taylor ordered an immediate halt to the program, but the government said it would ask for a stay of that order pending appeal. The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the suit, said it would oppose a stay but agreed to delay enforcement of the injunction until Taylor hears arguments Sept. 7.

    this is not a stay.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/18/2006 @ 10:46am

93. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/18/2006 @ 10:39am

    yeah - while in the philipines this summer, where chinese influence and investment is rapidly eclipsing our own, i was talking to an philipine marine colonel who had trained with the american military. he told about how the americans were bragging about how awesome our military hardware is, but were dumbfounded when the colonel pointed out how many parts are manufactured in...u know where...

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

94. Wow, a federal judge carefully picked out by those who intiated the lawsuit because they knew she was very likely to rule in their favor... ruled in their favor. Shocking. Let's wait and see what the 6th does.

    Posted by JOHN B 08/18/2006 @ 10:06am

    Not sure about the 6th, but take a look at the recent SCOTUS decisions on executive power, most importantly the most recent Gitmo case. Pretty good sneak preview that this decision will eventually stand.

    And enough from everyone (not always you John B., but plenty of others) on "hand picked" judge, "senior" judge, Democrat appointee, etc. Venue in Michigan was obviously proper, the government did not even attempt to argue otherwise. A senior judge's opinion is as binding and legal as one from a non-senior one. Same goes for judges appointed by Democrats. Nice to see that some here have no use for the rule of law now that Clinton is out of office.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/18/2006 @ 10:52am

95. Taylor ordered an immediate halt to the program, but the government said it would ask for a stay of that order pending appeal. The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the suit, said it would oppose a stay but agreed to delay enforcement of the injunction until Taylor hears arguments Sept. 7.

    this is not a stay.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF

    You are correct, I read it too quickly. The Plantiffs agreed to a temporary stay until the judge ruled on the stay. I apologize for the error. Damn selective reading.

    Posted by John B at 08/18/2006 @ 11:07am

96. Posted by JOHN B 08/18/2006 @ 10:02am: Actually Orwell, that is incorrect, as a stay was issued while the appeal process was undertaken.

    Actually, Johnny, that is incorrect. The stay only suspends implementation of the order. The ruling remains the current state of the law until it is overruled on appeal.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 11:09am

97. Posted by HMAN23

    I agree that the age/race of the judge have nothing to do with the decision. But she was absolutely hand-picked by the ACLU. I am not sure why the government didn't argue the venue, but would guess that they felt the 6th would overturn it. Perhaps they think they can use her decision for some BS political reason?? Who knows.

    As for the Gitmo decisions, I agree that it may appear to be the same type of issue, but I am guessing (obviously the key word here) that the wiretapping of international calls to/from countries that sponsor terrorists is going to be ruled legal in a time of war. Just my opinion... I could be wrong... but I doubt it.

    Posted by John B at 08/18/2006 @ 11:13am

98. Posted by JOHN B 08/18/2006 @ 10:06am: Wow, a federal judge carefully picked out by those who intiated the lawsuit

    What are you talking about Johnny?

    Do you have evidence that the judge was carefully picked out by those who initiated the lawsuit?

    Do you have evidence that this judge corruptly bases her rulings on her own politics rather than her interpretation of the law?

    Have her prior rulings been overturned more frequently than other judges?

    Why didn't the government try to change the venue if they were faced with this obviously biased and unfair judge?

    Why hasn't she been removed from the bench?

    Why do you guys just make stuff up?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 11:13am

99. Actually, Johnny, that is incorrect. The stay only suspends implementation of the order. The ruling remains the current state of the law until it is overruled on appeal. Posted by ORWELL2005

    Actually Orwelly... as was pointed out to me, it is only a temporary stay agreed upon by the Plantiffs until the Judge rules on the stay, but it is not an APPLICABLE law while under the stay.

    Posted by John B at 08/18/2006 @ 11:15am

100. Gee Orwelly, since this is a case against the Bush administration's policy, give me one reason the ACLU chose to bring the case in MICHIGAN rather than in D.C.???

     There is nothing unusual about handpicking a judge in a federal case... my point was that you should not be so euphoric about the decision.... as it will likely get overturned by the 6th.

     Posted by John B at 08/18/2006 @ 11:19am

101. Posted by JOHN B 08/18/2006 @ 11:13am: But she was absolutely hand-picked by the ACLU.

     Do you have any evidence for this assertion? How does the ACLU have more power than the government when it comes to hand-picking judges?

     that the wiretapping of international calls to/from countries that sponsor terrorists is going to be ruled legal in a time of war.

     Both the Hamdi and Hamdan decisions demonstrate that the Supreme Court does not accept your whackjob view that the President "in time of war" gets to break the law. There is little doubt that this decision will be upheld by the Supreme Court.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 11:20am

102. Posted by JOHN B 08/18/2006 @ 11:15am: but it is not an APPLICABLE law while under the stay.

     Rulings are not laws, they are interpretations of the law. And it is the current interpretation of the law in that district until it is overruled on appeal, stay or no stay. The stay merely suspends implementation of the order.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 11:23am

103. Posted by JOHN B 08/18/2006 @ 11:19am: as it will likely get overturned by the 6th.

     On what legal basis do you believe that it will be overturned, Johnny?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 11:28am

104. ORWELL aks:

     Do you have evidence that this judge corruptly bases her rulings on her own politics rather than her interpretation of the law?

     ORWELL, the only "evidence" that the stone-faced, pathetically lumbering conservaClown needs is that he or she would just do that if put in a position to do so --- abuse power, Priscilla Owens-style.

     You see, a conservaClown has many grievances, many grudges, many boo-boos on his or her feelie-weelies (sniff sniff); and so, they are owed something in compensation for these boo-boos and for their gerneralized inferiority. In a failure to see that other, normal people have principles and standards to uphold, the conservaClown assumes that these other people would behave as unscrupulously as the comitted conservaClown would if and when the chance arose.

     It is as simple as that.

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/18/2006 @ 11:46am

105. LEFT-OF-CENTERR muses on,

     GaryMW's "This President has shown courage, character, integrity and principled leadership..."

     LEFTY, the salient question is whether GARY got something --- a badge, a certificate, cheaply made epaulettes, a bumblast, something --- when he "graduated" with "honors" from the re-education camp.

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/18/2006 @ 11:50am

106. Now I am going to have some chuckles by picking on and making fun of someone who is mentally inferior, indeed outright retarded. Let me knock on his trailer door to summon him his stupor. Hoepfully, he will zip his pants up before answering ...

     Other rouge organizations or governments will rejoice at this latest tool of impediment enemies of our nation within our own society have put forth. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/18/2006 @ 12:16am

     EMB-RIO, tell us ... (teeter teeter) Just what in your estimation is a "rouge organization"?

     Does it mean you have been obsessively playing around with your mom/sister/trailermate/whoppee-partner's make-up?

     Or is it, like, an org in honor of "Moulin Rouge"?

     Or perhaps it does operatic readings of government apologetics for supporting the Khmer Rouge after 1979 or so?

     Do explain. You do have a public to entertain with your primitive antics --- and although you will be laughed at, it is the only attention that you are capable of garnering. But it is clear that you are hung up on the "rouge organizations" and so questions are begged ...

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/18/2006 @ 12:04pm

107. Posted by GLENN LEMON 08/18/2006 @ 11:50am

     Maybe he got this [jenimattson.com]

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/18/2006 @ 12:13pm

108. LEFTY,

     That's hilarious. A perfectly vainglorius logo for the conquest of AmericaStan as the Iraqis now call it ...

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

109. Glenn -

     While I found your above post hilarious, I still think its too subtle for Chickenshit Stream--- ahem, Brave River, to get...

     Maybe you should direct him to the dictionary entries for "rouge" and "rogue" so he truly understands the diff---

     Ah, why bother.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/18/2006 @ 12:29pm

110. "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 @ 12:46pm

111. Curious....and on my original post to this article...

     Why is Feingold talking "censure"...and not "impeachment"?

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

112. MASK

     I suspect Feingold is taking what he thinks he can get. Censure has a better shot than impeachment.

     Posted by brunowe at 08/18/2006 @ 1:02pm

113. Posted by MASK 08/18/2006 @ 12:52am: Why is Feingold talking "censure"...and not "impeachment"?

     Zorro goes on and on about the suicide that impeachment would be. And then, he asks questions like the one above.

