Discussion:
Judge Anna Diggs Taylor
(too old to reply)
D. Spencer Hines
2006-08-17 18:41:54 UTC
Permalink
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/_practices/taylor/bio.

Practice Guidelines for Judge Anna Diggs Taylor Please Make a Selection Table of Contents Standing Orders Conferences Removal Motion Practice TROs & Injunctions Class Actions Discovery Mediation Pretrial Settlement Trials Special Notes-Criminal Case Management Orders Biography
Biography
Prior to her appointment to the Federal Court in 1979, Judge Taylor was a private practitioner, a legislative assistant, an Assistant Wayne County Prosecutor, an Assistant United States Attorney, an Adjunct Professor of Law at Wayne State Law School, and an Assistant Corporation Counselor, City of Detroit. She is a 1950 Graduate of the Northfield School for Girls, East Northfield, Massachusetts, and received her B.A. from Barnard College in 1954 and L.L.B. from Yale Law School in 1957. Judge Taylor was appointed to the bench on November 2, 1979.

She is a Trustee of the Detroit Institute of Arts, the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan and the Henry Ford Health System.

She is a member of the State Bar (Committees on Character and Fitness and on U.S. Courts), Federal Bar, Wolverine Bar, Black Judges Association and Women Judges Association.
Vince
2006-08-17 19:00:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/_practices/taylor/bio.
*Practice Guidelines for Judge Anna Diggs Taylorrwline.jpg*
*Biography *
Prior to her appointment to the Federal Court in 1979, Judge Taylor was
a private practitioner, a legislative assistant, an Assistant Wayne
County Prosecutor, an Assistant United States Attorney, an Adjunct
Professor of Law at Wayne State Law School, and an Assistant Corporation
Counselor, City of Detroit. She is a 1950 Graduate of the Northfield
School for Girls, East Northfield, Massachusetts, and received her B.A.
from Barnard College in 1954 and L.L.B. from Yale Law School in 1957.
Judge Taylor was appointed to the bench on November 2, 1979.
She is a Trustee of the Detroit Institute of Arts, the Community
Foundation for Southeastern Michigan and the Henry Ford Health System.
She is a member of the State Bar (Committees on Character and Fitness
and on U.S. Courts), Federal Bar, Wolverine Bar, Black Judges
Association and Women Judges Association.
I presume you are pointing out her Yale degree in support of her
abilities?

Vince
D. Spencer Hines
2006-08-17 23:14:30 UTC
Permalink
"Carter Judge: Hear No Evil"

"A federal judge in Detroit on Thursday ordered the Bush administration to
halt the National Security Agency's program of domestic eavesdropping [sic],
saying it violated the U.S. Constitution," Reuters reports:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said the controversial practice of warrantless
wiretapping known as the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" violated free
speech rights, protections against unreasonable searches and the
constitutional check on the power of the presidency.

The ruling marked a setback for the Bush administration, which had asked for
the lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union to be thrown out,
arguing that any court action on the case would jeopardize secrets in an
ongoing war on terrorism.

Last week the Detroit Free Press profiled Judge Taylor, noting that she "is
a liberal with Democratic roots" who campaigned for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and
was "rewarded" in 1979 with a judicial nomination. The paper adds:

Even if Taylor harpoons the spying program, experts said, the decision
likely would be overturned by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Given the composition of the 6th Circuit and its previous rulings in
related areas, it seems more likely to favor national security over civil
liberties if that issue is squarely presented," said Carl Tobias, a law
professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia. "And that's what this
case is all about."
---------------------------------------------

The Justice Department has already appealed."

James Taranto

The Wall Street Journal
Pepperoni
2006-08-18 00:37:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
"Carter Judge: Hear No Evil"
"A federal judge in Detroit on Thursday ordered the Bush administration to
halt the National Security Agency's program of domestic eavesdropping [sic],
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said the controversial practice of warrantless
wiretapping known as the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" violated free
speech rights, protections against unreasonable searches and the
constitutional check on the power of the presidency.
The ruling marked a setback for the Bush administration, which had asked for
the lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union to be thrown out,
arguing that any court action on the case would jeopardize secrets in an
ongoing war on terrorism.
Last week the Detroit Free Press profiled Judge Taylor, noting that she "is
a liberal with Democratic roots" who campaigned for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and
Even if Taylor harpoons the spying program, experts said, the decision
likely would be overturned by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Given the composition of the 6th Circuit and its previous rulings in
related areas, it seems more likely to favor national security over civil
liberties if that issue is squarely presented," said Carl Tobias, a law
professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia. "And that's what this
case is all about."
---------------------------------------------
The Justice Department has already appealed."
James Taranto
The Wall Street Journal
The Hon Judge Anna Diggs Taylor is a graduate of Barnard College (BA
1954), Yale Law School (LLB 1957) and has served with the Office of
Solicitor for the U.S. Department of Labor.

Prior to her appointment to the Federal Court in 1979, Judge Taylor was
a private practitioner, a legislative assistant, an Assistant Wayne
County Prosecutor, an Assistant United States Attorney, an Adjunct
Professor of Law at Wayne State Law School, and an Assistant
Corporation Counselor, City of Detroit.

n 1979, Anna Diggs Taylor became the first black woman judge to be
appointed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan. Nineteen years later, she became the first black woman
Chief Judge for that circuit as well.

She is a Trustee of the Detroit Institute of Arts, the Community
Foundation for Southeastern Michigan and the Henry Ford Health System.

She is a member of the State Bar (Committees on Character and Fitness
and on U.S. Courts), Federal Bar, Wolverine Bar, Black Judges
Association and Women Judges Association.

Moreover, locally, Hon. Anna Diggs Taylor is respected for her erudite
and eloquent ability to explain the rationale behind her decisions. If
you expect her decision to be easily overturned, be expectant of
disappointment as well.

Pepperoni
Grey Satterfield
2006-08-18 01:46:22 UTC
Permalink
On 8/17/06 7:37 PM, in article
Post by Pepperoni
Post by D. Spencer Hines
"Carter Judge: Hear No Evil"
"A federal judge in Detroit on Thursday ordered the Bush administration to
halt the National Security Agency's program of domestic eavesdropping [sic],
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said the controversial practice of warrantless
wiretapping known as the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" violated free
speech rights, protections against unreasonable searches and the
constitutional check on the power of the presidency.
The ruling marked a setback for the Bush administration, which had asked for
the lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union to be thrown out,
arguing that any court action on the case would jeopardize secrets in an
ongoing war on terrorism.
Last week the Detroit Free Press profiled Judge Taylor, noting that she "is
a liberal with Democratic roots" who campaigned for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and
Even if Taylor harpoons the spying program, experts said, the decision
likely would be overturned by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Given the composition of the 6th Circuit and its previous rulings in
related areas, it seems more likely to favor national security over civil
liberties if that issue is squarely presented," said Carl Tobias, a law
professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia. "And that's what this
case is all about."
---------------------------------------------
The Justice Department has already appealed."
James Taranto
The Wall Street Journal
The Hon Judge Anna Diggs Taylor is a graduate of Barnard College (BA
1954), Yale Law School (LLB 1957) and has served with the Office of
Solicitor for the U.S. Department of Labor.
Prior to her appointment to the Federal Court in 1979, Judge Taylor was
a private practitioner, a legislative assistant, an Assistant Wayne
County Prosecutor, an Assistant United States Attorney, an Adjunct
Professor of Law at Wayne State Law School, and an Assistant
Corporation Counselor, City of Detroit.
n 1979, Anna Diggs Taylor became the first black woman judge to be
appointed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan. Nineteen years later, she became the first black woman
Chief Judge for that circuit as well.
She is a Trustee of the Detroit Institute of Arts, the Community
Foundation for Southeastern Michigan and the Henry Ford Health System.
She is a member of the State Bar (Committees on Character and Fitness
and on U.S. Courts), Federal Bar, Wolverine Bar, Black Judges
Association and Women Judges Association.
Moreover, locally, Hon. Anna Diggs Taylor is respected for her erudite
and eloquent ability to explain the rationale behind her decisions. If
you expect her decision to be easily overturned, be expectant of
disappointment as well.
Pepperoni
Judge Taylor is an elderly black woman who is an old-time Democratic
politician. Couple this with her opinion, which was unconvincing to me and
seemed well outside the mainstream of modern judicial thinking, I DO expect
the 6th Circuit to reverse her. The good thing about this dispute is that
we are going to know who is right bye and bye.

Grey Satterfield
John P. Mullen
2006-08-19 15:21:37 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Judge Taylor is an elderly black woman
<snip>
Grey Satterfield
Somehow, I'm not surprised you think this is germane.

John Mullen
D. Patterson
2006-08-18 01:47:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pepperoni
Post by D. Spencer Hines
"Carter Judge: Hear No Evil"
"A federal judge in Detroit on Thursday ordered the Bush administration to
halt the National Security Agency's program of domestic eavesdropping [sic],
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said the controversial practice of warrantless
wiretapping known as the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" violated free
speech rights, protections against unreasonable searches and the
constitutional check on the power of the presidency.
The ruling marked a setback for the Bush administration, which had asked for
the lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union to be thrown out,
arguing that any court action on the case would jeopardize secrets in an
ongoing war on terrorism.
Last week the Detroit Free Press profiled Judge Taylor, noting that she "is
a liberal with Democratic roots" who campaigned for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and
Even if Taylor harpoons the spying program, experts said, the decision
likely would be overturned by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Given the composition of the 6th Circuit and its previous rulings in
related areas, it seems more likely to favor national security over civil
liberties if that issue is squarely presented," said Carl Tobias, a law
professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia. "And that's what this
case is all about."
---------------------------------------------
The Justice Department has already appealed."
James Taranto
The Wall Street Journal
The Hon Judge Anna Diggs Taylor is a graduate of Barnard College (BA
1954), Yale Law School (LLB 1957) and has served with the Office of
Solicitor for the U.S. Department of Labor.
Prior to her appointment to the Federal Court in 1979, Judge Taylor was
a private practitioner, a legislative assistant, an Assistant Wayne
County Prosecutor, an Assistant United States Attorney, an Adjunct
Professor of Law at Wayne State Law School, and an Assistant
Corporation Counselor, City of Detroit.
n 1979, Anna Diggs Taylor became the first black woman judge to be
appointed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan. Nineteen years later, she became the first black woman
Chief Judge for that circuit as well.
She is a Trustee of the Detroit Institute of Arts, the Community
Foundation for Southeastern Michigan and the Henry Ford Health System.
She is a member of the State Bar (Committees on Character and Fitness
and on U.S. Courts), Federal Bar, Wolverine Bar, Black Judges
Association and Women Judges Association.
Moreover, locally, Hon. Anna Diggs Taylor is respected for her erudite
and eloquent ability to explain the rationale behind her decisions. If
you expect her decision to be easily overturned, be expectant of
disappointment as well.
Pepperoni
The decision is so full of false assumptions and other major holes, it
is certain to be overturned on appeal. The plaintiffs' and judge's
assumption that international telephone calls and other electronic
communications will be secure from interception and eavesdropping in the
event the U.S. Government is barred from such activities is utterly
false and ridiculously so. Telephonic and other electronic
communications are always subject to interception by foreign
governments, commercial organizations, private persons, and terrorist
organizations. Consequently, the there is no reasonable basis for the
plaintiffs to claim that electronic surveillance of the same
communications which already subject to surveillance by others is
somehow going to deprive them of a confidentialty which did not exist
before the electronic surveillance by the U.S. Government.
D. Spencer Hines
2006-08-18 02:57:43 UTC
Permalink
Good Points.

