Jan 15 2009
Finally! Top Federal Court Vindicates Bush On FISA-NSA
Final Comment: A lot of delusional liberals keep trying to claim this ruling means little. It is quite hilarious to watch a lot of people with law degrees miss the major points of the case. They seem to think if they ignore the main thrust on focus on irrelevant details there is an argument to keep this conspiracy theory alive.
First off, this is not a ruling in isolation, it is part of a series of rulings regarding the President’s rights to engage in intelligence gathering on people overseas without a warrant. By re-establishing this Presidential power it means anyone swept up in these actions is as much fair game as any non-warranted person who is caught on a warranted wire tap. This is the difference between a TARGET of the investigation and the CONTACTS that communicates with the TARGET, and who have their communications with the TARGET snooped on by the Feds. The only difference is whether a warrant is required, not that CONTACTS don’t get caught on wire taps.
Additionally, while the authority under which these intelligence actions took place have changed from executive orders to temporary legislation to permanent legislation – the actions have not changed. The Feds are still using communications between Americans and known terrorists to ensure the safety of this nation. Over the years the process and paperwork has of course been tweaked. And once leaked to the public, the restriction on only the Chief FIS Court judge knowing which cases were the result of NSA intercepts verses FBI warrants was clearly not needed anymore. But the basic act of using the information intercepted to investigate threats inside our borders – the changes Bush directed – has not changed under any of the various legal authorities set in place.
Even further, the legislation making these acts legal as executed under the executive order, was the legislature’s signature that this was allowed. They removed debate by codifying the executive orders – they did not once overturn them. And with a series of judicial stamps of approval there is a common federal voice across the three branches on this matter. This is a mountain of precedence and law and decisions. How blind by denial must one be to miss this?
So no matter what legal instrument was used, the acts are now deemed legal. If legal under the temporary legislation it is legal under the permanent laws. And since the decision re-affirms the right to do foreign intelligence gathering without a court warrant (as do both sets of laws), the actions under executive order are also legal. It is not the laws that count, it is the fact the laws all assume, and the decision confirms, the President doesn’t require a warrant to gather intel on foreign threats, even if people in America and US citizens get swept up in it.
The threat of attack, as agreed to by people other than the President, gives the executive branch the power to retain the information they capture and pass it to the FBI. And that is the big change since 9-11: we don’t throw known leads away and not tell the FBI whom and where to look for threats. Only an idiot with a law degree could rationalize going back to that model of protecting the people of the United States from foreign attack.
It is nice to know a lowly space engineer with a biology degree is still sharper than a bunch of over payed liberal lawyers. Wouldn’t be the first time.
Major Update: For all the liberals in denial out there the WSJ has a great round up of the mountain of rulings that preceded this landmark vindication. Denial is not an excuse anymore. - end update
The NY Times allowed a liberal, disgruntled DoJ employee to expose one of our nation’s most valuable defensive programs against terrorist attack based on the man’s ignorance of the facts. I recently wrote about the traitor Thomas Tamm – who should be indicted and thrown in jail for pretending (a) to be more powerful than our laws or the commander-in-chief and (b) for exposing national security secrets based on fantasies in his head that bore no resemblance to the truth of the matter. He is a modern day Benedict Arnold.
And the NY Times should be punished for running this false crap as fact. Tamm had no clue what the program was about, and no idea that the FIS Court Chief Judge was supporting the new processes put in place after 9-11. Processes that are critical to saving American lives. Processes which replaced dangerously muddled thinking from the late 1970’s, where some in our government knew that someone in the US was in contact with known terrorists out to kill us, but they were not allowed to tell the FBI so they could go investigate and see how bad or real the danger was! No, couldn’t have that.
Well now the top intelligence court of the land has come out with an opinion vindicating Bush and settling once and for all how insane the lunatic left is when it comes to national security.
A federal intelligence court, in a rare public opinion, issued a major ruling validating the power of the president and Congress to wiretap international phone calls and intercept e-mail messages without a specific court order, even when Americans’ private communications may be involved.
…
The Aug. 22 appeals court decision upheld a secret ruling issued last year by the intelligence court that it oversees, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, or FISA, court. In that initial opinion, the secret court found that Congress had acted within its authority in August 2007 when it passed a hotly debated law known as the Protect America Act, which gave the executive branch broad power to eavesdrop on international communications.
“The Department of Justice is pleased with this important ruling by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which upholds the constitutionality of foreign intelligence surveillance conducted under the Protect America Act of 2007,” a Justice Department statement said.
The FIS Court of Review is the top court in the land on such matters. Think of it as the Appellate/Supreme Court on national security matters. There is no higher authority in the federal court system.
All those moans and groans about the 4th Amendment and Bush spying on Americans was a bunch fantasy fiction. And now the court has made it unanimous, all three branches of government have supported the changes. Maybe now the NY Times and all those nuts on the left can finally eat their crow – they have a lot of it to shovel down.