     You are a strange one, Z.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 1:07pm

114. as it will likely get overturned by the 6th.

     Posted by JOHN B 08/18/2006 @ 11:19am

     Not really sure why you and others are SO sure of this. Is this just your gut call or is there something about the 6th Circuit I do not know? From what I thought, the 6th is pretty evenly split. Anyway, the endgame is SCOTUS. And even there, it is going to be a tough go for the executive branch. Even Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts (assuming they feel in their own minds it is prudent to WANT the NSA to have this authority) are going to have a hard time getting around things like the Youngstown doctrine (when Congress dictates explicitly, the president's authoirity is at its "lowest ebb"), prior Supreme Court precedent, the statutory history of FISA, Title III, the AUMF, and the Patriot Act, not to mention the clear Fouth Amendment issues at play.

     Just because some of the justices are labeled "conservative" does not mean they will automatically go for the executive on this one, like many here seem to think. The "originalists" Scalia and Thomas will be wide open to the Fourth Amendment issues on this one, IMO, and the broad unchecked power that the executive is attempting to grant itself here.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/18/2006 @ 1:37pm

115. bush = neo-facist

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

116. Censure has a better shot than impeachment.

     Posted by BRUNOWE 08/18/2006 @ 1:02pm | ignore this person

     Okay....why?

     Seems if the case was "slam dunk" for censure...even for impeachment, that Feingold would be forthright and courageous (as he is so often CLAIMED by Mr Nichols to be)...and come out for the full smash.

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

117. Mask, you are a walking contradiction. a Tory who constantly berates liberals for not being liberal enough. you also have a habit of flogging a dead horse. that said, you are not unthinking(awful english, I'm afraid)

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/18/2006 @ 2:34pm

118. MASK

     Censure and impeachment are both political acts. Since censure is more of a PR blow while impeachment actually involves throwing out a President, the reservoir of poltical courage may only be full enough for the first.

     Posted by brunowe at 08/18/2006 @ 2:50pm

119. "a Tory who constantly berates liberals for not being liberal enough."?!??!

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/18/2006 @ 2:34pm | ignore this person

     No, I think I berate those who idealize a politician as some "brave fighter for justice", when he's just as politically expedient as any other politician aiming at a voter bloc.

     Conyers and his little basement hearings were jokes...but HONEST jokes. He wasn't getting any support from the Dem Leadership, because they were scared or KNEW that such a move was unpopular with the vast majority of voters. So, they did the politically expedient thing, shoved him into the cellar with Joe Wilson and Cindy Sheehan, and let the whole thing go "Blogosphere" for two weeks.

     Feingold isn't "brave" or even "not liberal enough"...he's pushing censure because he HAS TO to keep the liberal base happy, but he can't push their impeachment because he's got to be able to "pull it back to the center" for a General Election in 2008.

     If he pushed for impeachment...really pushed for it...he's be showing real courage, because he'd be seriously risking losing a Presidential bid in 2008.

     But he doesn't...censure is a slap on the wrist IF the allegations against Bush and Co. are true....but it saves you from being labelled a "fringe liberal" for the fall of 2008!

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

120. "more of a PR blow"

     Posted by BRUNOWE 08/18/2006 @ 2:50pm | ignore this person

     Exactly

     Posted by Mask at 08/18/2006 @ 3:05pm

121. Mask, there's nothing wrong with censure. Politics is about shaping ideas and perceptions. The idea is to force public declarations on the aggrandizement of executive power. If you don't thank that matter, ask Joe Lieberman.

     Posted by brunowe at 08/18/2006 @ 3:09pm

122. Mask, I don't recall anyone idealizing any politician. my description was more broad than this one instance.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/18/2006 @ 4:00pm

123. Posted by MASK 08/18/2006 @ 3:04pm: but it saves you from being labelled a "fringe liberal" for the fall of 2008!

     More brilliant analysis, Z.

     Feingold was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act. He will be called a "fringe liberal" regardless of what he does.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 4:07pm

124. Mask, I don't recall anyone idealizing any politician.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/18/2006 @ 4:00pm | ignore this person

     Referring to the author of the article that started this thread, JOHANNES.....Mr John Nichols.

     Posted by Mask at 08/18/2006 @ 4:20pm

125. Posted by BRUNOWE 08/18/2006 @ 3:09pm | ignore this person

     And that's ONE WAY of looking at it, BRUNO.

     But there's also a cynical way of looking at it, which I have outlined.

     According to the Blogosphere, many liberal pundits, etc. there is a "slam dunk" case for impeaching Bush...yet Feingold (Mr Nichols fav going into 2008, if anybody just joined us) is only pushing censure.

     So "justice" is merely EMBARESSING George W. Bush in his last two years in office? Doesn't sound like enough, if the man truly has committed "treason, high crimes" (def: US Constitution).

     So (cynically)...is Feingold "playing it safe" or are the impeachment proponents "exaggerating"?

     Posted by Mask at 08/18/2006 @ 4:24pm

126. MASK

     I think that the Executive abuses of power do work at an impeachable level, but since this is a political process Feingold moves for what he can get. I don't think that's cynical, since impeachment is a political process it must be arrive at through political means (censure, committee hearings and so on). The removal of Nixon didn't start straight away with an impeachment vote.

     Posted by brunowe at 08/18/2006 @ 5:17pm

127. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/18/2006 @ 5:19pm: You can almost smell the hatred and avarice (and desperation) already in the air!

     That smell ain't hatred and avarice, Scared Little Boy. That's the smell of urine on your underwear. Time to change it.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 08/18/2006 @ 6:21pm

128. Although Zero can't see this, I've always thought a name says a lot about a person.

     Posted by PACENTRAL 08/17/2006 @ 4:47pm

     is pac entral some kind of homo reference?

     Posted by Will C. at 08/18/2006 @ 6:55pm

129. Why so timid, John Nichols? Censure is inadequate for a President guily of impeachable acts. And don't pin your hopes to Russ Feingold, who, when recently interviewed on mainstream Meet The Press, expressed that impeachment would "disrupt" the government,as if this administration's impeachable acts are not "disruptive" enough of our democracy and our US Constitution. No, censure is for the faint of heart. Impeachment is for those with courage sufficient for the crisis in which we now live.

     Posted by Peggy at 08/18/2006 @ 8:35pm

130. The point that everyone seems to be missing in this discussion is that it is possible to have security-motivated surveillance and Constitutional protections simultaneously. It's already part of FISA. Despite talking points about how FISA is outdated for today's security risks, FISA does, in fact, provide for instantaneous reaction to a possible threat and allows that immediate steps can be taken before filing a request with the FISA court. What FISA requires in these instances -- and what the Bushies misleadingly dismiss as too cumbersome -- is that the request be filed nonetheless and reviewed retrospectively after the fact. There is no delay, just more work.

     The administration has complained that they don't have enough staff attorneys to accommodate this requirement. Well, Golly and Gee-willakers. We seem to have found over $7 billion per month for a war that is destroying our standing in the world and thousands of lives in the process. And, the last I heard, the nation has no shortage of lawyers. So, what's the problem? Simple. The administration might have some oversight of, and accountability for, its actions. Now, there's something they can neither tolerate nor afford.

     Posted by bartchris at 08/19/2006 @ 12:52am

131. It has been clear from the first that this Whitehouse play's by illegal rules. Made to fit the crime. Alot of American's are hoping that the Means justify the end's.I really don't understand how this body of People aren't in handcuffs for the crimes they have afflicted upon American's in every State and Our Brave Military Men and Women that understand standing up to Defend Your Country. But being used for the asspirations of a few Men who see the World as something that is to be conquered. This is what football is for. To Conquer. Not World Politics. The business of being the World's most Progressive and forward thinking while being blessed to have a Country wide population that is willing to do the most amazing thing's when Life calls Us to action. New Orlean's is a call to action. Forget this Whitehouse when considering the Poorest before and after Katrina. We as American's gave billion's to the sunami victim's. They deserved that kind of love. So do the wonderul People of New Orlean's. Give to these People cause they are just like You and Me. One tragedy away from Homelessness.

     Posted by bridger at 08/19/2006 @ 02:31am

132. THIS ONE IS MOST SIGNIFICANT:

     AUGUST 20, 2003: Attack on United Nations Headquarters in Baghdad.