I'm surprised Brannigan hasn't chimed in on this one yet.

DSH
The decision is so full of false assumptions and other major holes, it is
certain to be overturned on appeal. The plaintiffs' and judge's assumption
that international telephone calls and other electronic communications
will be secure from interception and eavesdropping in the event the U.S.
Government is barred from such activities is utterly false and
ridiculously so. Telephonic and other electronic communications are always
subject to interception by foreign governments, commercial organizations,
private persons, and terrorist organizations. Consequently, the there is
no reasonable basis for the plaintiffs to claim that electronic
surveillance of the same communications which already subject to
surveillance by others is somehow going to deprive them of a
confidentialty which did not exist before the electronic surveillance by
the U.S. Government.
Vince
2006-08-18 03:16:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Good Points.
I'm surprised Brannigan hasn't chimed in on this one yet.
DSH
The decision is so full of false assumptions and other major holes, it is
certain to be overturned on appeal. The plaintiffs' and judge's assumption
that international telephone calls and other electronic communications
will be secure from interception and eavesdropping in the event the U.S.
Government is barred from such activities is utterly false and
ridiculously so. Telephonic and other electronic communications are always
subject to interception by foreign governments, commercial organizations,
private persons, and terrorist organizations. Consequently, the there is
no reasonable basis for the plaintiffs to claim that electronic
surveillance of the same communications which already subject to
surveillance by others is somehow going to deprive them of a
confidentialty which did not exist before the electronic surveillance by
the U.S. Government.
Mr Patterson's comment is simply silly. Rights against the US
government are not affected by whether some other government might or
might not do something

confidentiality is an effect of the amendment, not the right. the right
is a prohibition of government searches

the 4th amendment is a direct control on the US government

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

as to yourself I disposed of your argument some time ago
using the same cases used by the judge in this case

From: Vince Brannigan - view profile
Date: Thurs, Dec 29 2005 9:18 pm
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Hilarious!
Pogue Brannigan keeps reeling out long, off-the-wall quotations from
various
Post by D. Spencer Hines
statutes in an effort to discredit President Bush.
Brannigan stupidly and ignorantly fails to understand their
irrelevancy with
Post by D. Spencer Hines
respect to the President's National Security Powers, under the
Constitution,
Post by D. Spencer Hines
by virtue of his position as Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive.
he gets nothing by being chief executive except to take care that the
laws be faithfully enforced.

I realize that Brown shirt lite lovers like to think that Bush has the
same powers nd he is their Fuerher, but he doesn't .
Post by D. Spencer Hines
An American President's National Security Powers under the Constitution
trump these statutes, which are simply creatures of Congress, not of the
Constitution.
Crap

read Youngstown sheet and tube or Ex parte milligan.

"They cannot justify on the mandate of the President; because he is
controlled by law, and has his appropriate sphere of duty, which is to
execute, not to make, the laws; and there is "no unwritten criminal code
to which resort can be had as a source of jurisdiction.""

yes I know you love the idea of Der fuehrer

the total god king autocrat, but I don't

neither did the Court in milligan

"The proposition is this: that in a time of war the commander of an
armed force (if in his opinion the exigencies of the country demand it,
and of which he is to judge), has the power, within the lines of his
military district, to suspend all civil rights and their remedies, and
subject citizens as well as soldiers to the rule of his will; and in the
exercise of his lawful authority cannot be restrained, except by his
superior officer or the President of the United States.....

The statement of this proposition shows its importance; for, if true,
republican government is a failure, and there is an end of liberty
regulated by law.....

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Courts have ruled in the President's favor in these matters -- and even
Jamie Gorelick, Clinton's Deputy Attorney General of the United
States, has
Post by D. Spencer Hines
told Congress and the American People any President, including
Clinton, has
Post by D. Spencer Hines
and will continue to exercise them.
Now, if the Democrats in Congress feel so strongly about this they should
try to introduce a bill in both Houses, calling for an IMMEDIATE
cessation
Post by D. Spencer Hines
of these practices by NSA and the President -- and the other relevant
Government Agencies -- with a threat to cut off all funding to NSA,
et. al.,
Post by D. Spencer Hines
and initiate Impeachment Proceedings against the President if there is
noncompliance ---- THEN we will REALLY see the feces hit the fan.
Republicans could introduce bills with similar import -- in order to
get the
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Democrats to take a stand, by voting their convictions -- smoking
them out
Post by D. Spencer Hines
of their holes with White Phosphorus rounds.
Republicans need to call the Democrats' bluff on this latest Democrat
Demagogic Gambit -- which, if successful, would only make the American
People LESS SECURE and protected in their lives and property from the
machinations of the Islamofascists.
Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of
law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln; and if
this right is conceded, and the calamities of war again befall us, the
dangers to human liberty are frightful to contemplate. If our fathers
had failed to provide for just such a contingency, they would have been
false to the trust reposed in them. They knew -- the history of the
world told them -- the nation they were founding, be its existence short
or long, would be involved in war; how often or how long continued,
human foresight could not tell; and that unlimited power, wherever
lodged at such a time, was especially hazardous to freemen. For this,
and other equally weighty reasons, they secured the inheritance they had
fought to maintain, by incorporating in a written constitution the
safeguards which time had proved were essential to its preservation. Not
one of these safeguards can the President, or Congress, or the Judiciary
disturb, except the one concerning the writ of habeas corpus.