I have followed this story from the day it broke (you can find my numerous posts on the matter here) and was one of the first one to realize the NY Times lied. It lied about Bush bypassing the court (the FIS Court judge who also exposed national secrets on this matter was mad that the NSA leads were being heard at the court, not that they were going around the court). It lied about the essence of the program. It lied about the entire matter – an won journalism awards for their garbage.
They lied and risked the lives of all Americans by tipping of our enemies about how we were detecting their forces as they tried to get into the country and to their targets. These people filled their heads with righteous fantasies of themselves as heros and could have easily killed thousands of people if the news had broken at the wrong time.
Bush leaves office vindicated, and the Mad-Hatter left has destroyed what little credibility they have left. They are lucky that is all their insane actions resulted in.
Update: Here is the opinion itself.
64 Responses to “Finally! Top Federal Court Vindicates Bush On FISA-NSA”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I was getting ready to write up a long explanation about how wrong almost everything above is, but luckily somebody else (with more knowledge of the law than myself) already did:
“The new ruling — at least based on Lichtblau’s reporting (it hasn’t been made public yet) — has absolutely nothing to do with whether President Bush had the authority to order the very eavesdropping which FISA prohibited. The ruling has nothing to do with whether the so-called “Terrorist Surveillance Program” was legal notwithstanding a Congressional statute that criminalized those activities. The ruling has nothing to do with the scope of executive power or the ability of a President to act in violation of Congressional statutes. And, contrary to Lichtblau’s suggestion, it certainly has nothing to do with the constitutionality of telecom immunity, which is currently being challenged in the telecom lawsuits.
Instead, the FISA court appears (again, based on Lichtblau’s description) to have addressed a very narrow (though important) question: namely, whether the warrantless eavesdropping powers authorized by Congress in 2007 when it enacted the Protect America Act are constitutional under the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the 1972 Keith case, held that the Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless eavesdropping on Americans’ communications for domestic terrorism investigations, but explicitly left unresolved the question of whether such eavesdropping would be constitutionally permissible for international terrorism investigations. The FISA court presumably said that Congress — not the President, but Congress — is constitutionally permitted to authorize such eavesdropping, as it did when it passed the Protect America Act, though it’s likely a question the Supreme Court will ultimately decide.
None of that changes, nor even relates to, the fact that the Bush administration authorized and conducted warrantless eavesdropping for years while the law was crystal clear that anyone engaging in such activities was committing felonies. That’s a fact that is never going to change.”
Guy,
You are absolutely correct and it was actually easier to find the explanation than you thought. It is contained in the very same article that AJ linked to above:
“The opinion did not directly rule on the legality of the once-secret operation authorized by President Bush between October 2001 and early 2007, which allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on the international communications of Americans suspected of ties to terrorists. The disclosure of the program’s existence in The New York Times in December 2005 set off a national debate on wiretapping, privacy and the limits of presidential power. Critics charged that Mr. Bush had violated a 1978 law requiring that the government obtain a court order to listen in on Americans’ communications.”
AJ, you really ought to actually read the articles you link to rather than merely reading the headline and assuming that it supports your preconcieved notions. I know you have been busy of late, but that is pretty sloppy investigative work.
Conman,
You clearly do not understand how the law works.
Let me help your challenged mind. If it WAS illegal wouldn’t the court have ruled for the petitioner?
What – you didn’t read the ruling but simply read the NY Times try and cover up for its mistake? Was it too hard for you to read? The ruling is clear – the acts were legal
LOL! You are a fool’s fool Conman.
Actually, if Guy had ‘read’ the ruling too he would find out how wrong he was about the Keith case. too.
The foolish blind leading the foolish blind. Remember laddies – Darwin was right!
We’ll undoubtedly be treated to thorough coverage of this decision by MSNBC and CNN.
AJ
what’s so funny to me is that Conguy and GuyF are the first of the blind out of the chute.
Their modus operandi…..
1. see your post
2. assume you don’t know what you are writing about
3. skim the post, looking for something they disagree with.
4. find they disagree with everything they skim.
5. Hastily write a comment without ‘thinking’ about what they are saying.
6. Claim you are wrong about ‘everything’
7. Provide links to loonies.
8. Wait for the rebuttals.
9. Realize they looked stupid (as usual)
10. Write followup comments trying to cover their A*s.
11. Don’t realize they didn’t help their case, at all.
repeat steps 1-11, repeatedly.
Hey, these are Judges and they are always right.. aren’t they?
I hear that Obama has already decided to keep the program in place as well. After all, he got all the mileage he could out of pretending he did not support it. The lefties sent him their money and lined up to vote for him.
suckers.
Redteam:
Very true.
AJ,
I hate to tell you, but you have no idea what you are talking about. I am a lawyer, so I do understand how the law works and clearly understand it better than you. Let me try and simplify it for you so you can understand. I then suggest that you read the opinion carefully to confirm what I’m about to explain to you so you don’t say anything else that makes it obvious you don’t understand these issues.
The Court’s decision is limited to the question of the constitutionality of the 2007 Protect America Act (PAA). It was brought by a telecommunication company who was order to produce information pursuant to the PAA and refused to on the grounds that the PAA was unconstitutional. The Court’s decision rejects that argument and concludes that the PAA is constitutional. That is the only issue the Court’s decision decided.