     The U.N. special representative in Iraq [Sergio Vieira de Mello] and at least 16 others died Tuesday in a bomb explosion that ripped through the organization's headquarters in Baghdad. … At least 100 people were wounded. [CNN, 8/20/03]

     Think like a criminal.

     What was the result of this attack?

     The UN Pulled out.

     Then What?

     Other nations pulled out of the coalition over time - as each of these countries were threatened and attacked.

     By whom?

     Cui Bono?

     Who else do we know that brazenly attacked a UN observer position just recently?

     Israel.

     On whose behalf are we in Iraq?

     Israel.

     How many Mossad Operatives are operating within Iraq? Hundreds?

     Who blew up the Mosque that lit the spark for the civil war?

     Cui Bono?

     Open your mind.

     Posted by plunger at 08/19/2006 @ 08:17am

133. The Crimes of Mena

     Given the scope and implications of the Mena story, it may be easy to understand the media's initial skepticism and reluctance. But it was never so easy to dismiss the testimony arid suspicions of some of those close to the matter: Internal Revenue Service Agent Bill Duncan, Arkansas State Police investigator Russell Welch, Arkansas Attorney General J. Winston Bryant, Congressman Bill Alexander, and various other local law-enforcement officials and citizens.

     All of these people were convinced by the late eighties that there existed what Bryant termed "credible evidence" of the most serious criminal activity involving Mena between 1981 and 1986. They also believed that the crimes were committed with the acquiescence, if not the complicity, of elements of the U.S. government. But they couldn't seem to get the national media to pay attention.

     During the 1992 campaign, outside advisers and aides urged former California governor Jerry Brown to raise the Mena issue against Clinton - at least to ask why the Arkansas governor had not done more about such serious international crime so close to home. But Brown, too, backed away from the subject. I'll raise it if the major media break it first," he told aides. "The media will do it, Governor," one of them replied in frustration, "if only you'll raise it."

     Mena's obscure airport was thought by the l.R.S., the F.B.I., U.S. Customs, and the Arkansas State Police to be a base for Adler Berriman "Barry" Seal, a self-confessed, convicted smuggler whose operations had been linked to the intelligence community. Duncan and Welch both spent years building cases against Seal and others for drug smuggling and money laundering around Mena, only to see their own law-enforcement careers damaged in the process.

     What evidence they gathered, they have said in testimony and other public statements, was not sufficiently pursued by the then U.S. attorney for the region, J. Michael Fitzhugh, or by the l.R.S., Arkansas State Police, and other agencies.

     By 1992, to Duncan's and Welch's mounting dismay, several other official inquiries into the alleged Mena connection were similarly ineffectual or were stifled altogether, furthering their suspicions of government collusion and cover-up. In his testimony before Congress, Duncan said the l.R.S. "withdrew support for the operations" and further directed him to "withhold information from Congress and perjure myself."

     Duncan later testified that he had never before experienced "anything remotely akin to this type of interference.... Alarms were going off," he continued, "and as soon as Mr. Fitzhugh got involved, he was more aggressive in not allowing the subpoenas and in interfering in the investigative process."

     In a mass of startling new documentation - the more than 2,000 papers gathered by the authors from private and law-enforcement sources in a year-long nationwide search - answers are found and serious questions are posed.

     These newly unearthed documents - the veritable private papers of Barry Seal - substantiate at least part of what went on at Mena. What might be called the Seal archive dates back to 1981, when Seal began his operations at the Intermountain Regional Airport in Mena. The archive, all of it now in our possession, continues beyond February 1986, when Seal was murdered by Colombian assassins after he had testified in federal court in Las Vegas, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami for the U.S. government against leaders of the Medellin drug cartel.

     Mena, from 1981 to 1985, was indeed one of the centers for international smuggling traffic. According to official l.R.S. and D.E.A. calculations, sworn court testimony, and other corroborative records, the traffic amounted to thousands of kilos of cocaine and heroin and literally hundreds of millions of dollars in drug profits. According to a 1986 letter from the Louisiana attorney general to then U.S. attorney general Edwin Meese, Seal "smuggled between $3 billion and $5 billion of drugs into the U.S."

     A former member of the Army Special Forces, Seal had ties to the Central Intelligence Agency dating to the early 1970s. He had confided to relatives and others, according to their sworn statements, that he was a C.l.A. operative before and during the period when he established his operations at Mena. In one statement to Louisiana State Police, a Seal relative said, "Barry was into gunrunning and drug smuggling in Central and South America ... and he had done some time in El Salvadore [sic]." Another then added, "lt was true, but at the time Barry was working for the C.l.A."

     In a posthumous jeopardy-assessment case against Seal - also documented in the archive - the l.R.S. determined that money earned by Seal between 1984 and 1986 was not illegal because of his "C.l.A.-D.E.A. employment." The only public official acknowledgment of Seal's relationship to the C.l.A. has been in court and congressional testimony, and in various published accounts describing the C.l.A.'s installation of cameras in Seal's C- 123K transport plane, used in a highly celebrated 1984 sting operation against the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua.

     Among the aircraft flown in and out of Mena was Seal's C-123K cargo plane, christened Fat Lady. The records show that Fat Lady, serial number 54-0679, was sold by Seal months before his death. According to other files, the plane soon found its way to a phantom company of what became known in the Iran-Contra scandal as "the Enterprise," the C.l.A.-related secret entity managed by Oliver North and others to smuggle illegal weapons to the Nicaraguan Contra rebels. According to former D.E.A. agent Celerino Castillo and others, the aircraft was allegedly involved in a return traffic in cocaine, profits from which were then used to finance more clandestine gunrunning.

     F.A.A. records show that in October 1986, the same Fat Lady was shot down over Nicaragua with a load of arms destined for the Contras. Documents found on board the aircraft and seized by the Sandinistas included logs linking the plane with Area 51 - the nation's top-secret nuclear-weapons facility at the Nevada Test Site.

     Seal was scarcely alone in his extensive smuggling operation based in Mena from 1981 to 1986, commonly described in both federal and state law-enforcement files as one of the largest drug- trafficking operations in the United States at the time, if not in the history of the drug trade. Documents show Seal confiding on one occasion that he was "only the transport," pointing to an extensive network of narcotics distribution and finance in Arkansas and other states. After drugs were smuggled across the border, the duffel bags of cocaine would be retrieved by helicopters and dropped onto flatbed trucks destined for various American cities.

     But now the larger implications of the newly exposed evidence seem as disturbing as the criminal enormity it silhouettes. Like his modern freebooter's life, Seal's documents leave the political and legal landscape littered with stark questions.

     What, for example, happened to some nine different official investigations into Mena after 1987, from allegedly compromised federal grand juries to congressional inquiries suppressed by the National Security Council in 1988 under Ronald Reagan to still later Justice Department inaction under George Bush?

     Perhaps most telling is what is so visibly missing from the voluminous files. In thousands of pages reflecting a man of meticulous organization and plan- ning, Barry Seal seems to have felt singularly and utterly secure - if not somehow invulnerable - at least in the ceaseless air transport and delivery into the United States of tons of cocaine for more than five years. In a 1986 letter to the D.E.A., the commander and deputy commander of narcotics for the Louisiana State Police say that Seal "was being given apparent free rein to import drugs in conjunction with D.E.A. investigations with so little restraint and control on his actions as to allow him the opportunity to import drugs for himself should he have been so disposed."

     Seal's personal videotapes, in the authors' possession, show one scene in which he used U.S. Army paratroop equipment, as well as militarylike precision, in his drug-transporting operation. Then, in the middle of the afternoon after a number of dry runs, one of his airplanes dropped a load of several duffel bags attached to a parachute. Within seconds, the cargo sitting on the remote grass landing strip was retrieved by Seal and loaded onto a helicopter that had followed the low-flying aircraft. "This is the first daylight cocaine drop in the history of the state of Louisiana," Seal narrates on the tape. If the duffel bags seen in the smuggler's home movies were filled with cocaine - as Seal himself states on tape - that single load would have been worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

     If the Seal documents show anything, an attentive reader might conclude, it is that ominous implication of some official sanction. Over the entire episode looms the unmistakable shape of government collaboration in vast drug trafficking and gunrunning, and in a decade-long cover-up of criminality.

     As recently as March 1995, Arkansas state trooper Larry Patterson testified under oath, according to „The London Sunday Telegraph", that he and other officers "discussed repeatedly in Clinton's presence" the "large quantities of drugs being flown into the Mena airport, large quantities of money, large quantities of guns," indicating that Clinton may have known much more about Seal's activities than he has admitted.