Vince
D. Patterson
2006-08-18 04:23:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Good Points.
I'm surprised Brannigan hasn't chimed in on this one yet.
DSH
Post by D. Patterson
The decision is so full of false assumptions and other major holes,
it is certain to be overturned on appeal. The plaintiffs' and judge's
assumption that international telephone calls and other electronic
communications will be secure from interception and eavesdropping in
the event the U.S. Government is barred from such activities is
utterly false and ridiculously so. Telephonic and other electronic
communications are always subject to interception by foreign
governments, commercial organizations, private persons, and terrorist
organizations. Consequently, the there is no reasonable basis for the
plaintiffs to claim that electronic surveillance of the same
communications which already subject to surveillance by others is
somehow going to deprive them of a confidentialty which did not exist
before the electronic surveillance by the U.S. Government.
Mr Patterson's comment is simply silly. Rights against the US
government are not affected by whether some other government might or
might not do something
confidentiality is an effect of the amendment, not the right. the right
is a prohibition of government searches
the 4th amendment is a direct control on the US government
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
as to yourself I disposed of your argument some time ago
using the same cases used by the judge in this case
From: Vince Brannigan - view profile
Date: Thurs, Dec 29 2005 9:18 pm
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Hilarious!
Pogue Brannigan keeps reeling out long, off-the-wall quotations from
various
Post by D. Spencer Hines
statutes in an effort to discredit President Bush.
Brannigan stupidly and ignorantly fails to understand their
irrelevancy with
Post by D. Spencer Hines
respect to the President's National Security Powers, under the
Constitution,
Post by D. Spencer Hines
by virtue of his position as Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive.
he gets nothing by being chief executive except to take care that the
laws be faithfully enforced.
I realize that Brown shirt lite lovers like to think that Bush has the
same powers nd he is their Fuerher, but he doesn't .
Post by D. Spencer Hines
An American President's National Security Powers under the Constitution
trump these statutes, which are simply creatures of Congress, not of the
Constitution.
Crap
read Youngstown sheet and tube or Ex parte milligan.
"They cannot justify on the mandate of the President; because he is
controlled by law, and has his appropriate sphere of duty, which is to
execute, not to make, the laws; and there is "no unwritten criminal code
to which resort can be had as a source of jurisdiction.""
yes I know you love the idea of Der fuehrer
the total god king autocrat, but I don't
neither did the Court in milligan
"The proposition is this: that in a time of war the commander of an
armed force (if in his opinion the exigencies of the country demand it,
and of which he is to judge), has the power, within the lines of his
military district, to suspend all civil rights and their remedies, and
subject citizens as well as soldiers to the rule of his will; and in the
exercise of his lawful authority cannot be restrained, except by his
superior officer or the President of the United States.....
The statement of this proposition shows its importance; for, if true,
republican government is a failure, and there is an end of liberty
regulated by law.....
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Courts have ruled in the President's favor in these matters -- and even
Jamie Gorelick, Clinton's Deputy Attorney General of the United
States, has
Post by D. Spencer Hines
told Congress and the American People any President, including
Clinton, has
Post by D. Spencer Hines
and will continue to exercise them.
Now, if the Democrats in Congress feel so strongly about this they
should
Post by D. Spencer Hines
try to introduce a bill in both Houses, calling for an IMMEDIATE
cessation
Post by D. Spencer Hines
of these practices by NSA and the President -- and the other relevant
Government Agencies -- with a threat to cut off all funding to NSA,
et. al.,
Post by D. Spencer Hines
and initiate Impeachment Proceedings against the President if there is
noncompliance ---- THEN we will REALLY see the feces hit the fan.
Republicans could introduce bills with similar import -- in order to
get the
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Democrats to take a stand, by voting their convictions -- smoking
them out
Post by D. Spencer Hines
of their holes with White Phosphorus rounds.
Republicans need to call the Democrats' bluff on this latest Democrat
Demagogic Gambit -- which, if successful, would only make the American
People LESS SECURE and protected in their lives and property from the
machinations of the Islamofascists.
Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of
law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln; and if
this right is conceded, and the calamities of war again befall us, the
dangers to human liberty are frightful to contemplate. If our fathers
had failed to provide for just such a contingency, they would have been
false to the trust reposed in them. They knew -- the history of the
world told them -- the nation they were founding, be its existence short
or long, would be involved in war; how often or how long continued,
human foresight could not tell; and that unlimited power, wherever
lodged at such a time, was especially hazardous to freemen. For this,
and other equally weighty reasons, they secured the inheritance they had
fought to maintain, by incorporating in a written constitution the
safeguards which time had proved were essential to its preservation. Not
one of these safeguards can the President, or Congress, or the Judiciary
disturb, except the one concerning the writ of habeas corpus.
Vince
You cannot go out on the public square and publish a broadside
displaying a communication between correspondents and then protest the
government has no right to conduct surveillance from the contents of the
work you have already broadcast for all the public to see and hear.
Likewise, you cannot broadcast a communication between correspondents
into the public airwaves and the common carriers and then protest the
government has no right to conduct surveillance from the contents of the
work you have already broadcast for all the public to see and hear when
they choose to intercept the signals on the public airwaves and common
carriers. Confidentiality and privacy cannot be claimed whenever you
publish or broadcast a communication to the public.
Vince
2006-08-18 04:31:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Patterson
Post by Vince
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Good Points.
I'm surprised Brannigan hasn't chimed in on this one yet.
DSH
Post by D. Patterson
The decision is so full of false assumptions and other major holes,
it is certain to be overturned on appeal. The plaintiffs' and
judge's assumption that international telephone calls and other
electronic communications will be secure from interception and
eavesdropping in the event the U.S. Government is barred from such
activities is utterly false and ridiculously so. Telephonic and
other electronic communications are always subject to interception
by foreign governments, commercial organizations, private persons,
and terrorist organizations. Consequently, the there is no
reasonable basis for the plaintiffs to claim that electronic
surveillance of the same communications which already subject to
surveillance by others is somehow going to deprive them of a
confidentialty which did not exist before the electronic
surveillance by the U.S. Government.
Mr Patterson's comment is simply silly. Rights against the US
government are not affected by whether some other government might or
might not do something
confidentiality is an effect of the amendment, not the right. the
right is a prohibition of government searches
the 4th amendment is a direct control on the US government
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
as to yourself I disposed of your argument some time ago
using the same cases used by the judge in this case
From: Vince Brannigan - view profile
Date: Thurs, Dec 29 2005 9:18 pm
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Hilarious!
Pogue Brannigan keeps reeling out long, off-the-wall quotations
from various
Post by D. Spencer Hines
statutes in an effort to discredit President Bush.
Brannigan stupidly and ignorantly fails to understand their
irrelevancy with
Post by D. Spencer Hines
respect to the President's National Security Powers, under the
Constitution,
Post by D. Spencer Hines
by virtue of his position as Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive.
he gets nothing by being chief executive except to take care that the
laws be faithfully enforced.
I realize that Brown shirt lite lovers like to think that Bush has the
same powers nd he is their Fuerher, but he doesn't .
Post by D. Spencer Hines
An American President's National Security Powers under the
Constitution
Post by D. Spencer Hines
trump these statutes, which are simply creatures of Congress, not
of the
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Constitution.
Crap
read Youngstown sheet and tube or Ex parte milligan.
"They cannot justify on the mandate of the President; because he is
controlled by law, and has his appropriate sphere of duty, which is to
execute, not to make, the laws; and there is "no unwritten criminal code
to which resort can be had as a source of jurisdiction.""
yes I know you love the idea of Der fuehrer
the total god king autocrat, but I don't
neither did the Court in milligan
"The proposition is this: that in a time of war the commander of an
armed force (if in his opinion the exigencies of the country demand it,
and of which he is to judge), has the power, within the lines of his
military district, to suspend all civil rights and their remedies, and
subject citizens as well as soldiers to the rule of his will; and in the
exercise of his lawful authority cannot be restrained, except by his
superior officer or the President of the United States.....
The statement of this proposition shows its importance; for, if true,
republican government is a failure, and there is an end of liberty
regulated by law.....
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Courts have ruled in the President's favor in these matters -- and
even
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Jamie Gorelick, Clinton's Deputy Attorney General of the United
States, has
Post by D. Spencer Hines
told Congress and the American People any President, including
Clinton, has
Post by D. Spencer Hines
and will continue to exercise them.
Now, if the Democrats in Congress feel so strongly about this they
should
Post by D. Spencer Hines
try to introduce a bill in both Houses, calling for an IMMEDIATE
cessation
Post by D. Spencer Hines
of these practices by NSA and the President -- and the other relevant
Government Agencies -- with a threat to cut off all funding to NSA,
et. al.,
Post by D. Spencer Hines
and initiate Impeachment Proceedings against the President if there is
noncompliance ---- THEN we will REALLY see the feces hit the fan.
Republicans could introduce bills with similar import -- in order
to get the
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Democrats to take a stand, by voting their convictions -- smoking
them out
Post by D. Spencer Hines
of their holes with White Phosphorus rounds.
Republicans need to call the Democrats' bluff on this latest Democrat
Demagogic Gambit -- which, if successful, would only make the American
People LESS SECURE and protected in their lives and property from the
machinations of the Islamofascists.
Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of
law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln; and if
this right is conceded, and the calamities of war again befall us, the
dangers to human liberty are frightful to contemplate. If our fathers
had failed to provide for just such a contingency, they would have been
false to the trust reposed in them. They knew -- the history of the
world told them -- the nation they were founding, be its existence short
or long, would be involved in war; how often or how long continued,
human foresight could not tell; and that unlimited power, wherever
lodged at such a time, was especially hazardous to freemen. For this,
and other equally weighty reasons, they secured the inheritance they had
fought to maintain, by incorporating in a written constitution the
safeguards which time had proved were essential to its preservation. Not
one of these safeguards can the President, or Congress, or the Judiciary
disturb, except the one concerning the writ of habeas corpus.
Vince
You cannot go out on the public square and publish a broadside
displaying a communication between correspondents and then protest the
government has no right to conduct surveillance from the contents of the
work you have already broadcast for all the public to see and hear.
not the issue
They are welcome to monitor my public talk but not to break into the
houses of the persons whose talk I report
Post by D. Patterson
Likewise, you cannot broadcast a communication between correspondents
into the public airwaves and the common carriers and then protest the
government has no right to conduct surveillance from the contents of the
work you have already broadcast for all the public to see and hear when
they choose to intercept the signals on the public airwaves and common
carriers. Confidentiality and privacy cannot be claimed whenever you
publish or broadcast a communication to the public.
not the issue.
the government cannot conduct unreasonable searches and seizures.


even if the content is already public

Vince
D. Patterson
2006-08-18 05:07:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Post by D. Patterson
Post by Vince
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Good Points.
I'm surprised Brannigan hasn't chimed in on this one yet.
DSH
Post by D. Patterson
The decision is so full of false assumptions and other major holes,
it is certain to be overturned on appeal. The plaintiffs' and
judge's assumption that international telephone calls and other
electronic communications will be secure from interception and
eavesdropping in the event the U.S. Government is barred from such
activities is utterly false and ridiculously so. Telephonic and
other electronic communications are always subject to interception
by foreign governments, commercial organizations, private persons,
and terrorist organizations. Consequently, the there is no
reasonable basis for the plaintiffs to claim that electronic
surveillance of the same communications which already subject to
surveillance by others is somehow going to deprive them of a
confidentialty which did not exist before the electronic
surveillance by the U.S. Government.
Mr Patterson's comment is simply silly. Rights against the US
government are not affected by whether some other government might or
might not do something
confidentiality is an effect of the amendment, not the right. the
right is a prohibition of government searches
the 4th amendment is a direct control on the US government
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
as to yourself I disposed of your argument some time ago
using the same cases used by the judge in this case
From: Vince Brannigan - view profile
Date: Thurs, Dec 29 2005 9:18 pm
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Hilarious!
Pogue Brannigan keeps reeling out long, off-the-wall quotations
from various
Post by D. Spencer Hines
statutes in an effort to discredit President Bush.
Brannigan stupidly and ignorantly fails to understand their
irrelevancy with
Post by D. Spencer Hines
respect to the President's National Security Powers, under the
Constitution,
Post by D. Spencer Hines
by virtue of his position as Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive.
he gets nothing by being chief executive except to take care that the
laws be faithfully enforced.
I realize that Brown shirt lite lovers like to think that Bush has the
same powers nd he is their Fuerher, but he doesn't .
Post by D. Spencer Hines
An American President's National Security Powers under the
Constitution
Post by D. Spencer Hines
trump these statutes, which are simply creatures of Congress, not
of the
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Constitution.
Crap
read Youngstown sheet and tube or Ex parte milligan.
"They cannot justify on the mandate of the President; because he is
controlled by law, and has his appropriate sphere of duty, which is to
execute, not to make, the laws; and there is "no unwritten criminal code
to which resort can be had as a source of jurisdiction.""
yes I know you love the idea of Der fuehrer
the total god king autocrat, but I don't
neither did the Court in milligan
"The proposition is this: that in a time of war the commander of an
armed force (if in his opinion the exigencies of the country demand it,
and of which he is to judge), has the power, within the lines of his
military district, to suspend all civil rights and their remedies, and
subject citizens as well as soldiers to the rule of his will; and in the
exercise of his lawful authority cannot be restrained, except by his
superior officer or the President of the United States.....
The statement of this proposition shows its importance; for, if true,
republican government is a failure, and there is an end of liberty
regulated by law.....
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Courts have ruled in the President's favor in these matters -- and
even
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Jamie Gorelick, Clinton's Deputy Attorney General of the United
States, has
Post by D. Spencer Hines
told Congress and the American People any President, including
Clinton, has
Post by D. Spencer Hines
and will continue to exercise them.
Now, if the Democrats in Congress feel so strongly about this they
should
Post by D. Spencer Hines
try to introduce a bill in both Houses, calling for an IMMEDIATE
cessation
Post by D. Spencer Hines
of these practices by NSA and the President -- and the other relevant
Government Agencies -- with a threat to cut off all funding to
NSA, et. al.,
Post by D. Spencer Hines
and initiate Impeachment Proceedings against the President if
there is
Post by D. Spencer Hines
noncompliance ---- THEN we will REALLY see the feces hit the fan.
Republicans could introduce bills with similar import -- in order
to get the
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Democrats to take a stand, by voting their convictions -- smoking
them out
Post by D. Spencer Hines
of their holes with White Phosphorus rounds.
Republicans need to call the Democrats' bluff on this latest Democrat
Demagogic Gambit -- which, if successful, would only make the
American
Post by D. Spencer Hines
People LESS SECURE and protected in their lives and property from the
machinations of the Islamofascists.
Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of
law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln; and if
this right is conceded, and the calamities of war again befall us, the
dangers to human liberty are frightful to contemplate. If our fathers
had failed to provide for just such a contingency, they would have been
false to the trust reposed in them. They knew -- the history of the
world told them -- the nation they were founding, be its existence short
or long, would be involved in war; how often or how long continued,
human foresight could not tell; and that unlimited power, wherever
lodged at such a time, was especially hazardous to freemen. For this,
and other equally weighty reasons, they secured the inheritance they had
fought to maintain, by incorporating in a written constitution the
safeguards which time had proved were essential to its preservation. Not
one of these safeguards can the President, or Congress, or the Judiciary
disturb, except the one concerning the writ of habeas corpus.
Vince
You cannot go out on the public square and publish a broadside
displaying a communication between correspondents and then protest the
government has no right to conduct surveillance from the contents of
the work you have already broadcast for all the public to see and hear.
not the issue
They are welcome to monitor my public talk but not to break into the
houses of the persons whose talk I report
Post by D. Patterson
Likewise, you cannot broadcast a communication between correspondents
into the public airwaves and the common carriers and then protest the
government has no right to conduct surveillance from the contents of
the work you have already broadcast for all the public to see and hear
when they choose to intercept the signals on the public airwaves and
common carriers. Confidentiality and privacy cannot be claimed
whenever you publish or broadcast a communication to the public.
not the issue.
the government cannot conduct unreasonable searches and seizures.
even if the content is already public
Vince
Thank you for demonstrating so eloquently why so many lawyers inside and
outside of government lack the commonsense to stand aside from oncoming
trains and are entirely too untrustworthy to govern military affairs. As
everyone who has ever had COMSEC training in the military services
knows, talking on the telephone is tantamount to publishing the
conversation on the inside pages of the New York Times, right alongside
their brief paragraphs acknowledging errors in past articles and
editorials. Anyone who imagines they have an expectation of privacy in a
telephone call is ignorant and/or a damned fool. Attempts to employ
legal fantasies and trickery in an effort to ignore and overcome such a
hard reality deserve to be dismissed with prejudice. Conducting
surveillance on communications transmitted in public view does not and
logically cannot constitute privacy, confidentiality, or unreasonable
search and seizure.
miguel
2006-08-18 19:56:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Patterson
Thank you for demonstrating so eloquently why so many lawyers inside and
outside of government lack the commonsense to stand aside from oncoming
trains and are entirely too untrustworthy to govern military affairs. As
everyone who has ever had COMSEC training in the military services
knows, talking on the telephone is tantamount to publishing the
conversation on the inside pages of the New York Times, right alongside
their brief paragraphs acknowledging errors in past articles and
editorials. Anyone who imagines they have an expectation of privacy in a
telephone call is ignorant and/or a damned fool. Attempts to employ
legal fantasies and trickery in an effort to ignore and overcome such a
hard reality deserve to be dismissed with prejudice. Conducting
surveillance on communications transmitted in public view does not and
logically cannot constitute privacy, confidentiality, or unreasonable
search and seizure.
You are in error. If your argument were correct, in any case where a
governmental agency possesses technology capable of invading any private
space without actually setting foot in anybody's curtilage, then the
government could simply announce the existence of this technology and
instantly render all expectations of privacy unreasonable.