The Court’s decision is limited to the 2007 PAA – it did not consider any NSA activity or NSA program implemented by Bush prior to Congress’ adoption of the PAA 2007. In fact, the Court couldn’t consider the legality of any other NSA program that preceded the 2007 PAA because it had no jurisdiction to consider other issues that were not presented in the petition to the Court. The NY times article and the Tamm disclosure all related to the NSA program that preceded the 2007 PAA. We don’t know the full extent of the NSA program in place before 2007 because it is secret, but we do know that the entire senior leadership of the DOJ and FBI were prepared to resign over Bush’s insistance that a part of this program continue despite objections from DOJ.
I know judicial opinions can be complicated, lengthy and cumbersome to read, but they are written in plain English. It is right there in the first page of the opinion.
Conguy:
I hate to tell you, but you have no idea what you are talking about. I am a lawyer, so I do understand how the law works and clearly understand it better than you
OMG, a lawyer, now we all know for sure you don’t know what in the hell you’re talking about.
Most lawyers are libs and are only in the business of making money, for themselves.
You’re really stretching when you pull out the ‘I’m a lawyer’, that’s usually the last thing a lawyer wants you to know about them, they can have a little credibility up to that point, then it’s all downhill.
you’ve heard the joke haven’t you?
what do you call 100 lawyers on the bottom of the ocean? a good start.
They’re all members of the shyster class.
conguy, I re-read the original post and GuyF and your rebuttals. AJ was 100% correct in his interpretation. you and guyf don’t have a clue. better stick with your day job, your nightime job must be imitating a lawyer.
The court said:
“A foreign intelligence exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement exists when the surveillance is conducted to obtain foreign intelligence for national security purposes and is directed against foreign powers or agents of foreign powers reasonably believed to be located outside the United states.”
Maybe earlier legal opinions also took this postion about the Fourth Amendment.
I wonder why the court is now publishing its decision and revealing what is permitted.
If the decision were secret, the terrorists would be more in the dark about what we can do legally to track them.
RedTeam:
“conguy, I re-read the original post and GuyF and your rebuttals. AJ was 100% correct in his interpretation. you and guyf don’t have a clue.”
Oh – well gosh, that certainly settles it. Your complete lack of explanation, facts, or examples of where conman or I was wrong has certainly convinced me!
But wait… oh, I re-read the original post and the two rebuttals, and I have come to the conclusion that we were right and AJ was wrong! So there, smart guy! Top *that*!
You see, guy/con, our guy kept us safe and has LEGAL OPINIONS (from lawyers!!!) that support his doing so…not to mention just pure common sense void of liberal guilt and neurosis.
Your guys DID NOT KEEP US safe. In fact, liberal policies are toxic to freedom loving people.
And for the record, I want to be more like George W. Bush…
NEVER LIKE THE LIBERAL LEFTIST RADICALS. EVER.
ivehadit:
“And for the record, I want to be more like George W. Bush.”
Well, you do have the “complete detachment from reality” part down pat. So, you seem to be well on your way. Congrats.
More people died from terrorist attacks on American soil during Bush’s term than all other Presidents combined. How is that “safe”?
AJ-
Why do you think the court is publicizing this now?
Guy wrote:
“The Bush administration authorized and conducted warrantless eavesdropping for years while the law was crystal clear that anyone engaging in such activities was committing felonies.”
Are parts of these wiretap laws classified?
Maybe this same interpretation of the Fourth Amendment also applied under the old law.
I was completely wrong. I thought that once the president had a “D” after his name anything he wants to do is fine. Obama says he will continue this program. Conguy and Guyf need to get on the stick. What’s the matter? Didn’t they get their memo of the day? Or did they just not check their e-mails? They will probably change their spiel after Tuesday. The only reason all these liberal nuts opposed the wiretaps was to hamstring Bush. They didn’t care that they were endangering the peole of this country as long as they could trash Bush.
Funny that this is reported less than a week before Obama’s inauguration. Can’t let the One assume office with this issue up for grabs. We all now know that the wiretaps are legal and Obama will not get the flack that Bush endured even though they were legal during his terms also. We have to make sure no tarnish reaches Obama. He is, after all, the bringer of light and the One we have all been waiting for.
Quote of the day…
AJ Strata on the FISA court’s decision upholding the terrorist surveillance program that was blown to the public (and the terrorists) by a disgruntled, narcissistic Justice employee and the New York Times: All those moans and groans about the 4th……
If Conman’s really a lawyer, he’s damned crappy one. He appears not to understand what Precedent is and the weight it carries in our judicial system. AJ does, as do any real practicing lawyers. (not wannabes like conman)
Conman’s point is that the decision as written is limited to the actual facts of the case. Of course it is, most decisions from any court are! He’s taking an everyday piece of common knowedge about judicial decisions and trying to pretend that it’s something novel, noteworthy, and controlling. It isn’t.