     The crimes of Mena were real. That much is now documented beyond doubt. The only remaining issues are how far they extended, and who was responsible.

     http://oraclesyndicate.twoday.net/stories/2543661/

     Posted by plunger at 08/19/2006 @ 10:46am

134. I've been constantly e-mailing my senator, Dianne Feinstein, of California. Ever get the feeling none of them EVER SEE the e-mails sent to them? I'm waiting for her form letter to arrive again. Well, I clipped part of your excellent article and sent it on with a note attached. I'm hopeful if a huge number of others do that to her and to their own senators, some more of them may come alive. It is SO LATE ALREADY!!!

     At this point, Feingold has only a handful of Senate allies. Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin and California Democrat Barbara Boxer have been with the Wisconsinite since he proposed censure in March. In May, Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry signed on. But most Democrats, including New York Senator Hillary Clinton and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, have refused to embrace the proposal.(from Nation)

     RE: Censure motion So, Dianne, is there any possible chance that you may come on board at least this little wrist slap??? Especially now that you actually have the cover of a real district court judge telling you what most of your constituents have known for a LONG TIME....that this president is destroying the Bill of Rights ON YOUR WATCH and you are doing nothing about it. Your actions, and especially inactions, are duly noted. As an incumbent, you're there and probably staying there. But don't even delude yourself into thinking you have much real support left among many of the people who once voted for you.

     Posted by Linda Sutton at 08/19/2006 @ 12:46pm

135. You can almost smell the hatred and avarice (and desperation) already in the air!

     Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/18/2006 @ 5:19pm

     Arby -

     You really need to invest in 1) a dictionary, and 2) a thesaurus. And then spend a little money on a writing class at your local community college.

     'Avarice' is the immoderate desire for wealth (a trait more commonly associated with your side); in the context of your statement above, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I am guessing you meant 'arrogance,' but attempting to read your mind is a scary misadventure I'll not repeat.

     See, this is what makes the references recommended above such wonderful tools. You can actually find out what the words you are using mean (as opposed to knowing what you are talking about, which is altogether different).

     Just some friendly, helpful advice.

     Posted by skeletonman at 08/19/2006 @ 1:00pm

136. Rio:You can smell the hatred and avarice (and desperation) already in the air!

     pretty much every time you post.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/19/2006 @ 2:19pm

137. Censure " my foot " ~~ it's LONG past time to impeach this chronic Constitution abusing compassionate conservative.

     Posted by rndunn at 08/19/2006 @ 6:40pm

138. No, IMPEACH!

     Posted by Vic Anderson at 08/19/2006 @ 8:27pm

139. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/17/2006 @ 7:31pm

     Rio Loco...you and your should know all about interrment camps, what with GITMO, Abu Gahraib, and the black sites,...howzabout all the detention facilities they've been building here on US soil. And for what? Stalag 13

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/20/2006 @ 12:11am

140. Posted by ORWELL2005 08/18/2006 @ 4:07pm

     Feingold was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act. He will be called a "fringe liberal" regardless of what he does.

     I guess that would be because by definition he is on the fringe?

     Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2006 @ 10:12am

141. Posted by HMAN23 08/18/2006 @ 1:37pm

     Not really sure why you and others are SO sure of this. Is this just your gut call or is there something about the 6th Circuit I do not know?

     Most legal analyses (from all parts of the political spectrum) I have read indicates that Judge Taylor's decision is not sound in legal terms, and thus is mostly a political document, particularly with respect to its conclusory nature. The legality of Bush's actions is still very much in play and in dispute. My opinion is that Bush is fully within the letter and intent of the law in wiretapping potential terrorists phone calls, and indeed not a whit of evidence indicates that anyone else was in fact wiretapped, notwithstanding the typical bloviating and overheated rhetoric of the pathological Bush-haters here and elsewhere.

     From what I thought, the 6th is pretty evenly split.

     You're presuming here that the courts are as thoroughly politicized as every other segment of the government, i.e., that the Sixth has a full complement of Anna Diggs Taylor Liberals that will prostitute their legal judgement to the political requirements of the day. Remember, it is all you chronic Bush-haters who have made the a priori call from day one that Bush is a criminal, when the final determination of the courts has yet to been issued at all. While Anna Diggs Taylor readily enough served up the judgement that was asked of her, I like to think that the higher courts won't be so pliable. After all, Taylor's agenda was so clear (her judgement was pretty uniformly condemned across the political spectrum) that it should put a damper on this kind of partisanship.

     Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2006 @ 10:31am

142. But in any case, we shall see in the next few months how Judge Taylor's decision stands up to judicial oversight. While you seem to confidently presume that the liberal half of higher courts will rule the 'correct' way, I like to think that legal opinions are not quite so predictable. And I'm willing to live with whatever comes out of it.

     Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2006 @ 10:41am

143. "... and indeed not a whit of evidence indicates that anyone else was in fact wiretapped, notwithstanding the typical bloviating and overheated rhetoric of the pathological Bush-haters here and elsewhere."

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/20/2006 @ 10:31am

     How the fuck can there be evidence of ANYTHING, without proper papers filed with the SERCRET FISA court. (Ya know, the court previously maligned for rubber stamping any warrant. Only bush has ever been turned down. And even then, only a handful of times.)

     MAYBE he only spies on terrorists. Maybe he spies on anyone he feels like. (Dissidents, political rivals etc.)

     Do I KNOW he does? No.

     Do you KNOW he doesn't? No.

     That's why, in America, we have a system of courts, that issue warrants. None of his legitimate targets would be left unmonitored with warrants.

     None.

     So the whole, "He's just trying to keep us safe", obsfucation, is just that. And you know it. Or you are stupid. Pick one. Talk about "bloviating and overheated rhetoric".

     Eric

     Posted by Malcontent at 08/20/2006 @ 4:29pm

144. Posted by MALCONTENT 08/20/2006 @ 4:29pm

     Do you KNOW he doesn't? No.

     Well, as I understand it, some of the President's bitterest political enemies in the Senate have been fully briefed on everyone that has been wiretapped. What I'm saying is that if there was any ammunition there, I'm pretty sure we'd know about it. My case is supported by the dog that doesn't bark, yours seems to be buttressed only by your hatred and paranoia.

     Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2006 @ 5:03pm

145. Well, as I understand it, some of the President's bitterest political enemies in the Senate have been fully briefed on everyone that has been wiretapped.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/20/2006 @ 5:03pm

     they were briefed on the program, not the individual targets.

     and senators can't issue warrants, which means they can't substitute for a court.

     the fall semester is fast approaching at your local community college. Perhaps an entry level class in government could help clear some of this up for you

     Posted by Will C. at 08/20/2006 @ 5:25pm

146. Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/20/2006 @ 5:03pm

     I don't even trust the "President's bitterest political enemies". (The fact that they are not told what goes on, day to day, notwithstanding). Nor should I have to. As an American, I have constitutional protections and courts to back them up. Why do you hate America and The Constitution?

     Does that make me paranoid? Are you saying, concern over lack of constitutional protection, is paranoia?

     How about idiocy? I say that is why we have courts and a constitution.

     Record keeping keeps everyone (without a shredder), honest. Even if he gets bogus warrants, we'll not know now, cause it is a secret court. But, the truth will come out so lies now would destroy the president's "legacy" that they are all so fond of.

     " My case is supported by the dog that doesn't bark, yours seems to be buttressed only by your hatred and paranoia."

     My case is supported by history, The Constitution and 200yrs. of court precident.

     I'm glad mute dogs make you feel so secure. I think I'll stick to constitutional, coherent governance.

     Eric

     Posted by Malcontent at 08/20/2006 @ 6:28pm

147. Posted by WILL C. 08/20/2006 @ 5:25pm

     they were briefed on the program, not the individual targets.

     And I'll ask you, Will, what reason do you have, other than your blind hatred and paranoia, that anyone other than suspected terrorists were wiretapped?

     Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2006 @ 7:19pm

148. I don't even trust the "President's bitterest political enemies". (The fact that they are not told what goes on, day to day, notwithstanding). Nor should I have to. As an American, I have constitutional protections and courts to back them up. Why do you hate America and The Constitution?