It doesn't work that way, homey.

miguel
Grey Satterfield
2006-08-18 21:26:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by miguel
Post by D. Patterson
Thank you for demonstrating so eloquently why so many lawyers inside and
outside of government lack the commonsense to stand aside from oncoming
trains and are entirely too untrustworthy to govern military affairs. As
everyone who has ever had COMSEC training in the military services
knows, talking on the telephone is tantamount to publishing the
conversation on the inside pages of the New York Times, right alongside
their brief paragraphs acknowledging errors in past articles and
editorials. Anyone who imagines they have an expectation of privacy in a
telephone call is ignorant and/or a damned fool. Attempts to employ
legal fantasies and trickery in an effort to ignore and overcome such a
hard reality deserve to be dismissed with prejudice. Conducting
surveillance on communications transmitted in public view does not and
logically cannot constitute privacy, confidentiality, or unreasonable
search and seizure.
You are in error. If your argument were correct, in any case where a
governmental agency possesses technology capable of invading any private
space without actually setting foot in anybody's curtilage, then the
government could simply announce the existence of this technology and
instantly render all expectations of privacy unreasonable.
It doesn't work that way, homey.
The clear consensus of legal scholars, however, is to the contrary. Most
scholars believe that intercepting telephone conversations in which one of
the parties to the conversation is a suspected terrorist in a foreign land
is reasonable and constitutional. In fact, Judge Taylor's opinion is a
first: it flatly declares unconstitutional such intercepts and issues a
permanent injunction against them.

As I have noted in earlier posts, I suspect that the effectiveness of Judge
Taylor's injunction will be stayed pending appeal, either by Judge Taylor
herself, if she is smart, or by the 6th Circuit if she is not. I further
believe that the 6th Circuit will reverse Judge Taylor on appeal. Time will
tell, that's for sure.

Grey Satterfield
Jack Linthicum
2006-08-18 21:29:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by miguel
Post by D. Patterson
Thank you for demonstrating so eloquently why so many lawyers inside and
outside of government lack the commonsense to stand aside from oncoming
trains and are entirely too untrustworthy to govern military affairs. As
everyone who has ever had COMSEC training in the military services
knows, talking on the telephone is tantamount to publishing the
conversation on the inside pages of the New York Times, right alongside
their brief paragraphs acknowledging errors in past articles and
editorials. Anyone who imagines they have an expectation of privacy in a
telephone call is ignorant and/or a damned fool. Attempts to employ
legal fantasies and trickery in an effort to ignore and overcome such a
hard reality deserve to be dismissed with prejudice. Conducting
surveillance on communications transmitted in public view does not and
logically cannot constitute privacy, confidentiality, or unreasonable
search and seizure.
You are in error. If your argument were correct, in any case where a
governmental agency possesses technology capable of invading any private
space without actually setting foot in anybody's curtilage, then the
government could simply announce the existence of this technology and
instantly render all expectations of privacy unreasonable.
It doesn't work that way, homey.
The clear consensus of legal scholars, however, is to the contrary. Most
scholars believe that intercepting telephone conversations in which one of
the parties to the conversation is a suspected terrorist in a foreign land
is reasonable and constitutional. In fact, Judge Taylor's opinion is a
first: it flatly declares unconstitutional such intercepts and issues a
permanent injunction against them.
Without a warrant
Post by Grey Satterfield
As I have noted in earlier posts, I suspect that the effectiveness of Judge
Taylor's injunction will be stayed pending appeal, either by Judge Taylor
herself, if she is smart, or by the 6th Circuit if she is not. I further
believe that the 6th Circuit will reverse Judge Taylor on appeal. Time will
tell, that's for sure.
Grey Satterfield
Grey Satterfield
2006-08-18 23:22:01 UTC
Permalink
On 8/18/06 4:29 PM, in article
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by miguel
Post by D. Patterson
Thank you for demonstrating so eloquently why so many lawyers inside and
outside of government lack the commonsense to stand aside from oncoming
trains and are entirely too untrustworthy to govern military affairs. As
everyone who has ever had COMSEC training in the military services
knows, talking on the telephone is tantamount to publishing the
conversation on the inside pages of the New York Times, right alongside
their brief paragraphs acknowledging errors in past articles and
editorials. Anyone who imagines they have an expectation of privacy in a
telephone call is ignorant and/or a damned fool. Attempts to employ
legal fantasies and trickery in an effort to ignore and overcome such a
hard reality deserve to be dismissed with prejudice. Conducting
surveillance on communications transmitted in public view does not and
logically cannot constitute privacy, confidentiality, or unreasonable
search and seizure.
You are in error. If your argument were correct, in any case where a
governmental agency possesses technology capable of invading any private
space without actually setting foot in anybody's curtilage, then the
government could simply announce the existence of this technology and
instantly render all expectations of privacy unreasonable.
It doesn't work that way, homey.
The clear consensus of legal scholars, however, is to the contrary. Most
scholars believe that intercepting telephone conversations in which one of
the parties to the conversation is a suspected terrorist in a foreign land
is reasonable and constitutional. In fact, Judge Taylor's opinion is a
first: it flatly declares unconstitutional such intercepts and issues a
permanent injunction against them.
Without a warrant
Yes, without a warrant. The academic community weighed in when the Left
started raising hell precisely because the intercepts were made without
warrants. As noted, most legal scholars disagreed with the Leftists who
were complaining.

Grey Satterfield
Jack Linthicum
2006-08-18 23:39:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
On 8/18/06 4:29 PM, in article
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by miguel
Post by D. Patterson
Thank you for demonstrating so eloquently why so many lawyers inside and
outside of government lack the commonsense to stand aside from oncoming
trains and are entirely too untrustworthy to govern military affairs. As
everyone who has ever had COMSEC training in the military services
knows, talking on the telephone is tantamount to publishing the
conversation on the inside pages of the New York Times, right alongside
their brief paragraphs acknowledging errors in past articles and
editorials. Anyone who imagines they have an expectation of privacy in a
telephone call is ignorant and/or a damned fool. Attempts to employ
legal fantasies and trickery in an effort to ignore and overcome such a
hard reality deserve to be dismissed with prejudice. Conducting
surveillance on communications transmitted in public view does not and
logically cannot constitute privacy, confidentiality, or unreasonable
search and seizure.
You are in error. If your argument were correct, in any case where a
governmental agency possesses technology capable of invading any private
space without actually setting foot in anybody's curtilage, then the
government could simply announce the existence of this technology and
instantly render all expectations of privacy unreasonable.
It doesn't work that way, homey.
The clear consensus of legal scholars, however, is to the contrary. Most
scholars believe that intercepting telephone conversations in which one of
the parties to the conversation is a suspected terrorist in a foreign land
is reasonable and constitutional. In fact, Judge Taylor's opinion is a
first: it flatly declares unconstitutional such intercepts and issues a
permanent injunction against them.
Without a warrant
Yes, without a warrant. The academic community weighed in when the Left
started raising hell precisely because the intercepts were made without
warrants. As noted, most legal scholars disagreed with the Leftists who
were complaining.
Grey Satterfield
Given your past cites please define "most legal scholars" and give a
cite
miguel
2006-08-18 23:47:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by miguel
Post by D. Patterson
Thank you for demonstrating so eloquently why so many lawyers inside and
outside of government lack the commonsense to stand aside from oncoming
trains and are entirely too untrustworthy to govern military affairs. As
everyone who has ever had COMSEC training in the military services
knows, talking on the telephone is tantamount to publishing the
conversation on the inside pages of the New York Times, right alongside
their brief paragraphs acknowledging errors in past articles and
editorials. Anyone who imagines they have an expectation of privacy in a
telephone call is ignorant and/or a damned fool. Attempts to employ
legal fantasies and trickery in an effort to ignore and overcome such a
hard reality deserve to be dismissed with prejudice. Conducting
surveillance on communications transmitted in public view does not and
logically cannot constitute privacy, confidentiality, or unreasonable
search and seizure.
You are in error. If your argument were correct, in any case where a
governmental agency possesses technology capable of invading any private
space without actually setting foot in anybody's curtilage, then the
government could simply announce the existence of this technology and
instantly render all expectations of privacy unreasonable.
It doesn't work that way, homey.
The clear consensus of legal scholars, however, is to the contrary. Most
scholars believe that intercepting telephone conversations in which one of
the parties to the conversation is a suspected terrorist in a foreign land
is reasonable and constitutional. In fact, Judge Taylor's opinion is a
first: it flatly declares unconstitutional such intercepts and issues a
permanent injunction against them.
Without a warrant
Yes, without a warrant. The academic community weighed in when the Left
started raising hell precisely because the intercepts were made without
warrants. As noted, most legal scholars disagreed with the Leftists who
were complaining.
This is incorrect. Most legal scholars agreed that FISA applies. Only
those with extremely partisan axes to grind opine otherwise.