The FIS Court of Appeals has detailed it’s reasoning and established precedent for future decisions on these types of claims. Given their position in the Federal Court System, this precedent will be controlling on all lower federal courts and it is not reasonable to think that this court will contradict itself in future decisions. This opinion was published for the purpose of letting the public know of this new controlling precedent.
And the effects of this Precedent will affect all future court actions over this program just as AJ said it will.
If the 2007 PAA was constitutional, then the logic used to make that ruling also means that the previous actions were also constitutional. If conman honestly doesn’t know that, he’s an embarrasment to the legal profession.
Obama is going to use everything from enhanced interrogation to this program. I doubt that we will be hearing Guy and Conman demanding he be tried for treason or war crimes.
Double standards.
BTW, I hear Pepsi is going to launch a new marketing campaign around Obama. He will refresh the nation. Money honey. And there will be Obama Tshirts and Obama documentaries and Will Smith will make the movie. He will be a huge money maker for Hollywood and Madison Avenue. Not to mention the biggest and most expensive Inaugural in history. Imagine the reaction if McCain had won and had a huge inaugural. We would be hearing about homeless people starving in gutters while rich Republicans party.
So this is just another example of do as we say, not as we do.
Even though this case was about the 2007-2008 PAA, it sets a precedent, as the Wall Street Journal points out in today’s article.
Here are the key sections from the article:
–
But the Constitution bans only “unreasonable” search and seizure, not all searches and seizures, and the Fourth Amendment allows for exceptions such as those under a President’s Article II war powers. The courts have been explicit on this point. In 1980, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Truong that “the Executive need not always obtain a warrant for foreign intelligence surveillance.”
–
FISA established a process by which certain domestic wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps were ever allowed. Though the decision applies only to the stopgap FISA measure in place between 2007 and 2008, it sets a precedent
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123206822799888351.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Wow – whole lotta fightin’ going on right here.
The ruling, once private now public, didn’t decide everything, but seems to be in the direction of support for what Bush was doing. Period. Stop.
We’ll soon see if Obama is any different from Bush on this and related matters. Campaign rhetoric is over now, fellas. Let’s let reality set in and see if Obama is going to be who GuyF and other avid Obama supporters thought and hope he is – or see if Obama continues to Bush-i-fy himself more and more.
Whomever,
Great words of wisdom there my friend. I would note Obama already made his decision when he voted to make the FISA changes permanent in last summer’s vote.
AJStrata
AJ:
Will you at least admit that this ruling only concerned the Protect American Act that was passed in 2007? I mean – anyone with an ability to read can see it themselves, just from reading what you quoted yourself in the article:
“The Department of Justice is pleased with this important ruling by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which upholds the constitutionality of foreign intelligence surveillance conducted under the Protect America Act of 2007,” a Justice Department statement said.
That’s pretty clear, right? PAA of 2007 – it’s right there.
This had nothing – NOTHING – to do with the illegal warrantless wiretapping that was done at the President’s request from 2001-2006. How you can state that a ruling about something that Congress did is somehow a “vindication” of Bush is somewhat bewildering.
Snapple,
I think the news is coming out now to (a) tie the hands of the radical left and (b) give cover the Dems in Congress who can now point to the ruling to claim the whole thing is OBE.
AJStrata
Conman,
Your law degree aside the federal prosecutors and lawyers I talk to would find your blinders hilarious.
Sorry, but being a lawyer doesn’t make you right.
WWS,
Thanks – I was loathing the effort to explain precedence to the libs. And this is not the only case. This is only the second case this court has heard. The first was the resistance of the FIS Court to the changes, and they were slapped down. I have a link to the original decision in the post from years ago.
Precedence – a tough concept for radicals to deal with.
Glad to see my former college professor can finally shove it. I was right when I wrote my paper on the wiretaps. And no matter how much he tried to make me look a fool my classmates and I made him look worse. And now the truth is out. HA HA! (ok gloating is over).
DJStrata,
Yeah – I forgot about that one! Trust Dad.
AJStrata
GuyF Will you at least admit that this ruling only concerned the Protect American Act that was passed in 2007? I mean – anyone with an ability to read can see it themselves, just from reading what you quoted yourself in the article:
All rulings concern the case in question AND all future issues concerning the same issue that come before lower courts. But you can see from this:
But the Constitution bans only “unreasonable” search and seizure, not all searches and seizures, and the Fourth Amendment allows for exceptions such as those under a President’s Article II war powers. The courts have been explicit on this point. In 1980, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Truong that “the Executive need not always obtain a warrant for foreign intelligence surveillance.” The FISA appeals court said in its 2002 opinion In re Sealed Case that the President has “inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information” and took “for granted” that “FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.” FISA established a process by which certain domestic wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps were ever allowed. Though the decision applies only to the stopgap FISA measure in place between 2007 and 2008,
That they are clarifying that the President has been correct all along (since the ruling in 1980) that the President has constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches.
So no, the case was just about the PAA of 2007, it clearly re-affirmed the Presidents constitutional authority (from 1780 something) , therefore it was about MUCH more. It was about ‘the libs are wrong, as usual’.