     I confess you've lost me here, Eric. Since when did it become settled fact that disagreeing with you equates to hating America and the Constitution? If George Bush has indeed violated the Constitution as you charge, it will be found out in due course. The Left has indeed won a victory in its war on George Bush, but by all accounts it was at the expense of quality jurisprudence and what was left of a judge's reputation, and it is bound to be ephemeral. Moreover, I find it quite an odd charge coming from someone on the Left, which generally makes no bones about its hatred for America (e.g., Cindy Sheehan, Ward Churchill, ad nauseum).

     Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2006 @ 7:25pm

149. I must confess that part of the Left's hysteria on this issue is their despair at the patently obvious fact that George Bush and his Administration has done a fantastic job of keeping this country safe from further terrorist attacks since 9/11. What better way to make Bush look bad than to attack the very programs that make this country safe, or at least expose these programs such that the terrorists are aware of them? It's a win/win situation for the left, especially if weakening our defenses against terrorism actually make it easier for more Americans to be killed. Then you can actually say, 'See you stupid Bush voters, we told you he couldn't keep you safe.' So maybe you folks are pretty smart, after all.

     Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2006 @ 7:42pm

150. And I'll ask you, Will, what reason do you have, other than your blind hatred and paranoia, that anyone other than suspected terrorists were wiretapped?

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/20/2006 @ 7:19pm

     the last time you hamsters asked us to trust your word... it turned out saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction.

     It doesn't take hate or paranoia to expect our president to obey the law. But it certainly does take hate and paranoia to defend him when he is breaking it: a hatred of america and it's laws and a paranoia of what will happen to you when we find the true depths of your duplicity

     Posted by Will C. at 08/20/2006 @ 7:43pm

151. Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/20/2006 @ 7:42pm

     perhaps the lack of attacks on our country is just usammas way of saying thanks for letting me go at tora bora.

     (And I appreciate how nice you were to my family, letting them all fly home when all other flights were grounded)

     Posted by Will C. at 08/20/2006 @ 7:48pm

152. Pontificator

     They already admitted to wiretapping various anti-war groups. Said it was a "mistake" they have since corrected. Apparently they think we were born yesterday...

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/20/2006 @ 8:34pm

153. Pontificus – Checking back on the weekend posts, I must say you are all over the place.

     I like to think that legal opinions are not quite so predictable.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/20/2006 @ 10:41am

     Really? But . . .

     it is bound to be ephemeral.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/20/2006 @ 7:25pm

     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 08/18/2006 @ 6:10pm

     Even the liberals at the WaPo know this is a loser from the get-go.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/18/2006 @ 6:19pm

     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

     I a few months time, Judge Taylor will be reversed, by which time all of this will be forgotten.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/18/2006 @ 6:57pm

     And, among other things:

     indeed not a whit of evidence indicates that anyone else was in fact wiretapped, notwithstanding the typical bloviating and overheated rhetoric of the pathological Bush-haters here and elsewhere.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/20/2006 @ 10:31am

     Are you really hanging your hat on the notion that no wiretapping happened – even after Bush has admitted it has, after Gonzales has admitted it has, after the government did not even dispute in court that it has, and after Judge Taylor issued findings that it has?

     You're presuming here that the courts are as thoroughly politicized as every other segment of the government . . .

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/20/2006 @ 10:31am

     I am presume nothing like that. You do – if the decision does not go the way you would like it. Your first reaction to a decision that you do not agree with is to make charges that the opinion is nothing more than a "political document." That always seems to be the case with defenders of this administration. Anything that comes out against Bush is nothing more than partisan politics. Well, at least I have the intellectual honesty to admit that legal minds deserving of respect can differ on the issue. When this does get to the Supreme Court, the most esteemed legal judges in this country might not reach a unanimous decision.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/20/2006 @ 9:40pm

154. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 08/20/2006 @ 8:34pm

     They already admitted to wiretapping various anti-war groups. Said it was a "mistake" they have since corrected. Apparently they think we were born yesterday...

     Hmmm...I didn't hear anything about that, do you have a link? And how did this purported admission come about? Does it fit into the leftist presumption that Bush intends to use his wiretapping capabilities to subvert the civil liberties of all Americans, or does it tend more to confirm my presumption that George Bush is doing his best with his Congressionally-given war powers and Executive mandate to protect this country from terrorists?

     Posted by pontificus at 08/21/2006 @ 08:57am

155. Hmmm...I didn't hear anything about that, do you have a link?

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/21/2006 @ 08:57am

     The assertion isn't enough?

     Posted by Will C. at 08/21/2006 @ 09:20am

156. don't tell me that you're slipping into hatred and paranoia mode

     Posted by Will C. at 08/21/2006 @ 09:20am

157. Posted by HMAN23 08/20/2006 @ 9:40pm

     Are you really hanging your hat on the notion that no wiretapping happened – even after Bush has admitted it has, after Gonzales has admitted it has, after the government did not even dispute in court that it has, and after Judge Taylor issued findings that it has?

     No, I'm sure that quite a bit of wiretapping has occurred, and I would hope that quite a bit of it will continue as long as it is fruitful in protecting the country. If Bush wasn't doing it, I don't think he would be doing his job.

     I am presume nothing like that. You do – if the decision does not go the way you would like it. Your first reaction to a decision that you do not agree with is to make charges that the opinion is nothing more than a "political document."

     My first reaction is that I don't like the decision, that's true. But as I have stated previously, there's an awful lot of legal analysts who state that Taylor's decision is legally vacuous and surprisingly conclusory. So I think I'm quite well justified in labelling it a political decision.

     That always seems to be the case with defenders of this administration. Anything that comes out against Bush is nothing more than partisan politics.

     If it seems so, it's because Bush's defenders are quite supportive of the idea that the President wakes up every day with the primary goal of protecting this country from terrorism. On the other hand, many of the President's critics, especially those on the left, seem to wake up with the idea of how they can best undermine the Bush Administration, regardless of how such an agenda would impact the safety of this country. As I stated before, such an agenda is a win/win for many leftists. Who's right? That's what we're discussing here.

     Well, at least I have the intellectual honesty to admit that legal minds deserving of respect can differ on the issue. When this does get to the Supreme Court, the most esteemed legal judges in this country might not reach a unanimous decision.

     Agreed. And for what it's worth, I do think you have intellectual honesty.

     Posted by pontificus at 08/21/2006 @ 09:26am

158. My first reaction is that I don't like the decision, that's true. But as I have stated previously, there's an awful lot of legal analysts who state that Taylor's decision is legally vacuous and surprisingly conclusory. So I think I'm quite well justified in labelling it a political decision.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/21/2006 @ 09:26am

     To my knowledge, an appeals court has never overturned a lower court decision that reached the right result simply because it was poorly written. That sort of analysis is left to law review articles and scholars.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/21/2006 @ 09:35am

159. Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/21/2006 @ 08:57am

     Yeah, I can see how your missed it, it was only on EVERY national news feed last year. But I would guess that since it got little play on Faux News, you might have missed it. Try MSNBC or FNB the latter listing refs to other news sources....

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/21/2006 @ 09:38am

160. And BTW Pontificator...this surveillance includes domestic email traffic. Still like the feeling of Clueless Leader giving you a rectal exam?

     http://www.progressive.org/mag_mc071806a

     http://911review.org/news/ACLU_sues_Pentagon.html

     http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/07/27/44c852f 623603

     http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/node/647

     http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2006/4/4/pentagonListensInOnAntiwarGro ups

     http://thephoenix.com/article_ektid15725.aspx

     http://www.dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=20897

     http://www.progressive.org/mag_mc121605

     http://www.coxwashington.com/reporters/content/reporters/stories/BC_TARG ET12_COX.html

     http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/print/1/displaymode/1098/

     http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1215/dailyUpdate.html

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/21/2006 @ 09:44am

161. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 08/21/2006 @ 09:44am

     Domestic internet traffic monitoring by the government was begun during the later years of the Clinton Administration. Run a search on 'Carnivore' and you'll be able to verify that. So the Bush paranoia doesn't apply here.

     Posted by pontificus at 08/21/2006 @ 10:54am

162. Posted by HMAN23 08/21/2006 @ 09:35am

     To my knowledge, an appeals court has never overturned a lower court decision that reached the right result simply because it was poorly written. That sort of analysis is left to law review articles and scholars.

     Perhaps. But what I'm saying is I think it's the position of many others, including myself, that the real legal consideration of Bush's use of the NSA wiretapping has only just begun, and that Taylor's decision is only a poor start from a legal perspective. So we should all reserve our judgement as to whether the program is illegal, since the final word has not yet been spoken.