miguel
miguel
2006-08-18 21:43:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by miguel
Post by D. Patterson
Thank you for demonstrating so eloquently why so many lawyers inside and
outside of government lack the commonsense to stand aside from oncoming
trains and are entirely too untrustworthy to govern military affairs. As
everyone who has ever had COMSEC training in the military services
knows, talking on the telephone is tantamount to publishing the
conversation on the inside pages of the New York Times, right alongside
their brief paragraphs acknowledging errors in past articles and
editorials. Anyone who imagines they have an expectation of privacy in a
telephone call is ignorant and/or a damned fool. Attempts to employ
legal fantasies and trickery in an effort to ignore and overcome such a
hard reality deserve to be dismissed with prejudice. Conducting
surveillance on communications transmitted in public view does not and
logically cannot constitute privacy, confidentiality, or unreasonable
search and seizure.
You are in error. If your argument were correct, in any case where a
governmental agency possesses technology capable of invading any private
space without actually setting foot in anybody's curtilage, then the
government could simply announce the existence of this technology and
instantly render all expectations of privacy unreasonable.
It doesn't work that way, homey.
The clear consensus of legal scholars, however, is to the contrary.
No it's not.
Post by Grey Satterfield
Most
scholars believe that intercepting telephone conversations in which one of
the parties to the conversation is a suspected terrorist in a foreign land
is reasonable and constitutional. In fact, Judge Taylor's opinion is a
first: it flatly declares unconstitutional such intercepts and issues a
permanent injunction against them.
Have you actually read the opinion?
Post by Grey Satterfield
As I have noted in earlier posts, I suspect that the effectiveness of Judge
Taylor's injunction will be stayed pending appeal, either by Judge Taylor
herself, if she is smart, or by the 6th Circuit if she is not. I further
believe that the 6th Circuit will reverse Judge Taylor on appeal. Time will
tell, that's for sure.
Yes. Hers is not the last word.
Vince
2006-08-18 20:16:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Patterson
Post by Vince
not the issue.
the government cannot conduct unreasonable searches and seizures.
even if the content is already public
Vince
Thank you for demonstrating so eloquently why so many lawyers inside and
outside of government lack the commonsense to stand aside from oncoming
trains and are entirely too untrustworthy to govern military affairs. As
everyone who has ever had COMSEC training in the military services
knows, talking on the telephone is tantamount to publishing the
conversation on the inside pages of the New York Times, right alongside
their brief paragraphs acknowledging errors in past articles and
editorials.
only in Nazi land

The fact that criminals can get information does not
mean the government can have it.

except in Nazi land

Anyone who imagines they have an expectation of privacy in a
Post by D. Patterson
telephone call is ignorant and/or a damned fool. Attempts to employ
legal fantasies and trickery in an effort to ignore and overcome such a
hard reality deserve to be dismissed with prejudice. Conducting
surveillance on communications transmitted in public view does not and
logically cannot constitute privacy, confidentiality, or unreasonable
search and seizure.
in a land run by the Gestapo sure
but in the USA telephone calls are protected by law

I realize that is a problem for those who lick up to criminals but it is
the law.


Vince
redc1c4
2006-08-19 07:09:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Post by D. Patterson
Post by Vince
not the issue.
the government cannot conduct unreasonable searches and seizures.
even if the content is already public
Vince
Thank you for demonstrating so eloquently why so many lawyers inside and
outside of government lack the commonsense to stand aside from oncoming
trains and are entirely too untrustworthy to govern military affairs. As
everyone who has ever had COMSEC training in the military services
knows, talking on the telephone is tantamount to publishing the
conversation on the inside pages of the New York Times, right alongside
their brief paragraphs acknowledging errors in past articles and
editorials.
only in Nazi land
The fact that criminals can get information does not
mean the government can have it.
except in Nazi land
Anyone who imagines they have an expectation of privacy in a
Post by D. Patterson
telephone call is ignorant and/or a damned fool. Attempts to employ
legal fantasies and trickery in an effort to ignore and overcome such a
hard reality deserve to be dismissed with prejudice. Conducting
surveillance on communications transmitted in public view does not and
logically cannot constitute privacy, confidentiality, or unreasonable
search and seizure.
in a land run by the Gestapo sure
but in the USA telephone calls are protected by law
I realize that is a problem for those who lick up to criminals but it is
the law.
Vince
Godwin.

redc1c4,
(thanks for showing your ass again, Vine. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide
Vince
2006-08-19 09:52:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by redc1c4
Post by Vince
Post by D. Patterson
Post by Vince
not the issue.
the government cannot conduct unreasonable searches and seizures.
even if the content is already public
Vince
Thank you for demonstrating so eloquently why so many lawyers inside and
outside of government lack the commonsense to stand aside from oncoming
trains and are entirely too untrustworthy to govern military affairs. As
everyone who has ever had COMSEC training in the military services
knows, talking on the telephone is tantamount to publishing the
conversation on the inside pages of the New York Times, right alongside
their brief paragraphs acknowledging errors in past articles and
editorials.
only in Nazi land
The fact that criminals can get information does not
mean the government can have it.
except in Nazi land
Anyone who imagines they have an expectation of privacy in a
Post by D. Patterson
telephone call is ignorant and/or a damned fool. Attempts to employ
legal fantasies and trickery in an effort to ignore and overcome such a
hard reality deserve to be dismissed with prejudice. Conducting
surveillance on communications transmitted in public view does not and
logically cannot constitute privacy, confidentiality, or unreasonable
search and seizure.
in a land run by the Gestapo sure
but in the USA telephone calls are protected by law
I realize that is a problem for those who lick up to criminals but it is
the law.
Vince
Godwin.
redc1c4,
(thanks for showing your ass again, Vine. %-)
no content no response.

Vince
Colin Campbell
2006-08-19 14:54:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Post by redc1c4
Post by Vince
in a land run by the Gestapo sure
but in the USA telephone calls are protected by law
I realize that is a problem for those who lick up to criminals but it is
the law.
Vince
Godwin.
redc1c4,
(thanks for showing your ass again, Vine. %-)
no content no response.
You are the person who committed the 'Godwin' violation.

Can you provide a reference that _international_ phone calls have any
legal expectation of privacy?




--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
miguel
2006-08-19 15:02:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Vince
Post by redc1c4
Post by Vince
in a land run by the Gestapo sure
but in the USA telephone calls are protected by law
I realize that is a problem for those who lick up to criminals but it is
the law.
Vince
Godwin.
redc1c4,
(thanks for showing your ass again, Vine. %-)
no content no response.
You are the person who committed the 'Godwin' violation.
Can you provide a reference that _international_ phone calls have any
legal expectation of privacy?
I can, but before I do, please tell me why you think this issue is relevant.

miguel
Kurt Ullman
2006-08-19 15:08:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by miguel
I can, but before I do, please tell me why you think this issue is relevant.
miguel
i'm guessing because these are international phone calls, from outside
the US and all.
miguel
2006-08-19 15:15:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Ullman
Post by miguel
I can, but before I do, please tell me why you think this issue is relevant.
miguel
i'm guessing because these are international phone calls, from outside
the US and all.
My question is why is this issue relevant to the legal issues before
Judge Diggs Taylor, or the 6th Circuit.

miguel
Kurt Ullman
2006-08-19 15:04:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Vince
Post by redc1c4
Post by Vince
in a land run by the Gestapo sure
but in the USA telephone calls are protected by law
I realize that is a problem for those who lick up to criminals but it is
the law.
Vince
Godwin.
redc1c4,
(thanks for showing your ass again, Vine. %-)
no content no response.
You are the person who committed the 'Godwin' violation.
Can you provide a reference that _international_ phone calls have any
legal expectation of privacy?
I would be more interested in him providing a reference that any of
this lead to the systematic extermination of millions of Jews, Gypsies
and other "underdesirables".
Vince
2006-08-19 15:38:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Ullman
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Vince
Post by redc1c4
Post by Vince
in a land run by the Gestapo sure
but in the USA telephone calls are protected by law
I realize that is a problem for those who lick up to criminals but it is
the law.
Vince
Godwin.
redc1c4,
(thanks for showing your ass again, Vine. %-)
no content no response.
You are the person who committed the 'Godwin' violation.
Can you provide a reference that _international_ phone calls have any
legal expectation of privacy?
I would be more interested in him providing a reference that any of
this lead to the systematic extermination of millions of Jews, Gypsies
and other "underdesirables".
I've said it before

"Brown shirt lite" is Nazism without out the antisemitism and death
camps.. It is Authoritarian


Vince

Vince
2006-08-19 15:34:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin Campbell
Post by Vince
Post by redc1c4
Post by Vince
in a land run by the Gestapo sure
but in the USA telephone calls are protected by law
I realize that is a problem for those who lick up to criminals but it is
the law.
Vince
Godwin.
redc1c4,
(thanks for showing your ass again, Vine. %-)
no content no response.
You are the person who committed the 'Godwin' violation.
Can you provide a reference that _international_ phone calls have any
legal expectation of privacy?
Without a court order