So your statement “anyone with the ability to read” , you may want to alter to ‘exclude libs’. The ability to read doesn’t seem to apply.
AJ/WWS/Bobsunshine,
One of the more entertaining things for lawyers is to watch people with no legal training play “lawyer” and think they know what they are doing. You guys gave me some good laughs this morning – thanks. Okay, I’ll try once again to cut through all of your confusion and explain this as simply as I possibly can. If you don’t get it this time, well I give up because it is obviously hopeless.
“Conman’s point is that the decision as written is limited to the actual facts of the case.”
No, actually that is not my point at all. My point is that the Court’s decision is limited to the constitutionaility of the 2007 PAA. The facts in this case were largely irrelevant – the issue before the Court was almost entirely legal in nature – is the 2007 PAA constitutional.
“If Conman’s really a lawyer, he’s damned crappy one. He appears not to understand what Precedent is and the weight it carries in our judicial system.”
No, actually you have no idea what precedent is (by the way, no need to capitulize the word “precedent” – if you do people with actual legal training will know you don’t know what you are taking about). First of all, the precedent established by the Court’s decision in this case is only binding on the FISA Court. The FISA Court cannot bind any of the other Federal District Courts. Second, and more importantly, precedent only applies to other cases that involve the same issue. The only presedent established by the Court’s decision in this case is that the 2007 PAA is constitutional.
“If the 2007 PAA was constitutional, then the logic used to make that ruling also means that the previous actions were also constitutional. If conman honestly doesn’t know that, he’s an embarrasment to the legal profession.”
This statement is so wrong I don’t know where to start, but let me attempt to do so by explaining the difference between the 2007 PAA and the NSA program prior to the adoption of the 2007 PAA.
The 2007 PAA was legislation adopted by Congress and signed by President Bush, that amended FISA. The 2007 PAA clearly sets forth the authority of government in undertaking surveillance activity and the role of the FISA Court in reviewing/monitoring the government. Most legal scholars assumed the 2007 PAA was constitutional and therefore the FISA Court’s decision actually is not surprising to those of us in the legal community. In fact, there really is no major contraversy since, as several people have pointed out, the 2007 PAA was bi-partisan and supported by a majority of both Republicans and Democrats.
Bush’s NSA program presents entirely differenty legal /factual issues. First and foremost, the NSA program was not conducted pursuant to any legislative authority. To the contrary, it was conducted in direct violation of the then existing FISA which required the government to get Court approval for surveillance. Bush’s legal theory was that his constitutional authority as CIC when it came to safeguarding the country trumped any legislative authority. The legal question of whether a legislative act is constitutional is entirely different from the question of whether the President has the inherant constitutional authority to ignore specific legislation governing the rules for government surveillence. They are not even close! The later issue was not before the Court, was not decided even tangentially by the Court and has yet to be resolved by the Courts.
The other major difference is that unlike the 2007 PAA, we have no idea of the scope or methodology of the prior NSA program because Bush has refused to disclose it on the grounds that it is secret. I’ve certainly never heard anyone claim that the previous NSA program was identical to the 2007 PAA. What we do know is that the entire senior leadership of the DOJ and FBI was so concerned about a certain component of the program which they all concluded was unconstitutional that they were threatening to resign en masse until Bush backed down and agreed to remove this aspect of the program.
“Even though this case was about the 2007-2008 PAA, it sets a precedent, as the Wall Street Journal points out in today’s article.”
Oh my god, if the MSM said it was so then it must be so. Everyone on this site, in particular, AJ, views the MSM as the word of GOD! Don’t rely on the MSM. By the way Bob, FISA was not limited to “certain domestic wiretaps in the context of the Cold War”. FISA applied to all domestic wiretaps. FISA was adopted in response to surveillence abuses during the Nixon presidency when we later discovered that the FBI was using surveillence to target certain domestic interest groups that Nixon and the FBI didn’t like. It had nothing to do with the Cold War.
I’m not attempting to debate the merits of the 2007 PAA or the NSA program Bush adopted prior to the 2007 PAA. I’m simply trying to correct AJ’s assumption that this particular Court decision vindicates Bush’s entire NSA program in place since 2001. It doesn’t – it only addresses the constitutionality of the 2007 PAA. You don’t need to be a lawyer to understand that from reading the first page of the Court’s decision. Really folks, it is not that hard of a concept and should be relatively easy to understand. I think your desire to shout down and argue with a “liberal” at every opportunity is clouding your ability to read the Court’s decision for what it is.
conguy, I have some recommendations for you
1. Take some basic reading comprehension courses
2. After completing those, take some basic law courses
3. After completing those, go back to law school. be sure it is an accredited one this time.
4. During your studies there, take some technical writing courses.
5. then come back to Strata-sphere.
Your statements above are so full of holes, a judge would send you home to get prepared.
and to top it all off, on a non-legal issue, you said:
Oh my god, if the MSM said it was so then it must be so. Everyone on this site, in particular, AJ, views the MSM as the word of GOD! Don’t rely on the MSM
Only libs are guided by MSM, none of the conservatives and/or moderates on this site believe very much of anything if it is sourced from the MSM.
