Failure to comply with the Court's order would be Contempt of Court, which is a crime. W commit a crime? Never!!! All W has to do is declare the wiretapping a state secret and thumb his nose at the courts. The court would never know the difference. Nothing short of impeachment and removal will prevent W from doing whatever he damn well pleases.
I would be scared to death of Cheney as President. Can't we just get a Democratic Congress, and try to survive the next few years? Great news from the Federal bench. Let's hope it stands up on appeal. It will be appealed, as Snow-Job already put out there. I will be stunned if the ruling is overturned, however. It seems explicit and undeniable that the Executive overrode the separation of powers, as stated in our glorious Constitution. Keep D&D Civil.
I have been scared of him as President, but I'm not really any more. I think he is actually more dangerous working behind the scenes. Having the Presidential spotlight on him, would be the kind of exposure he needs, to illuminate his diabolical shcemes, and agenda.
Maybe so. I have a feeling Fitzgerald has plans for him, however. We haven't seen the last of that investigation. Keep D&D Civil.
By the way, here are a few choice comments from an earlier thread... From http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=108369 As much as the liberals want to curb our efforts to eavesdrop on Al Qaeda by manufacturing a scandal out of the terrorist surveillance efforts, the Administration is completely justified in their actions, according to the nation's top lawyer. AUMF -- Read it and weep, libs. The surveillance program is totally legal and authorized. I'm very happy that Gonzales and others are now vigorously defending this program. It's critical to the War on Terror. Remember, the 9-11 hijackers were operating inside our country prior to the attacks. It would be foolish to ignore this type of threat because of some type of legal technicality (or worse because of crying liberals who want to make it harder to secure our nation). He is obeying the law. He is operating well within the Constitution as well as existing laws. Liberals, it seems as though you are having trouble grasping Gonzales' argument -- or perhaps you are willfully ignoring it. It totally dismisses FranchiseBlade and mcmark's sad attempts at saying that AUMF does not authorize the President to monitor terrorists. Liberals, please re-read this section of Gonzales' speech and try to come up with a better response. Your last few attempts at responses have been dead wrong. Don't ever let a liberal tell you that the Terror Surveillance program violates the 4th Amendment or is unlawful. They are lying out their dumper when they make those claims. When the Attorney General says that the Supreme Court and federal courts have approved the program, you are going to need a little more support than "no it doesn't" to refute their claims. When Messrs. Rivkin and Casey, who served in the Justice Department under Reagan and HW Bush say that the program is lawful, you are going to need more than "no it doesn't" to refute their claims. --All from T_J If you're not involved in terrorist activities this isn't affecting you at all. --Aceshigh7 It is, therefore, inconceivable that the AUMF does not also support the president's efforts to intercept the communications of our enemies. Any future al Qaeda attacks on the homeland are likely to be carried out, like Sept. 11, by operatives hiding among us. The NSA terrorist surveillance program is a military operation designed to detect them quickly. Efforts to identify the terrorists and their plans expeditiously while ensuring faithful adherence to the Constitution and our existing laws is precisely what America expects from the president. This is the telling part that indicates if the President was not doing his justified actions, THEN he would be breaking the law! If a President does not maximize ability in the AUMF, then I don't want that President. ... How could you? The President's actions mean lawfulness (yes I love that word)...It means better protection against terroristic deeds within and outside...It means doing what is right. Here is the deal, as it turns out, contrary to the mournful screams of liberals, "Bush's wiretaps" were (and remain) completely justified by law. This is an example of a national security success. Ooooh the truth burns in your eyes! Quick flush it with neo-demo liquid so the lies and deception of reality can give you a good self-served face smack to counter...I count NOT 1,...NOT 2...but 3 areas Sam! 1...2...3! I know this may confuse and obfuscate you to have 3 fact-based supporting areas to deal with and taciturn, but the reality is the President has the fact-based reasoning in several areas. Most notably is section 2 of the Constitution... The president has the authority under the congressional authorization that was passed and clearly stated that, quote, 'The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force.' --All from ROXRAN And from http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=106684&page=3&pp=20 Sam, I've already whipped you once in this debate -- the wiretapping of al Qaeda - to US citizens phone calls was Constitutionally protected. Granting clause. Look it up. --T_J Thanks for posting this. This puts the liberals' outrage in perspective. If you were to only read this board, you might actually think the liberals' side on this issue were popular. Just more of the liberals blindly throwing **** and hoping something sticks. --BigTexxx Good work done by many of you in those two threads. Gives me a little hope. What I found most interesting was the almost complete lack of reasoned argument on the other side. It essentially boiled down to Bush and Alberto say it is so, so it must be so. I must give props to ROXRAN for at least doing a little research.