     Posted by pontificus at 08/21/2006 @ 10:59am

163. OK Pontificus. You just seemed pretty certain earlier that this decision would be reversed.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/21/2006 @ 11:01am

164. Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/21/2006 @ 10:54am

     Try again Ponty. Dubya and the NeoGestapo have been accused of hardwiring telecom/internet fishing nets into the backbone of the US communication system. This circumvents the need for pesky things like warrants as were required under Carnivore. So while snooping did occur on occasion back when (Note: carnivore was to spy on intended criminals, Dubya's seine net is a fishing expedition to FIND criminals)

     From a website... "You may have heard about Carnivore, a controversial program developed by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to give the agency access to the online/e-mail activities of suspected criminals." And per Wikipedia, it is noted that cooperation of ISPs was needed (as in a warranted search....kinda like FISA, the thing NOT being used by Chimpy)

     Quite different from the new "catch all" techniques...see: Gone Fishin'

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/21/2006 @ 11:08am

165. ooops...intended should read "suspected"

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/21/2006 @ 11:10am

166. Censuring this president falls short of justice. I would like to see this administration tried for lying and other high crimes and misdeamors and if Bush and others in his adminsitration are found guilty they should be incarcerated like common criminals.

     Posted by kevin99999 at 08/21/2006 @ 12:35pm

167. If we - Dems I mean - can elect a Dem House majority in the congress in 80 + or - days, then 2 branches of the three in American gov't will be on the side of the U S Constitution! Get It? gpr

     Posted by gpr at 08/21/2006 @ 5:00pm

168. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 08/21/2006 @ 11:08am

     Try again Ponty. Dubya and the NeoGestapo have been accused of hardwiring telecom/internet fishing nets into the backbone of the US communication system. This circumvents the need for pesky things like warrants as were required under Carnivore. So while snooping did occur on occasion back when (Note: carnivore was to spy on intended criminals, Dubya's seine net is a fishing expedition to FIND criminals)

     Gee, let's see here. Carnivore was given to the FBI during the Clinton years in order to tap into the internet communications of suspected criminals. George Bush was using NSA wiretaps to tap into international phone calls of suspected terrorists. In the first case, I'm supposed to be sanguine about the prospects of abuse. In the second case, you would have me slavering like most of your ilk on the left. Sorry, just can't get there without aforementioned blind hatred of George Bush.

     And per Wikipedia, it is noted that cooperation of ISPs was needed (as in a warranted search....kinda like FISA, the thing NOT being used by Chimpy)

     That's how I knew about Carnivore - I worked for one of aforesaid ISP's. How do you know they required a warrant? I should note that the Clintons used IRS audits quite liberally on those who opposed them. Do you know for sure that warrants were required under Carnivore?

     Posted by pontificus at 08/21/2006 @ 6:51pm

169. PONTIFICUS 08/21/2006 @ 6:51pm

     Yes, according to the government, it used Carnivore only after getting a warrant. You can do your own digging if you like, but that was the case. This is obviously differnet than the TSP, which admittedly was done WITHOUT a warrant.

     Now perhaps the Justice Dept. during the Clinton years used Carnivore without a warrant - I cannot be sure. But, I never read anything indicating that was the case or heard of allegations this was the case (certainly not as a widespread policy like the TSP). To be sure, privacy groups took issue with certain aspects of Carnivore - but the basic requirement of getting a warrant was followed. Any ISP provider that provided information did so pursuant to a court order or a warrant. If you can come up with a warrantless use of Carnivore, I am all ears (eyes).

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/21/2006 @ 7:49pm

170. and the waiting begins

     tic tic tic tic tic....

     Posted by Will C. at 08/21/2006 @ 10:11pm

171. Posted by HMAN23 08/21/2006 @ 7:49pm

     Any ISP provider that provided information did so pursuant to a court order or a warrant. If you can come up with a warrantless use of Carnivore, I am all ears (eyes).

     Not hard to do, HMAN; this from a June 2001 article regarding use of Carnivore during the last year of the Clinton Administration:

     The FBI in congressional testimony last year stressed that it intercepts communications traveling over the Internet only when it has court orders permitting it to do so.

     FBI representatives added that there are rare "emergency" cases where the system was used without such orders.

     http://tinyurl.com/j5pek

     I think this proves the point. But I don't have any more reason to believe that the Clintons used Carnivore to eavesdrop on their political enemies than any chronic Bush hater here has to believe that NSA wiretapping has been used for any other purpose than but to protect the country, which supports my original point.

     I say this even though it is known that the Clintons did pull FBI files on their enemies and did use the IRS to audit them.

     Posted by pontificus at 08/22/2006 @ 1:43pm

172. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln did many things that would, during normal times, be patently illegal. But as he famously said, 'the US Constitution is not a suicide pact.' Meaning, of course, if the preservation of the Union was at stake, the Constitution should not serve as an impediment.

     Now of course, today, we have two wars in full swing: the war the terrorists are waging on our country, and the war the left is waging against George Bush. Most of America, me included, is interested in winning the war against terrorism, and we want to see whatever tools we have brought to bear in order to make sure that no further 9/11's occur. If this means eavesdropping on terrorists, I'm all for it, and I really could not care less if their 'rights' are violated, any more than Abe Lincoln worried about the 'rights' of rebel sympathizers he jailed without trial. I think that Bush is well within his powers (Executive and Congressionally mandated) when he uses NSA wiretaps to protect this country, and further, he would be negligent if he did not do so. Judging by the results, Bush has protected this country quite well so far, and so long as he does not use those powers for his own partisan gain, we should all hope that that will remain the case.

     Posted by pontificus at 08/22/2006 @ 2:35pm

173. Interesting to see that the title of Nichol's piece is based on the false premise that the President's actions are 'lawless', which has not been determined yet. Certainly, if the President's actions are found to be lawless, then it may be time to censure, if not impeach, but we're not their yet. Apparently, Judge Taylor's decision bases it's conclusion on the idea that the 4th Amendment requires the President to obtain warrants in all cases, therefore if the President orders wiretaps without a warrant, then he is 'lawless'. But the key question is whether the 4th Amendment actually says what Judge Taylor claims it says. Many legal experts disagree with her premise, thus her final judgement is pretty widely assumed to be in doubt.

     Posted by pontificus at 08/22/2006 @ 2:52pm

174. Pontificus -

     OK - you found an example where a warrant or court order was not obtained an I did ask for an example. I admit I am troubled by the allegations in the article; particularly if no recognized exigency was present in those "rare emergency cases." Understand, I am not an advocate for Carnivore, I just think your citation to it doesn't do much for your argument on the TSP. Like I said earlier, there are many apsects of Carnivore that privacy advocates are worried about and I am particularly concerned about the potential for abuse. But one thing you ignore is that the general practice using Carnivore absent "emergencies" was to seek a warrant or court order. This is not the case with the TSP and is the principle legal issue at play. Now I might side with the notion that the so-called emergency uses of it were, in fact, illegal if I knew more facts and it was shown that the uses in those cases were not done pursuant to a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. However, FISA allows for emergency situtations by allowing a 72 hour period to seek a warrant after the surveillance. Bush was willfully circumvented this and the TSP operates, admittedly, without warrants.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/22/2006 @ 3:29pm

175. Interesting to see that the title of Nichol's piece is based on the false premise that the President's actions are 'lawless', which has not been determined yet.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/22/2006 @ 2:52pm

     Technically, Nichols is correct - it has been determined. By a U.S. District Court Judge. Until her ruling is overturned on appeal, her decision stands. When someone is convicted at trial and appeals the decision, they are still "convicted" unless and until their conviction is overturned by an appelate court. So while some may doubt the outcome on appeal, as of today, the TSP is illegal.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/22/2006 @ 3:34pm

176. Censure?? that time has come and gone, IMPEACHMENT is the only democratic course to follow at this time. Of course the bullock-lacking congress looking for their cut in the monies taken from the middle class are not so inclined..."lobbyst job anyone?" then there are these fascists cubans in the Congress, like Ileanah rotten-german (can you say NAZY hidding in Central America?)