Geez, you must not have gotten much sleep. Who’s torturing you? You must be suffering from sleep deprivation?
AJ, might I suggest reading about “stare decisis”? Perhaps then you might have a better understanding of the concept of precedent. You ought to be careful about “teaching” anyone about a topic that you are not familiar with.
The precedent that was set today is that the legislature has the authority to write laws which allow warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications. The salient point is that the _legislature_ has the authority to write such laws. No precedent has been set regarding whether the executive has “inherent constitutional authority” to ignore specific statutes enacted by the legislature or whether Congress has the constitutional power to _limit_ the executive.
If you disagree, please provide a reference to a page in the ruling which explicitly sets the precedent for the executive’s “inherent constitutional authority”.
By the way, if precedent is so important to you, then you should look into the precedent set by District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor regarding Stellar Wind, aka the Terrorist Surveillance Program. I would also suggest investigating the Supreme Court’s Hamdan and Boumediene rulings to see what the precedent is regarding the power of the executive.
Redteam:
“Geez, you must not have gotten much sleep. Who’s torturing you? You must be suffering from sleep deprivation?”
Ah – still insulting and mocking our American POWs, I see. Very classy.
Have you no shame?
Redteam,
“Your statements above are so full of holes, a judge would send you home to get prepared.”
Do you know how to tell when someone is clueless but they want everyone else to think they are knowledgable? Every one of their responses in a debate is “I’m right and your an idiot!”. No response to the substantive issue or explanation as to why your right or the other guys an idiot, just “I’m right and your an idiot”. Not realizing, of course, that everyone else understands that if you actually knew what you were talking about you would obviously be able to explain WHY you are right. It is so transparent it is almost painful to watch. So yeah, I understand that you don’t believe anything I say because I’m a “liberal” in your mind – sadly you rarely seem to actually understand why you don’t believe it!
“and to top it all off, on a non-legal issue, you said:
Oh my god, if the MSM said it was so then it must be so. Everyone on this site, in particular, AJ, views the MSM as the word of GOD! Don’t rely on the MSM.
Only libs are guided by MSM, none of the conservatives and/or moderates on this site believe very much of anything if it is sourced from the MSM.”
Let me introduce you to a concept – its called “sarcasm”. Sarcasm is stating the opposite of an intended meaning typically to sneeringly, slyly, jest or mock a person, situation or thing. Look up the definition. Using sarcasm is most satisfying when the person or group you are mocking doesn’t realize it is sarcasm and actually responds to the statement as though it was intended as a serious comment. Too funny.
Thanks for all of the laughs today Redteam.
If Conman were a lawyer he would proof-read and spell better.
He wrote, ” “I’m right and your an idiot!” [you're]
He wrote “capitulize” instead of capitalize.
He wrote “presedent” instead of precedent.
He wrote “contraversy” instead of controversy.
He wrote, “Bush’s NSA program presents entirely differenty [different] legal /factual issues.”
He wrote, “Let me try and [to] simplify it for you so you can understand.”
Lawyers don’t make those errors.
Snapple:
You’ve obviously never worked for a lawyer. My wife was a paralegal, and never stopped complaining about how the lawyers she worked with could get paid in the high 6 figures, but couldn’t spell or use proper grammer to save their lives.
Obama may create “classified loophole” for enhanced interrogations
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/16/shhh-obama-may-create-classified-loophole-for-enhanced-interrogations/
My prediction….
Obama will use the same tools Bush established and used because they were legal and they worked. However, he will glow with a halo and say he isn’t…..and everyone will call it change.
Snapple,
I admit it, I’m a poor speller and write my comments so fast that I don’t take the time to check spelling and grammer. When I do something for a client, I write more carefully, use my spell check, proof read it before I send out and have my secretary proof read it just in case. The difference – in one instance I’m getting paid a lot of money to do it and I care what the receipient thinks about me, in the other instance I’m not getting paid and could care less if you think I’m a bad speller.
Really, is that the best counter-argument you got? Make fun of my typos, spelling or grammer? Good thing you don’t make your living as a lawyer.
It is just amazing to watch the left twist themselves into pretzels to try and avoid the reality here. Bush has been vindicated and Obama will use the same program.
Right after 9/11, Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Democrats were briefed about enhanced interrogation and they said Do it. They were concerned about another 9/11. However, once time passed their partisan hatred outpaced their concerns and since there had not been any more attacks here…they decided to change their minds and scream about war crimes.
Never mind the fact that Clinton had sent people to places like Jordan for interrogation. As long as they did not have to see it, they did not have a problem with it. Bush should have been sneakier, the Democrats might have liked him better.
Its about time. Sorry to see the guy go. Can Obama take up the slack—got serious doubts.
Chalk one up for Bush.
Redteam:
“Though the decision applies only to the stopgap FISA measure in place between 2007 and 2008″
You quoted that exact phrase yourself. How did you miss it?
