And critics are saying the judge's arguments are weak.

Post #265,376 by Another Scott 8/18/06 11:29:38 PM Reply	And critics are saying the judge's arguments are weak. [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/washington/19ruling.html?hp&ex=1155960000&en=359d009508f66aa4&ei=5094&partner=homepage\|NY Times]: They said the opinion overlooked important precedents, failed to engage the government\ufffds major arguments, used circular reasoning, substituted passion for analysis and did not even offer the best reasons for its own conclusions. Discomfort with the quality of the decision is almost universal, said Howard J. Bashman, a Pennsylvania lawyer whose Web log provides comprehensive and nonpartisan reports on legal developments. \ufffdIt does appear,\ufffd Mr. Bashman said, \ufffdthat folks on all sides of the spectrum, both those who support it and those who oppose it, say the decision is not strongly grounded in legal authority.\ufffd The main problems, scholars sympathetic to the decision\ufffds bottom line said, is that the judge, Anna Diggs Taylor, relied on novel and questionable constitutional arguments when more straightforward statutory ones were available. :-( Cheers, Scott.
Post #265,378 by boxley 8/18/06 11:36:22 PM Reply	dont know about the arguments but FISA is designed for such eavesdropping, get a warrant 72 hours after you hear the conversation. technically they would need a warrant for every American using a phone line (technically how it works) and is probasbly why they didnt bother. I need a warrant fine, who for 300 million people get stuffed thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
Post #265,379 by Silverlock 8/18/06 11:51:51 PM Reply	That's an explanation. Do you have a position? Given the precepts of the US's constitution, do you think it's right or wrong for the Pres to be able to tap phones? And if it's wrong and not illegal doesn't that mean the law is wrong? If illegal (right or wrong) he should be impeached. See sig. If it's not wrong and not illegal then I give up on democracy. ----------------------------------------- Impeach Bush. Impeach Cheney. Do it now.
Post #265,385 by boxley 8/19/06 12:06:08 AM Reply	read me in my posts I have said many times that Bush should be impeached not for lying about war not for Iraq not for missing WMD's but his rabid intrusion into denying American freedoms in a manner that would appall Nixon. thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
Post #265,382 by Another Scott 8/19/06 12:05:30 AM Reply	Ya. It wouldn't have gone to court if he hadn't ignored FISA All of Bush's and Gonzales's arguments I've heard about the program have ignored FISA. If he had gone to the FISA court, we wouldn't have heard about the program and there wouldn't be such an uproar about it. It does seem as if they feel that if any call crosses the border then the NSA should be able to listen in without restriction. Sorry, George, but that's not what the law says. No, FISA isn't going to give you a blank check, either. Another thing that this reminds me of is: Bush and the administration told us that there were 60,000 al Qaeda-types around the world and that they were in most countries around the world. They also keep telling us that they're breaking up plots and the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" is making a difference, it's critical to success, etc., etc. If so, why aren't we hearing about hundreds or thousands of people being arrested and tried and being "Brought to Justice"? Have there been more than a dozen trials in western countries that have any direct links at all to al Qaeda since September 2001? Where's the beef? Don't get me wrong. There are undoubtedly many people out there who are plotting to do damage to the US and have the means to do so. We need to go after such people. I just wonder whether this group numbers in the hundreds rather than the 10s of thousands. My accounting, in this case, separates the jihadists who want to go battle in Iraq or Chechnya or Bosnia from those who want to attack US political or economic interests - something that the present administration obviously doesn't want to do... :-/ Bush might say: "We can't put them on trial because we're gaining too much intelligence from them. Critical intelligence!" Me: Hmmm. It's just something else that's been bothering me lately... FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #265,393 by Ashton 8/19/06 2:16:48 AM Reply	How many trials? Well, here's a time slice - [link\|http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=7431\| 9/01 - 10/04] locally. Dated 3/05. ... Of the 120 terrorism cases recorded on Findlaw, the major information source for legal cases of note, the initial major charges leveled have resulted in only two actual terrorism convictions -- both in a single case, that of Richard Reid, the notorious shoe bomber. Of 18 actual charges of "terrorism" brought between September 2001 and October 2004, 15 are still pending and one was dismissed. In lieu of convictions for terrorist acts, the Justice Department uses another related, lesser charge -- that of "material support," which means providing aid or services to a terrorist or a terrorist organization [More ...] Then there's an essay by [link\|http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr78.html\| United States Institute of Peace] yan DC org re Options for Prosecuting International Terrorists by David Scheffer. As to who might be methodically tabulating every [Reported...] arrest and presenting the status of each, worldwide -?- luck to us all. "Total number of terrorist trials since 2001" gets 11.1 megahits, for the first cut. The Rumpelstiltskin effect or monkeys on typewriters (?)
Post #265,396 by Another Scott 8/19/06 8:15:52 AM Reply	Thanks. :-)
Post #265,395 by Silverlock 8/19/06 6:27:42 AM Reply	They don't have any real interest in fighting Al Qaeda Too good a boogyman. They need the fear in the voters cause they damn sure can't win any elections on anything other than chicken little politicking. ----------------------------------------- Impeach Bush. Impeach Cheney. Do it now.
Post #265,540 by jb4 8/21/06 1:48:40 PM Reply	Would those "critics" be named Gonzalez? Cheney? Star? jb4 "So don't pay attention to the approval ratings that say 68% of Americans disapprove of the job this man is doing. I ask you this, does that not also logically mean that 68% approve of the job he's not doing? Think about it. I haven't." — Stephen Colbert, at the White House Correspondent's Dinner 29Apr06
Post #265,551 by Another Scott 8/21/06 3:03:10 PM Reply	I'm sure they've got opinions... I've only read about this in the NY Times story I cited. The 44 page .pdf is [link\|http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/nsa/aclunsa81706opn.pdf\|here]. I haven't had a chance to read it yet. I'm sure one doesn't get to be a 73 year old Federal Judge without being able to cross one's "t"s and dot one's "i"s pretty well. Remember that T.P. Jackson seemed to have a slam-dunk case, too, but seemed to let his emotions appear too frequently. We'll see how well it stands up. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!