The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic
surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided
it is only for foreign intelligence information [2a]; targeting foreign
powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a)(1),(2),(3) [6] or their agents;
and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will
acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States
person is a party.[7]

The Attorney General is required to make a certification of these
conditions under seal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court[8],
and report on their compliance to the House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. [9]

Since 50 U.S.C § 1802 (a)(1)(A) of this act specifically limits
warrantless surveillance to foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C.
§1801(a) (1),(2), (3) and omits the definitions contained in 50 U.S.C.
§1801(a) (4),(5),(6) the act does not authorize the use of warrantless
surveillance on: groups engaged in international terrorism or activities
in preparation therefore; foreign-based political organizations, not
substantially composed of United States persons; or entities that are
directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments. [10]
Under the FISA act, anyone who engages in electronic surveillance except
as authorized by statute is subject to both criminal penalties [10a] and
civil liabilities. [11a]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA_law#Electronic_surveillance


Vince
Grey Satterfield
2006-08-19 12:59:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by redc1c4
Post by Vince
Post by D. Patterson
Post by Vince
not the issue.
the government cannot conduct unreasonable searches and seizures.
even if the content is already public
Vince
Thank you for demonstrating so eloquently why so many lawyers inside and
outside of government lack the commonsense to stand aside from oncoming
trains and are entirely too untrustworthy to govern military affairs. As
everyone who has ever had COMSEC training in the military services
knows, talking on the telephone is tantamount to publishing the
conversation on the inside pages of the New York Times, right alongside
their brief paragraphs acknowledging errors in past articles and
editorials.
only in Nazi land
The fact that criminals can get information does not
mean the government can have it.
except in Nazi land
Anyone who imagines they have an expectation of privacy in a
Post by D. Patterson
telephone call is ignorant and/or a damned fool. Attempts to employ
legal fantasies and trickery in an effort to ignore and overcome such a
hard reality deserve to be dismissed with prejudice. Conducting
surveillance on communications transmitted in public view does not and
logically cannot constitute privacy, confidentiality, or unreasonable
search and seizure.
in a land run by the Gestapo sure
but in the USA telephone calls are protected by law
I realize that is a problem for those who lick up to criminals but it is
the law.
Vince
Godwin.
Indeed. I have also been waiting for someone to include a discussion of
battleships or a Monty Python quote.

Grey Satterfield
Jack Linthicum
2006-08-19 13:07:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Indeed. I have also been waiting for someone to include a discussion of
battleships or a Monty Python quote.
Grey Satterfield
In response to a request for a home-bound gentleman in Oklahoma City:

(scene switches to a courtroom. Characters are all in powdered wigs
and
judicial robes, except publisher and cop. Characters:

Judge: Terry Jones

Bailiff: Eric Idle

Lawyer: John Cleese

Cop: Graham (still)

Publisher: Michael Palin )



Bailiff: Call Alexander Yalt!

(voices sing out the name several times)

Judge: Oh, shut up!

Bailiff: (to publisher) You are Alexander Yalt?

Publisher: (in a sing-songy voice) Oh, I am.

Bailiff: Skip the impersonations. You are Alexander Yalt?

Publisher: I am.

Bailiff: You are hereby charged that on the 28th day of May, 1970,
you did
willfully, unlawfully, and with malice of forethought,
publish an
alleged English-Hungarian phrase book with intent to cause a
breach
of the peace. How do you plead?

Publisher: Not guilty.

Bailiff: You live at 46 Horton Terrace?

Publisher: I do live at 46 Horton terrace.

Bailiff: You are the director of a publishing company?

Publisher: I am the director of a publishing company.

Bailiff: Your company publishes phrase books?

Publisher: My company does publish phrase books.

Bailiff: You did say 46 Horton Terrace, did you?

Publisher: Yes.

Bailiff: (strikes a gong) Ah! Got him!

(lawyer and cop applaud, laugh)

Judge: Get on with it, get on with it.

Bailiff: That's fine. On the 28th of May, you published this phrase
book.
Publisher: I did.

Bailiff: I quote on example. The Hungarian phrase meaning "Can you
direct me
to the station?" is translated by the English phrase,
"Please fondle
my bum."

Publisher: I wish to plead incompetence.

Cop: (stands) Please may I ask for an adjournment, m'lord?

Judge: An adjournment? Certainly not!



(the cop sits down again, emitting perhaps the longest and loudest
release of
bodily gas in the history of the universe.)



Judge: Why on earth didn't you say WHY you wanted an adjournment?

Cop: I didn't know an acceptable legal phrase, m'lord.

(cut to ancient footage of old women applauding)

Judge: (banging + swinging gavel) If there's any more stock film of
women
applauding, I'll clear the court.


and

Mr Justice Peter Smith embedded a code within the 7 April 2006 printed
judgement from the case. The first few pages contain scattered letters
which were italicised; a coded message placed as an amusement. The
first section spells 'smithy code', followed by a number of other
seemingly random letters. The judge stated that he couldn't talk about
the code as he couldn't talk about the ruling, but would confirm any
correct attempt to break it. However, it was later learned that he had
given a series of email hints about the code, which was finally
announced as cracked on 28 April 2006 by Daniel Tench, a lawyer and
media journalist for The Guardian newspaper. [2] The plaintext reads:
"Smithy Code. Jackie Fisher, who are you? Dreadnought." This is a
reference to one of Smith's hobbies, Admiral Lord Fisher, who designed
the battleship HMS Dreadnought. The ship was launched in February 1906,
almost exactly 100 years before the start of the trial.
Grey Satterfield
2006-08-19 15:20:06 UTC
Permalink
On 8/19/06 8:07 AM, in article
Post by Grey Satterfield
Indeed. I have also been waiting for someone to include a discussion of
battleships or a Monty Python quote.
Grey Satterfield
What is this "home-bound" stuff? I may be retired and a gentleman of, er, a
certain age but I AM ambulatory and have been known to get out among the
populace on occasion. :)

Grey Satterfield
Kurt Ullman
2006-08-19 13:13:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Indeed. I have also been waiting for someone to include a discussion of
battleships or a Monty Python quote.
Those are okay as long as we stay away from She Who Can't Be
Named...
La N
2006-08-19 13:33:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Ullman
Post by Grey Satterfield
Indeed. I have also been waiting for someone to include a discussion of
battleships or a Monty Python quote.
Those are okay as long as we stay away from She Who Can't Be
Named...
Norman: Is your wife a..."goer"... eh? Know what I mean? Know what I mean?
Nudge nudge. Nudge nudge! Know what I mean? Say no more...Know what I mean?
Man: I beg your pardon?
Norman: Your wife... does she, er, does she "go"-eh? Eh? Eh? Know what I
mean? Known what I mean? Say no more!
Man: She sometimes goes, yes.
Norman: I bet she does! I bet she does! I bet she does! Know what I mean?
Man: I'm sorry, I don't quite follow you.
Norman: Follow me! Follow me! I like that. That's good. A nod's as good as a
wink to a blind bat, eh?
Grey Satterfield
2006-08-19 15:24:21 UTC
Permalink
On 8/19/06 8:13 AM, in article
Post by Kurt Ullman
Post by Grey Satterfield
Indeed. I have also been waiting for someone to include a discussion of
battleships or a Monty Python quote.
Those are okay as long as we stay away from She Who Can't Be
Named...
Oh, dear! I had repressed her name -- which was a Very Good Thing. Who was
the troll who surfed the newsgroups looking for references to you-know-who
so she could post something idolatrous about her? Never mind, don't tell me
because she might surf for her own name, too. :)

Grey Satterfield
Vince
2006-08-19 14:10:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by redc1c4
Post by Vince
in a land run by the Gestapo sure
but in the USA telephone calls are protected by law
I realize that is a problem for those who lick up to criminals but it is
the law.
Vince
Godwin.
Indeed. I have also been waiting for someone to include a discussion of
battleships or a Monty Python quote.
Grey Satterfield
I have made a particular study of the history of Privacy in Germany and
its roots in the ability of the Nazis to use "national security" to
destroy privacy rights. I was a visiting researcher in privacy and Law
at the U of Frankfurt. It is not a joking matter.

Vince
D. Spencer Hines
2006-08-19 15:10:54 UTC
Permalink
Brannigan continues to confuse and conflate Bush and the Republicans with
Hitler and the Nazis.

It is a concrete manifestation of his very poor reasoning skills.

Combined with some Outright Fraud and Charlatanism.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Post by Vince
I have made a particular study of the history of Privacy in Germany and
its roots in the ability of the Nazis to use "national security" to
destroy privacy rights. I was a visiting researcher in privacy and Law at
the U of Frankfurt. It is not a joking matter.
Vince
Grey Satterfield
2006-08-19 15:35:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by redc1c4
Post by Vince
in a land run by the Gestapo sure
but in the USA telephone calls are protected by law
I realize that is a problem for those who lick up to criminals but it is
the law.
Vince
Godwin.
Indeed. I have also been waiting for someone to include a discussion of
battleships or a Monty Python quote.
Grey Satterfield
I have made a particular study of the history of Privacy in Germany and
its roots in the ability of the Nazis to use "national security" to
destroy privacy rights. I was a visiting researcher in privacy and Law
at the U of Frankfurt. It is not a joking matter.
Vince
Oh, behave! EVERYTHING on Usenet is a joking number and a claim that the
Bush administration's actions are similar to the Nazis' is a joke by any
measure -- whether meant that way or not.

Grey Satterfield
Doug McDonald
2006-08-19 14:01:05 UTC
Permalink
IF we want to stop terrorists, court orders take too long.

Say somebody in the US receives a phone call from a known
terrorist in Pakistan. That somebody in the US was not
previously suspected as a terrorist. That call, from abroad,
would be monitord already.

Then, 10 seconds after that call ends, the person in the US
makes a second call, within the US. Does anybody in their
right mind (I realize, of course, that people who object to
this sort of monitoring are not in their right mind) thaink
that they (the left) would not SCREAM BLOODY MURDER about
the Bush Administration if the second call resulted in a
terrorist attack killing 5000 people? The left would scream
that the Bush administration did not protect us.

Well, if the Administration needed a court order to monitor
the second call, it would not get monitored and the attack
would not be stopped.

The government and the people simply cannot win against the
idiocy and/or venality of the Left. And if the price is
thousands dead .....