     Kasrl roves dad, a NAZI in Germany Bush W family, bankers and apologetics for the NAZIS Scheneeger (or whatever) NAZI father...do you not see a pattern?

     hello...is anybody home???

     obviously not

     go back to your, american Idol-fanatical-worship-ice cream binges-computer games-bling-bling-street speeding-wasting oil-disposer-society-what me read?ignoramuses-jerking-off to online porn- closet homos-logo wearing-me me me-not "now honey"-brain dead-matrixed-little lives

     Posted by tom paine at 08/22/2006 @ 3:45pm

177. Do you know for sure that warrants were required under Carnivore?

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/21/2006 @ 6:51pm

     You have documents that point otherwise?

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/23/2006 @ 01:29am

178. If only the Senate cared about the American people, they don't care.President Bush, and I use that term loosely, should be censured and impeached, but no one in the Senate has the balls or the brains to initiate this action. They have their own agenda and it is not for the betterment of the USA.

     Posted by Pats at 08/23/2006 @ 07:59am

179. However, Armey's letter Thursday argues that there are now "serious constitutional questions" surrounding Carnivore.

     The nation's founding fathers "quite clearly decided to sacrifice [some] efficiency for the sake of protecting citizens from overly intrusive government," Armey wrote.

     It's interesting how quickly conservatives can flip flop [tinyurl.com]

     And furthermore, during the american civil war...

     Posted by Will C. at 08/23/2006 @ 09:02am

180. Ha Ha Ha Ha

     Posted by Will C. at 08/23/2006 @ 09:02am

181. Posted by HMAN23 08/22/2006 @ 3:34pm

     Technically, Nichols is correct - it has been determined. By a U.S. District Court Judge. Until her ruling is overturned on appeal, her decision stands.

     Technically, true, but her decision has also been stayed pending appeal.

     So while some may doubt the outcome on appeal, as of today, the TSP is illegal.

     A lot more than "some", but we shall see.

     Posted by pontificus at 08/23/2006 @ 10:16am

182. Posted by WILL C. 08/23/2006 @ 09:02am

     It's interesting how quickly conservatives can flip flop [tinyurl.com]

     There's an interesting editorial along these lines by Jonah Goldberg in the LAT, you should read it. The basic idea is that the Constitution has always been flexible when it comes to national defense matters:

     Liberals normally like their penumbras emanating and their Commerce Clause written in Silly Putty while we conservatives like our Constitution like our beef jerky - cold, dead, tough to chew through. So aren't conservatives using a double standard, too?

     It may depend whom you're talking about, but I think not. Long before the concept of a living Constitution was hatched, the authors of the original version - as well as the courts interpreting it - understood that the executive branch has the authority and flexibility to conduct foreign policy and wage war. Terrorists may be criminals, but they aren't merely criminals. They're waging war against us and doing so in ways never imagined by the founders. They don't want territory or treaties, and they don't use armies and cannons. They want to make our own technology and freedoms into weapons they can use against us.

     This is as opposed to those leftists who want to remake the Constitution according to every passing fad, somewhat along the lines of this patent absurdity:

     "We do not insist that our medicine, our technology, or even our entertainment, all remain in an obsolete state; why would we demand that the law be given such treatment? It seems absurd to suggest that we can change the speed limit to reflect improved technology but we cannot interpret the Constitution to reflect improvements in society."

     http://tinyurl.com/o4wda

     By the way, Will, should I take is confirmed, since you never seem to deny it, that for the left, the war on Bush trumps the war on terror?

     Posted by pontificus at 08/23/2006 @ 10:23am

183. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 08/23/2006 @ 01:29am

     You have documents that point otherwise?

     I have statements by the FBI that they do not always use warrants. Did you want something else?

     Posted by pontificus at 08/23/2006 @ 10:25am

184. Posted by HMAN23 08/22/2006 @ 3:29pm

     OK - you found an example where a warrant or court order was not obtained an I did ask for an example. I admit I am troubled by the allegations in the article; particularly if no recognized exigency was present in those "rare emergency cases." Understand, I am not an advocate for Carnivore, I just think your citation to it doesn't do much for your argument on the TSP. Like I said earlier, there are many apsects of Carnivore that privacy advocates are worried about and I am particularly concerned about the potential for abuse. But one thing you ignore is that the general practice using Carnivore absent "emergencies" was to seek a warrant or court order. This is not the case with the TSP and is the principle legal issue at play. Now I might side with the notion that the so-called emergency uses of it were, in fact, illegal if I knew more facts and it was shown that the uses in those cases were not done pursuant to a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. However, FISA allows for emergency situtations by allowing a 72 hour period to seek a warrant after the surveillance. Bush was willfully circumvented this and the TSP operates, admittedly, without warrants.

     You're making the distinction that since the FBI claims they only used Carnivore without warrants during 'non-emergencies', then that is fundamentally different than the President's use of the TSP systematically without warrants. Fair enough, but there is also the fundamental difference today that we are in a state of war, whereas previous to 9/11, we were not. This difference represents the difference between the left, which does not believe we are at war, and the right, which believes we are. Indeed, at the heart of most of the leftist outrage is the denial that we are at war, and I believe Kerry articulated this position quite well while losing the last Presidential election.

     Posted by pontificus at 08/23/2006 @ 10:32am

185. From an article in today's NYT regarding Judge Taylor's lack of legal reasoning supporting her decision. For those of you on the left, I would take this as a warning from your newspaper that you can expect bad things going forward in the War on Bush and the War on the War on Terror.

     If the words of the written opinion reveal that the judge did not follow the discipline of the judicial process, what sense does it make to take the judge's word about what the law means over the word of the president? If the judge's own writing does not support a belief that the rule of law has substance and depth, that law is something apart from political will, the significance of saying the president has gone beyond the limits of the law evaporates.

     http://tinyurl.com/nlu27

     Posted by pontificus at 08/23/2006 @ 11:10am

186. "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 08/18/2006 @ 12:46am

     What you have posted neglects to include the context or the conclusion of Jefferson's essay.

     From these examples and principles you may see what I think on the question proposed. They do not go to the case of persons charged with petty duties, where consequences are trifling, and time allowed for a legal course, nor to authorize them to take such cases out of the written law. In these, the example of overleaping the law is of greater evil than a strict adherence to its imperfect provisions.

     Thomas Jefferson to John B. Colvin

     As you can see, Jefferson isn't advocating the right to ignore the law willy-nilly, but doing so under certain, relatively specific, circumstances where the law isn't sufficient for the purpose. Such is not the case with warrantless spying by the NSA. FISA law provides a leeway Bush just didn't bother to make use of, and in his hubris, Bush is guilty of committing the greater evil.

     The question is why? Since FISA provides an avenue for obtaining warrants after the fact, what purpose does Bush's ignoring FISA serve? What is the administration hiding?

     Could it be this administration is abusing the program to spy on political foes?

     Posted by scoff0165 at 08/23/2006 @ 11:20am

187. Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/23/2006 @ 10:25am

     Still broad categorical differences between the two (not that I am defending Carnivore - far from it, they too should have gotten proper warrants) but the BushCo plan purposely eschews the need for warrants. In other words, blatant disregard for the law is policy, rather than intermittent malfeasance.

     Or are you saying since the FBI did something illegal then Dubya can too..the 2 wrongs make a right-wing argument scenario.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/23/2006 @ 12:26pm

188. Hardly anyone knows this, But Judge Anna Diggs Taylor (a J. Carter appointee) in the past year has donated $10,000 to the ACLU Chapter in Michigan! I think there was some favoritism going on here.

     Posted by jmcknight at 08/23/2006 @ 1:13pm

189. JMcKnight - you got your facts wrong. Obviously explaining why "hardly anyone knows this."

     Judge Taylor was secretary and trustee for the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan (CFSEM), which made contirbutions to the ACLU.

     Apparently the NSA and other defendants did not think it was a big enough deal to move for the judge to recuse herself, but hey, feel free to bring it up like all the rest AFTER she issued her decision. And, since it's ok for Justice Scalia to hear cases involving his fishing-buddy Dick Cheney, shwta's the big deal?

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2006 @ 2:17pm

190. Pontificus -

     You need to get your facts straight too. The decision was not stayed pending appeal. Taylor agreed to stay the decision until she holds a hearing on the issue Sept. 7. She may decide to stay her order or maybe not. Of course, the government can always ask the Court of Appeals to stay it, but that has not happened yet.

     Jeez, it's like a game of telephone with some of you guys.