You have to admit it's funny that a senior citizen aged black female judge in Detroit appointed by Jimmy Carter is the one slapping Bush's hand on this one. Brings a smile to my face...
There's an entire court set up to quickly handle warrants in "crisis" situations. They're rubber stamps. If Bush wants to go around *them* he's doing something horribly illegal. Before an American citizen's privacy is violated, there'd better be a damn good reason for suspicion. That's a pretty low bar that the Bush administration is calling too high.
This is an excellent ruling. Many have trumpeted Article II of the Constitution investing the President as the Commander and Chief without understanding what that means. Commander and Chief doesn't mean dictator and no where in the Constitution does it grant the Commander and Chief the power to supercede the rest of the Constitution or other branches of government. That principle was reaffirmed in this ruling. Of course this will be appealed and I predict this will be in the USSC.
i'd be happy but i know this adminstration has packed the court and i'd imagine it'll be appealed. oh...and the administration never obeys laws anyway...so you really think they've halted this?
It is just sad that this is something a judge had to actually rule on in 2006 US of A Rocket River what's next. . .a ruling on Equal Rights, Slavery and Suffrage?
Glenn Greenwald is a pretty smart guy. Here's his take.... http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/breaking-law-has-consequences.html
If clutchfans is so worldly popular, I'm posting to ensure that another opinion gets noted. I'm against this ruling. I think we need to do everything we can to ensure our safety. And if changing a law/rule someplace for a while ensures it, well we better damn well do it. Times are a changing. And we better change with them. Relying totally on documents written prior to 9/11 can seriously hurt any effort to secure our safety. NOT changing with the times is walking backwards. Okay, I know we do change. But dang guys...people who are secure with themselves don't bother about a wart. Insecure people will take a knife to remove it. (poor analogy...I know) RR
W got the Patriot Act w/o meaningful review. He could have got FISA rewritten also, but INSTEAD chose to break the law. BTW the FISA court is a rubberstamp. The spying W directed may have gotten warrants to support them, if only W had asked.
There were legal ways for the Bush Administration to do what they are doing. That they didn't want to follow that process, even though it made exceptions for timeliness and other issues, was wrong. Holding the administration accountable by requiring them to work through FISA does nothing to hamper our security. Like the Constitution? Why are you so afraid that you would forfeit the sacrifices of generations of Americans? Is our safety more endangered now than WWII or the Cold War or the Great Depression or the Civil War or the War of 1812? No. What got us through those events was the strength of the ideas captured in those documents written before 9-11 and I certainly think they are strong enough to get us through this. Supporters of the administration like to talk tough, but when it comes down to it, they are cowards and want somebody to protect them at all costs, including the disregard of our history and the forfeit of the things that make us Americans. The Party of personal responsibility? More like the Party of lemming-like fraidy cats. Your analogy, such as it is, would make more sense proving the opposite of the position you seem to be taking.
this line of thinking absolutely baffles me... the president had at his disposal an array of LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS to choose from, yet the braintrust of this administration decided willingly to circumvent those options in order to further centralize their power. as a country, we have always and will always continue to be in "danger," especially when our foreign policy puts us at odds with most of the world. as rimrocker said, we are no more in danger now than we were 50, 100, or 200 years ago... it's the price you pay for living in the United States of America as a citizen free to pursue life as you deem. but deciding to override the framework of our country, our Constitution and Bill of Rights, isn't only shortsighted thinking.... it's dangerous. once power is given to the Federal government, it is not soon reliquinshed - if ever. and that federalization of power goes against everything this country originally stood for. i just don't understand how apparently so many people allow fear (and that's exactly what it is) to cloud their judgement. the principles this country is founded on are vastly more important than the temporary security so many are looking for. and your analogy goes directly against the point you're trying to make.... only the insecure would be willing to have their basic rights trampeled upon for a "quick fix" to a problem.