Okay, seriously – can any of you *READ*? I simply cannot believe that you can QUOTE THESE EXACT WORDS, and then state two lines later that this applies to more than just the PAA.
It would be infuriating, if it wasn’t so comical. Your ability to self-delude is astounding.
Plus, the fact that you are all sudden legal experts is especially hilarious. You’re all convinced that the warrantless wiretapping done by Bush from 2001-2006 is “vindicated” by this decision.
But, this lawyer disagrees with you.
As does this one.
And this one.
But hey – no problem, who ever said a lawyer would know anything about the law, eh?
It’s not complicated, folks. This is from the original NY Times article:
“The opinion is not expected to directly rule on the legality of the once-secret operation authorized by President Bush between October 2001 and early 2007, which allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on the international communications of Americans suspected of ties to terrorists.”
“Not expected”. Got it? “*NOT* expected.”
That seems pretty clear, right? But no, please – go right ahead and insist that *I* am the one confused here.
GuyF
You’ve obviously never worked for a lawyer. My wife was a paralegal, and never stopped complaining about how the lawyers she worked with could get paid in the high 6 figures, but couldn’t spell or use proper grammer to save their lives.
# conmanon 16 Jan 2009 at 8:13 pm
Snapple,
I admit it, I’m a poor speller and write my comments so fast that I don’t take the time to check spelling and grammer, in one instance I’m getting paid a lot of money to do it and I care
Okay, so here we have it, conguy admitting he could care less about accuracy in what he says, uh, unless he’s getting paid, and GuyF stating that lawyers are notorious for not caring what they say or how they say it, just for what they get paid.
so who the hell is paying you for what you write here that’s you’re suddenly ‘accurate’ in what you’re saying.
It takes little effort to refute what either of you bozos said and it matters not how carefully we refute each point, you don’t hear it and don’t care anyhow because you ‘know you’re accurate when working for a client’. What a clown.
Just a couple quotes from the WSJ story pertaining to the ruling and making it clear that tho this court case was about affirming the particular ruling you clowns didn’t like in the first place, it also:
In a major August 2008 decision released yesterday in redacted form, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, the FISA appellate panel, affirmed the government’s Constitutional authority to collect national-security intelligence without judicial approval. The case was not made public before yesterday, and its details remain classified. An unnamed telecom company refused to comply with the National Security Agency’s monitoring requests and claimed the program violated the Fourth Amendment’s restrictions on search and seizure.
See those little words in there: affirmed the governments Constitutional authority to collect…… get it.. affirmed something else there did it? You don’t really think they’re saying the government only has constitutional authority in the 2007 deal, do you?
and then here:
But the Constitution bans only “unreasonable” search and seizure, not all searches and seizures, and the Fourth Amendment allows for exceptions such as those under a President’s Article II war powers. The courts have been explicit on this point. In 1980, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Truong that “the Executive need not always obtain a warrant for foreign intelligence surveillance.” The FISA appeals court said in its 2002 opinion In re Sealed Case that the President has “inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information” and took “for granted” that “FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”
see where it affirms that ‘all searches and seizures’ are not banned and that little bit about , in 1980..”the Executive need not always obtain a warrant….. and that little ditty there… in2002 opinion…’the President has “inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches…… and affirmed that….took “for granted that” Fisa could not encroach on the Pres…… (something you(guyF and conguy don’t seem to understand at all)
So you see Conguy and GuyF (should we call you 2guys?) it is rather clear that this opinion was about much much more than Just the 2007 deal.
These little parts are so evident, I figured I didn’t even need to point them out when I stated you were so completely wrong, but since you obviously needed help finding these little points, I’ve obliged.
GuyF
okay you linked to 3 lawyers and said they disagree with me
the first one: Lichtblau’ wrote before the ruling was issued and stated what ‘he expected’ to be said.
the second link was to exactly the same article by lichblau in a different pub and said exactly the same thing. ‘what he expected the ruling to say’
and you’re gonna be surprised by this, the 3rd link was to a Salon article by Glenn Greenwald telling us what lichblau had said about what he expected the ruling to be about.
So all three of your lawyers were the same lawyer and he was only telling us what he ‘expected’ the ruling to say. He hadn’t read it yet.
also a quote from you:It’s not complicated, folks. This is from the original NY Times article:
“The opinion is not expected to directly rule on the legality of the once-secret operation authorized by President
again, what it is ‘expected’ to say. Can’t any lib actually wait til someone says something to tell us what he said?
incidentally the Salon link actually linked to a porn site that you had to go thru to get to the Greenwald story, Does that tell you something?
GuyF, you’re so full of sh*t you’re gonna explode if you don’t get to the outhouse quick.
From MacMind.
“WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama is preparing to prohibit the use of waterboarding and harsh interrogation techniques by ordering the CIA to follow military rules for questioning prisoners, according to two U.S. officials familiar with drafts of the plans.
The proposal Obama is considering would require all CIA interrogators to follow conduct outlined in the U.S. Army Field Manual, the officials said. The plans would also have the effect of shutting down secret “black site” prisons around the world where the CIA has questioned terror suspects — with all future interrogations taking place inside American military facilities.”