Doug McDonald
Kurt Ullman
2006-08-19 14:06:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug McDonald
Well, if the Administration needed a court order to monitor
the second call, it would not get monitored and the attack
would not be stopped.
Vince will probably elaborate, or correct me, but even under FISA,
the government could monitor that second call (assuming the first call
gave some reason to think they have probably cause) and then have a
certain amount of time to apply for a warrant to actually USE it.
miguel
2006-08-19 14:15:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Ullman
Post by Doug McDonald
Well, if the Administration needed a court order to monitor
the second call, it would not get monitored and the attack
would not be stopped.
Vince will probably elaborate, or correct me, but even under FISA,
the government could monitor that second call (assuming the first call
gave some reason to think they have probably cause) and then have a
certain amount of time to apply for a warrant to actually USE it.
72 hours.
Jack Linthicum
2006-08-19 14:29:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by miguel
Post by Kurt Ullman
Post by Doug McDonald
Well, if the Administration needed a court order to monitor
the second call, it would not get monitored and the attack
would not be stopped.
Vince will probably elaborate, or correct me, but even under FISA,
the government could monitor that second call (assuming the first call
gave some reason to think they have probably cause) and then have a
certain amount of time to apply for a warrant to actually USE it.
72 hours.
All of these machinations are trying to avoid having someone tell this
administration "no", apparently a word they will bend break and shatter
the Constitution to avoid. Those FISA warrants were virtually automatic
before 2001.
D. Spencer Hines
2006-08-19 15:18:18 UTC
Permalink
Linthicum is so pig-ignorant he does not remember we were not At War with
Islamofascism before 2001.

DSH
Post by Jack Linthicum
All of these machinations are trying to avoid having someone tell this
administration "no", apparently a word they will bend break and shatter
the Constitution to avoid. Those FISA warrants were virtually automatic
before 2001.
Vince
2006-08-19 14:51:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Ullman
Post by Doug McDonald
Well, if the Administration needed a court order to monitor
the second call, it would not get monitored and the attack
would not be stopped.
Vince will probably elaborate, or correct me, but even under FISA,
the government could monitor that second call (assuming the first call
gave some reason to think they have probably cause) and then have a
certain amount of time to apply for a warrant to actually USE it.
of course
this is just a silly strawman




Vince
Kurt Ullman
2006-08-19 15:02:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by Kurt Ullman
Post by Doug McDonald
Well, if the Administration needed a court order to monitor
the second call, it would not get monitored and the attack
would not be stopped.
Vince will probably elaborate, or correct me, but even under FISA,
the government could monitor that second call (assuming the first call
gave some reason to think they have probably cause) and then have a
certain amount of time to apply for a warrant to actually USE it.
of course
this is just a silly strawman
Gee and you complain about lack of content. So, HOW is it a
strawman?
Vince
2006-08-19 15:36:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Ullman
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by Kurt Ullman
Post by Doug McDonald
Well, if the Administration needed a court order to monitor
the second call, it would not get monitored and the attack
would not be stopped.
Vince will probably elaborate, or correct me, but even under FISA,
the government could monitor that second call (assuming the first call
gave some reason to think they have probably cause) and then have a
certain amount of time to apply for a warrant to actually USE it.
of course
this is just a silly strawman
Gee and you complain about lack of content. So, HOW is it a
strawman?
Because you can get a warrant under FISA if you have a known terrorist.
I explained that in another thread

Vince
Vince
2006-08-19 14:50:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug McDonald
IF we want to stop terrorists, court orders take too long.
Say somebody in the US receives a phone call from a known
terrorist in Pakistan. That somebody in the US was not previously
suspected as a terrorist. That call, from abroad,
would be monitord already.
Then, 10 seconds after that call ends, the person in the US makes a
second call, within the US. Does anybody in their
right mind (I realize, of course, that people who object to this sort of
monitoring are not in their right mind) thaink that they (the left)
would not SCREAM BLOODY MURDER about the Bush Administration if the
second call resulted in a terrorist attack killing 5000 people? The left
would scream
that the Bush administration did not protect us.
Well, if the Administration needed a court order to monitor the second
call, it would not get monitored and the attack
would not be stopped.
The government and the people simply cannot win against the
idiocy and/or venality of the Left. And if the price is thousands dead
.....
Doug McDonald
Fantasy
Who are you monitoring and how? billions of phone calls per day
if you have a Known terroist who you are monitoring, you get a warrant
FISA to allow you to monitor their contacts.

no big deal

If its such a great idea why didn't bush ask congress for the authority

Vince
D. Spencer Hines
2006-08-19 15:09:50 UTC
Permalink
Who are you monitoring and how?...
Brannigan, like many of the Angry-Bush-Hating Left, wants all these Top
Secret-Codeword-Coverword procedures revealed -- so the Terrorists know just
how to get around them and kill Americans.

Grey Satterfield has already pointed out that when that happens the Angry
Left will cry, "Bush Failed To Protect Us!"

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat
D. Spencer Hines
2006-08-19 15:16:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug McDonald
IF we want to stop terrorists, court orders take too long.
Say somebody in the US receives a phone call from a known
terrorist in Pakistan. That somebody in the US was not previously
suspected as a terrorist. That call, from abroad,
would be monitored already.
Then, 10 seconds after that call ends, the person in the US makes a second
call, within the US. Does anybody in their
right mind (I realize, of course, that people who object to this sort of
monitoring are not in their right mind) think that they (the left) would
not SCREAM BLOODY MURDER about the Bush Administration if the second call
resulted in a terrorist attack killing 5000 people? The left would scream
that the Bush administration did not protect us.
Well, if the Administration needed a court order to monitor the second
call, it would not get monitored and the attack
would not be stopped.
The government and the people simply cannot win against the
idiocy and/or venality of the Left. And if the price is thousands dead
.....
Doug McDonald
-------------------------------------------------------

Bingo & Spot On!

The Republicans Need To Make This A Prime Issue In The November Elections.

"The real nub of this dispute is the Constitution's idea of "inherent
powers," although those two pages of her decision are mostly devoted to
pouring scorn on the very concept.

But jurists of far greater distinction than Judge Taylor have recognized
that the Constitution vests the bulk of war-making power with the President.

It did so, as the Founders explained in the Federalist Papers, for reasons
of *energy, dispatch, secrecy and accountability.*"

The Wall Street Journal

* Emphasis mine.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat
miguel
2006-08-19 15:36:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Post by Doug McDonald
IF we want to stop terrorists, court orders take too long.
Say somebody in the US receives a phone call from a known
terrorist in Pakistan. That somebody in the US was not previously
suspected as a terrorist. That call, from abroad,
would be monitored already.
Then, 10 seconds after that call ends, the person in the US makes a second
call, within the US. Does anybody in their
right mind (I realize, of course, that people who object to this sort of
monitoring are not in their right mind) think that they (the left) would
not SCREAM BLOODY MURDER about the Bush Administration if the second call
resulted in a terrorist attack killing 5000 people? The left would scream
that the Bush administration did not protect us.
Well, if the Administration needed a court order to monitor the second
call, it would not get monitored and the attack
would not be stopped.
The government and the people simply cannot win against the
idiocy and/or venality of the Left. And if the price is thousands dead
.....
Doug McDonald
-------------------------------------------------------
Bingo & Spot On!
LMAO!
Post by D. Spencer Hines
The Republicans Need To Make This A Prime Issue In The November Elections.
"The real nub of this dispute is the Constitution's idea of "inherent
powers," although those two pages of her decision are mostly devoted to
pouring scorn on the very concept.
But jurists of far greater distinction than Judge Taylor have recognized
that the Constitution vests the bulk of war-making power with the President.
It did so, as the Founders explained in the Federalist Papers, for reasons
of *energy, dispatch, secrecy and accountability.*"
The Wall Street Journal
* Emphasis mine.
Great political strategery there, D. Spencer. I hope the republicans
follow your advice. With Bush's approval ratings hovering around 30%,
the american voter needs to be fed a steady diet of complaints that
Congress and the Courts are refusing to give Bush more authority. If he
had more authority, maybe his approval ratings would dip into the teens,
like Cheney's.

miguel
Kurt Ullman
2006-08-18 13:40:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Mr Patterson's comment is simply silly. Rights against the US
government are not affected by whether some other government might or
might not do something
confidentiality is an effect of the amendment, not the right. the right
is a prohibition of government searches
the 4th amendment is a direct control on the US government
My understanding is that this in respect to calls coming from outside
the US, where the US has no prohibition against doing so, going to the
US. If I understand wiretapping law in the US, from a long time ago on
the periphery of some investigations, to monitor phone calls, the US
only has to get permission to monitor one phone. So, if we have legal
tap on Goomba 1, when Goomba 2 either calls G1 or receives a call from
G1, there is no need to get permission to listen in on G2's half of the
conversation.
Under that theory, if there is legal authority (or probably for
these discussions more appropriate no legal barrier) to the tap on
Out-of-Country Terrorist 1, then why is it any less legal to tap whoever
the calls goes to? If G2 can listened to legally because the original
tap is legal, why is this different?
miguel
2006-08-18 20:26:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Ullman
My understanding is that this in respect to calls coming from outside
the US, where the US has no prohibition against doing so, going to the
US. If I understand wiretapping law in the US, from a long time ago on
the periphery of some investigations, to monitor phone calls, the US
only has to get permission to monitor one phone. So, if we have legal
tap on Goomba 1, when Goomba 2 either calls G1 or receives a call from
G1, there is no need to get permission to listen in on G2's half of the
conversation.
Under that theory, if there is legal authority (or probably for
these discussions more appropriate no legal barrier) to the tap on
Out-of-Country Terrorist 1, then why is it any less legal to tap whoever
the calls goes to? If G2 can listened to legally because the original
tap is legal, why is this different?
That's an interesting question. My gut opinion answer, without doing any
legal research, is this: In the case of goomba 1 and goomba2, the
recording of goomba 2's part of the conversation is not a violation of
goomba 2's fourth amendment rights if the tap on goomba 1's phone was
approved by warrant.

That question, however, is separate from whether these recorded
conversations could be used against goomba 2 in a prosecution of goomba
2. I am speculating that such recordings would not be admissible
against goomba 2. However, they would likely provide probable cause for
wiretapping goomba 2's future telephone communications, since they were
not illegally obtained.