     "we are in a state of war" is nonsense; when did this start again? After 9/11? That's funny a whole bunch of neo-cons claim we have been at war with the "terrorists" since the 1970's or earlier. So when did this war start again? Because, FISA you know, has a exception for that. Is it anything like the WAR on Drugs?

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2006 @ 2:28pm

191. "Is it anything like the WAR on Drugs?"

     Posted by HMAN23 08/23/2006 @ 2:28pm

     It's exactly like the war on drugs. It is the new, rightwing war on civil liberties.

     And so much more effective. If you were on the wrong sid eof the "drug war", you were a lowly "drug user". Oooooooo... like the rest of the world.

     Now, if you are against the "war on terror". You aren't even a real American.

     Whatever it takes for the uptight, retarded right to wage culture war.

     Eric

     Posted by Malcontent at 08/23/2006 @ 6:48pm

192. There's an interesting editorial along these lines by Jonah Goldberg in the LAT, you should read it. The basic idea is that the Constitution has always been flexible when it comes to national defense matters:

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/23/2006 @ 10:23am

     It's always very flexible... when the strict constructionists are interpreting it

     Posted by Will C. at 08/23/2006 @ 11:31pm

193. This is as opposed to those leftists who want to remake the Constitution according to every passing fad, somewhat along the lines of this patent absurdity:

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/23/2006 @ 10:23am

     the fourh amendment isn't a passing fad. And there is nothing in article two that gives the executive the power to ignore it for any reason

     Posted by Will C. at 08/23/2006 @ 11:33pm

194. By the way, Will, should I take is confirmed, since you never seem to deny it, that for the left, the war on Bush trumps the war on terror?

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/23/2006 @ 10:23am

     why would I confirm or deny anything. You've never accused me. Are you accusing me of something now?

     please present your evidence

     (of course we won't hope for any actual ideas)

     Posted by Will C. at 08/23/2006 @ 11:36pm

195. Posted by WILL C. 08/23/2006 @ 11:33pm

     Will, your familiarity with the history of Presidential powers during wartime vis-a-vis the Constitution is abysmal. I suggest you read up the wartime activities of Presidents Lincoln and Roosevelt to get a feel for how much the 4th Amendment matters in wartime. Unless you're arguing we're not at war. If so, see my points above regarding the results of the most recent Presidential election.

     Posted by pontificus at 08/24/2006 @ 12:16am

196. Posted by WILL C. 08/23/2006 @ 11:36pm

     You've never accused me. Are you accusing me of something now?

     Okay, Will, I'll accuse you (and many others here) of this: putting your own hatred of George Bush over that of the national interest, or worse yet, confusing your irrational hatred with the national interest. Please tell me which of these that you deny, then we'll discuss the evidence and particulars.

     Posted by pontificus at 08/24/2006 @ 12:20am

197. HMAN,

     The assertion that Bush broke the law involves an implicit rejection of the Administration's argument that surveillance is permitted under the War Powers Resolution granted by Congress to the President shortly after 9/11:

     [the Administration] asserted that Congress implicitly created an exception to FISA's warrant requirement by authorizing President Bush to use military force in response to the destruction of the World Trade Center and a wing of the Pentagon. The congressional resolution of Sept. 18, 2001, formally titled "Authorization for the Use of Military Force," made no reference to surveillance or to the president's intelligence-gathering powers, and the Bush administration made no public claim of new authority until news accounts disclosed the secret NSA operation.

     But Moschella argued yesterday that espionage is "a fundamental incident to the use of military force" and that its absence from the resolution "cannot be read to exclude this long-recognized and essential authority to conduct communications intelligence targeted at the enemy." Such eavesdropping, he wrote, necessarily included conversations in which one party is in the United States.

     Any person charging the President as 'lawless', be it Judge Taylor or any poster here, needs to say why the Administration's argument is false. Judge Taylor failed to address the Administration's assertion, and thus her decision is almost universally seen as weak if not altogether invalid.

     Posted by pontificus at 08/24/2006 @ 12:30am

198. lease tell me which of these that you deny, then we'll discuss the evidence and particulars.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/24/2006 @ 12:20am

     I have the right to see any and all evidence held by the accuser before entering a plea.

     (this isn't another one of your unsubstantiated accusations is it)

     Posted by Will C. at 08/24/2006 @ 09:09am

199. PONTIFICUS:

     Your misunderstanding of our disliking Bush is monumental. You can't imagine that we actually have real, substantive reasons for wanting to be rid of this man. Had he not been breaking the law, lying to take us to war, lying to keep us there, lying about his intentions for social security, lying about tort reform, lying about tax cuts, bringing with him the worst period of partisanship and cronyism in Washington's history, etc etc, I doubt there would be the level of acrimony for Bush. But hey, he did. So we are fully within our rights to hate this administration, and everything for which it stands. He wasn't even elected! He was appointed! So his entire administration has been a tragic farce... driving the country right off the rails.

     You should stop assuming that our reactions to and acrimony toward the Bush administration is emotionally based. It's not. It's based on very real, fundamental problems with it, most of which were self-created. SO don't sit there all smugly and try to preach that we are irrationally hating Bush, just as a way to conveniently dismiss our quarrel. That's lazy and dishonest.

     Posted by jorcheim at 08/24/2006 @ 09:10am

200. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/24/2006 @ 08:48am

     conflict of interest rio? but the ACLU, like our judges are supposed to do (and taylor did), supports the bill of rights too.

     no conflict

     Posted by Will C. at 08/24/2006 @ 09:12am

201. Judge Taylor failed to address the Administration's assertion.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/24/2006 @ 12:30am

     Try Section VII of the opinion (pages 37-39). It's the section titled "Authorization to Use Military Force" in bold letters.

     You still haven't read the opinion, have you?

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/24/2006 @ 11:17am

202. Posted by JORCHEIM 08/24/2006 @ 09:10am

     Your misunderstanding of our disliking Bush is monumental.

     I don't think so, and I don't call it 'disliking'. I call it 'irrational hatred'.

     You can't imagine that we actually have real, substantive reasons for wanting to be rid of this man.

     Oh no, I do imagine that you have real reasons for hating him. You hate him because George Bush is the personification of everything the left hates about America. Your hatred for him is no different from the hatred the left had for Ronald Reagan, and the hatred you will have for whomever George Bush's successor is. My thesis is that all of the so-called 'issues' you have with Bush, and have had with Reagan, are spurious reasons necessitated by the leftist agenda.

     Had he not been breaking the law, lying to take us to war, lying to keep us there, lying about his intentions for social security, lying about tort reform, lying about tax cuts, bringing with him the worst period of partisanship and cronyism in Washington's history, etc etc, I doubt there would be the level of acrimony for Bush.

     What a bunch of hogwash. The so-called 'lies' that Bush told are nothing but fabrications of the left. Your so-called outrage is of a piece with those ridiculous Muslims who flagellate themselves into a religtious fervor. The 'partisanship' you claim that Bush brought is nothing but what the left harbors in its hearts towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. You, sir, are a patent phony.

     But hey, he did. So we are fully within our rights to hate this administration, and everything for which it stands. He wasn't even elected! He was appointed!

     Another warm crock of shit. Save it for your fellow gullible leftists, you're not fooling anyone else.

     So his entire administration has been a tragic farce... driving the country right off the rails.

     Horseshit.

     You should stop assuming that our reactions to and acrimony toward the Bush administration is emotionally based. It's not.

     Yes, it is.

     It's based on very real, fundamental problems with it, most of which were self-created. SO don't sit there all smugly and try to preach that we are irrationally hating Bush, just as a way to conveniently dismiss our quarrel. That's lazy and dishonest.

     It's your knee-jerk hatred of Bush that is lazy and dishonest. Most of your so-called grievances with Bush are fabricated out of whole cloth.

     Posted by pontificus at 08/24/2006 @ 12:39pm

203. Posted by HMAN23 08/24/2006 @ 11:17am

     You still haven't read the opinion, have you?

     Actually, HMAN, no, I haven't read it. I base my statements on the legal analysts I have read, who have stated that Judge Taylor did not address the Administration's argument substantively, but rather with conclusory statements. If that's led me astray, I'll reserve my judgement until Taylor's decision is reviewed.

     Posted by pontificus at 08/24/2006 @ 12:41pm

204. Here roman roman roman

     biscuit?

     (so when am I going to see some evidence)

     Posted by Will C. at 08/24/2006 @ 11:46pm