Yeah, but…
“However, Obama’s changes may not be absolute. His advisers are considering adding a classified loophole to the rules that could allow the CIA to use some interrogation methods not specifically authorized by the Pentagon, the officials said.”
I thought Obama said he was gonna follow the Army manual. what? is he free to change his mind? or what……..
Redteam:
Your first comment:
“Can’t any lib actually wait til someone says something to tell us what he said?”
Your second comment:
“However, Obama’s changes may not be absolute. His advisers are considering adding a classified loophole to the rules ”
Heh. So first, you insist that we need to absolutely hear from the words from someone’s mouth before we make a decision.
Then, you bash Obama because of something that allegedly his “advisers” are “considering”.
The sad part is – you won’t even get why those two are in contradiction with each other.
So – which is it? Can we not declare a decision until we hear the words out of a person’s mouth? Or is it okay to make assumptions about a person without hearing a single word from them? (Or is that decision only affected by whether someone is a Republican or Democrat?)
Sounds like a bunch of attorneys on a street conner agruing over who will go out and see the guy lying in the middle of the street first all attorneys and would be attorneys do is “complicate the obvious and trivialize the momentous.
You guy sound like street conner attorneys complicating the obvious and trivializing the momentous.
Russell,
Sorry man – I accidentally deleted your first comment. You’ve bin in ‘comment moderation’ hell. You should be free and clear to post now.
Cheers, AJStrata
Both GuyF and Conman incorrectly spell the word grammar as “grammer” and have strange opinions about lawyers.
My husband is a Washington lawyer. He graduated from Harvard. He can spell, and he personally proofs the briefs of young attorneys. Young associates don’t last long if they can’t master grammar.
Proofing a brief is not left up to secretaries.
People who are so obviously careless/ignorant aren’t qualified to speak as legal experts on complicated legal issues.
All lawyers can spell grammar because they spend a lot of time yelling at associates about their grammar.
GuyF can’t make his pronouns agree with his antecedents. A lawyer can make his pronouns agree with his antecedents even if he is writing quickly.
GuyF writes:
“…is it okay to make assumptions about a person without hearing a single word from them?”
Guy should have written “him” because the antecedent of the pronoun is the singular “person.”
A lawyer–even one who is writing quickly–simply doesn’t make this sort of error in his writing.
Conman also makes the identical errors in agreement.
He writes:
“Do you know how to tell when someone is clueless but they want [he wants] everyone else to think they are [he is] knowledgable?”
“Someone” is an indefinite pronoun. It is third person singular. This means it “someone is like the words “he” or “Bill.”
“Someone” is a “he,” not a “they.”
Lawyers don’t make agreement errors even if they are writing quickly. Assocates learn to correct this bad habit the first time they get yelled at for it, and they never do it again.
So confusing! Conman is supposedly the lawyer. GuyF is supposedly an authority on the law because he is a paralegal’s husband. I guess she told you the lawyers who employed her had poor writing skills, but she never succeeded in correcting your writing. That must have really gotten on her nerves.
Snapple:
Thank you for adding so much to the conversation. Four consecutive comments, and not one single point that actually related to the ongoing topic. Very impressive.
Please go look up the phrase “ad hominem”.
Part of the decision referenced “special circumstances” exception under FISA for warrantless surveillance and whether that applied in this case (which liberals have long argued didn’t exist…..ie., why Bush was guilty of warrantless/illegal searches). It also explicitly acknowledge the Presidents role in “authorizing” such surveillance (as well as the AG and the NSA) under the special circumstances clause of FISA. That was part of petitioners argument as well, that such warrantless surveillance was not legal, nor authorized in this case and that complying with such an order without warrant, and other requirements being met, would violate the 4th amendment and subject companies to liability. This liability was what gave them “standing” to bring this case for review on behalf of a 3rd party.
Can people be arrested and can the evidence be used to convict American collaborators, or is the information only used to watch what the bad guys are doing and deter it?
Since they are telling the rules now, maybe they are going to arrest some people.
[...] noteworthy victory for Bush was the changes he put into the FISA statutes that tore down the walls between anti-terrorism and law enforcement. President Bush was recently [...]
AJ-
Again, can people be prosecuted if they are caught under this law, or is this law just for spying on people in order to counter what they are doing?
The purpose of the law is for gathering foreign intelligence. In so much as someone acts as the agent for a foreign power, or supports terrorist acts or threats…yes, they can have a case brought against them, be arrested, etc. There were multiple terrorist attack/plots against this country (and others) that were interrupted before they could be carried out because of such methods. Cases here against such persons in the US follow criminal/civil court procedures.
Overseas, the actions are different. Actionable intelligence for an AlQueda operative over seas would result in different levels of operations (mostly clandestine). I’ll just put it this way….we aren’t taking many AlQueda type prisoners anymore.
That’s not what this case was about however—it more concerned those who assist the gov in such surveillance.
I will really miss Mr. Bush. He really cared about us and kept us safe.