The reason I believe your theory does not apply to the Out of Country
Terrorist calls to US citizen/resident inside national borders is
because FISA requires a warrant for these conversations, irrespective of
what the Fourth Amendment may require. Thus, the Administration cannot
bootstrap itself into a position that allows it to record the domestic
side of such calls without a warrant simply by claiming that the Fourth
Amendment (but not FISA) doesn't apply to the foreign side of such calls.

miguel
Kurt Ullman
2006-08-19 02:23:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by miguel
Post by Kurt Ullman
My understanding is that this in respect to calls coming from outside
the US, where the US has no prohibition against doing so, going to the
US. If I understand wiretapping law in the US, from a long time ago on
the periphery of some investigations, to monitor phone calls, the US
only has to get permission to monitor one phone. So, if we have legal
tap on Goomba 1, when Goomba 2 either calls G1 or receives a call from
G1, there is no need to get permission to listen in on G2's half of the
conversation.
Under that theory, if there is legal authority (or probably for
these discussions more appropriate no legal barrier) to the tap on
Out-of-Country Terrorist 1, then why is it any less legal to tap whoever
the calls goes to? If G2 can listened to legally because the original
tap is legal, why is this different?
That's an interesting question. My gut opinion answer, without doing any
legal research, is this: In the case of goomba 1 and goomba2, the
recording of goomba 2's part of the conversation is not a violation of
goomba 2's fourth amendment rights if the tap on goomba 1's phone was
approved by warrant.
But only because it HAS to be since BOTH are in the US. There is no
warrant requirement to listen in on Terrorist 1. If there is no
requirement to listen to any call that goes from Tehran to a small
village in the mountains at the Afghan border, then why should there be
merely because it goes from Tehran to the US. If the tap on one side is
legal, then why is it suddenly necessary to get warrants on the other
phone.
Post by miguel
That question, however, is separate from whether these recorded
conversations could be used against goomba 2 in a prosecution of goomba
2. I am speculating that such recordings would not be admissible
against goomba 2. However, they would likely provide probable cause for
wiretapping goomba 2's future telephone communications, since they were
not illegally obtained.
  Nope. They are admissable against both. As long as there is a legal
tap on one phone, then anything said by either can be used against
either. If they wanted ALL of G2's conversation instead of only those
to G1, then they would, indeed, need to get the warrant for G2. But if
they are content with just his conversations with G1, they are good to
go,.
Post by miguel
The reason I believe your theory does not apply to the Out of Country
Terrorist calls to US citizen/resident inside national borders is
because FISA requires a warrant for these conversations, irrespective of
what the Fourth Amendment may require. Thus, the Administration cannot
bootstrap itself into a position that allows it to record the domestic
side of such calls without a warrant simply by claiming that the Fourth
Amendment (but not FISA) doesn't apply to the foreign side of such calls.
That was something I was curious about, although I read the D-T
opinion online and she did not really bring that possibility out.
miguel
2006-08-19 03:40:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Ullman
Post by miguel
Post by Kurt Ullman
My understanding is that this in respect to calls coming from outside
the US, where the US has no prohibition against doing so, going to the
US. If I understand wiretapping law in the US, from a long time ago on
the periphery of some investigations, to monitor phone calls, the US
only has to get permission to monitor one phone. So, if we have legal
tap on Goomba 1, when Goomba 2 either calls G1 or receives a call from
G1, there is no need to get permission to listen in on G2's half of the
conversation.
Under that theory, if there is legal authority (or probably for
these discussions more appropriate no legal barrier) to the tap on
Out-of-Country Terrorist 1, then why is it any less legal to tap whoever
the calls goes to? If G2 can listened to legally because the original
tap is legal, why is this different?
That's an interesting question. My gut opinion answer, without doing any
legal research, is this: In the case of goomba 1 and goomba2, the
recording of goomba 2's part of the conversation is not a violation of
goomba 2's fourth amendment rights if the tap on goomba 1's phone was
approved by warrant.
But only because it HAS to be since BOTH are in the US. There is no
warrant requirement to listen in on Terrorist 1. If there is no
requirement to listen to any call that goes from Tehran to a small
village in the mountains at the Afghan border, then why should there be
merely because it goes from Tehran to the US. If the tap on one side is
legal, then why is it suddenly necessary to get warrants on the other
phone.
Because FISA protects the interests of US citizens and residents to be
free from warrantless surveillance of telephone communications.
Post by Kurt Ullman
Post by miguel
That question, however, is separate from whether these recorded
conversations could be used against goomba 2 in a prosecution of goomba
2. I am speculating that such recordings would not be admissible
against goomba 2. However, they would likely provide probable cause for
wiretapping goomba 2's future telephone communications, since they were
not illegally obtained.
Nope. They are admissable against both. As long as there is a legal
tap on one phone, then anything said by either can be used against
either. If they wanted ALL of G2's conversation instead of only those
to G1, then they would, indeed, need to get the warrant for G2. But if
they are content with just his conversations with G1, they are good to
go.
I can accept that when a warrant is worded broadly enough to encompass
gathering such communications. I expect it would depend on the language
of the warrant.
Post by Kurt Ullman
Post by miguel
The reason I believe your theory does not apply to the Out of Country
Terrorist calls to US citizen/resident inside national borders is
because FISA requires a warrant for these conversations, irrespective of
what the Fourth Amendment may require. Thus, the Administration cannot
bootstrap itself into a position that allows it to record the domestic
side of such calls without a warrant simply by claiming that the Fourth
Amendment (but not FISA) doesn't apply to the foreign side of such calls.
That was something I was curious about, although I read the D-T
opinion online and she did not really bring that possibility out.
I read the statute some time ago, and examined a lot of commentary about
it. My recollection is that the debate focused on whether FISA could
impose the warrant requirement upon the executive branch in
circumstances not necessarily required by the Fourth Amendment. That's
the point at which the Youngstown Steel analysis enters the discussion.

miguel
miguel
2006-08-18 19:51:27 UTC
Permalink
D. Patterson wrote:

snip
Post by D. Patterson
The decision is so full of false assumptions and other major holes, it
is certain to be overturned on appeal.
Name these false assumptions and major holes.
Post by D. Patterson
The plaintiffs' and judge's
assumption that international telephone calls and other electronic
communications will be secure from interception and eavesdropping in the
event the U.S. Government is barred from such activities is utterly
false and ridiculously so.
Why do you assume either have made such an assumption? That possibility
is completely outside the court's analysis, and completely foreign to
any meaningful application of the requirements of FISA.
Post by D. Patterson
Telephonic and other electronic
communications are always subject to interception by foreign
governments, commercial organizations, private persons, and terrorist
organizations.
That certainly may be so. However, it does not provide a legal excuse
for the Administration to ignore FISA.
Post by D. Patterson
Consequently, the there is no reasonable basis for the
plaintiffs to claim that electronic surveillance of the same
communications which already subject to surveillance by others is
somehow going to deprive them of a confidentialty which did not exist
before the electronic surveillance by the U.S. Government.
It's unnecessary for the plaintiffs to make any such claim.

miguel
Grey Satterfield
2006-08-18 21:11:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by miguel
snip
Post by D. Patterson
The decision is so full of false assumptions and other major holes, it
is certain to be overturned on appeal.
Name these false assumptions and major holes.
Post by D. Patterson
The plaintiffs' and judge's assumption that international telephone calls and
other electronic communications will be secure from interception and
eavesdropping in the event the U.S. Government is barred from such activities
is utterly false and ridiculously so.
Why do you assume either have made such an assumption? That possibility
is completely outside the court's analysis, and completely foreign to
any meaningful application of the requirements of FISA.
Post by D. Patterson
Telephonic and other electronic communications are always subject to
interception by foreign governments, commercial organizations, private
persons, and terrorist organizations.
That certainly may be so. However, it does not provide a legal excuse
for the Administration to ignore FISA.
Post by D. Patterson
Consequently, the there is no reasonable basis for the plaintiffs to claim
that electronic surveillance of the same communications which already subject
to surveillance by others is somehow going to deprive them of a
confidentialty which did not exist before the electronic surveillance by the
U.S. Government.
It's unnecessary for the plaintiffs to make any such claim.
Judge Taylor's Angry Left credentials notwithstanding, given that Judge
Taylor's order is the first to ever attempt to stop the electronic
surveillance of foreign calls, I think I know what the 6th Circuit will do.
In the meantime, consider that if it looks like a skunk, walks like a skunk,
and spells like a skunk, it must be a skunk. :)

Grey Satterfield
Jack Linthicum
2006-08-18 21:30:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by miguel
snip
Post by D. Patterson
The decision is so full of false assumptions and other major holes, it
is certain to be overturned on appeal.
Name these false assumptions and major holes.
Post by D. Patterson
The plaintiffs' and judge's assumption that international telephone calls and
other electronic communications will be secure from interception and
eavesdropping in the event the U.S. Government is barred from such activities
is utterly false and ridiculously so.
Why do you assume either have made such an assumption? That possibility
is completely outside the court's analysis, and completely foreign to
any meaningful application of the requirements of FISA.
Post by D. Patterson
Telephonic and other electronic communications are always subject to
interception by foreign governments, commercial organizations, private
persons, and terrorist organizations.
That certainly may be so. However, it does not provide a legal excuse
for the Administration to ignore FISA.
Post by D. Patterson
Consequently, the there is no reasonable basis for the plaintiffs to claim
that electronic surveillance of the same communications which already subject
to surveillance by others is somehow going to deprive them of a
confidentialty which did not exist before the electronic surveillance by the
U.S. Government.
It's unnecessary for the plaintiffs to make any such claim.
Judge Taylor's Angry Left credentials notwithstanding, given that Judge
Taylor's order is the first to ever attempt to stop the electronic
surveillance of foreign calls,
Without a warrent

think I know what the 6th Circuit will do.
Post by Grey Satterfield
In the meantime, consider that if it looks like a skunk, walks like a skunk,
and spells like a skunk, it must be a skunk. :)
Grey Satterfield
Vince
2006-08-18 21:31:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Judge Taylor's Angry Left credentials notwithstanding, given that Judge
Taylor's order is the first to ever attempt to stop the electronic
surveillance of foreign calls, I think I know what the 6th Circuit will do.
In the meantime, consider that if it looks like a skunk, walks like a skunk,
and spells like a skunk, it must be a skunk. :)
Grey Satterfield
the same is true if it looks like a judge

Vince
Grey Satterfield
2006-08-18 23:23:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Post by Grey Satterfield
Judge Taylor's Angry Left credentials notwithstanding, given that Judge
Taylor's order is the first to ever attempt to stop the electronic
surveillance of foreign calls, I think I know what the 6th Circuit will do.
In the meantime, consider that if it looks like a skunk, walks like a skunk,
and spells like a skunk, it must be a skunk. :)
the same is true if it looks like a judge
Indeed, the difference in this instance between "judge" and "skunk" is in
the eye of the beholder -- although we will know after the 6th Circuit
rules.

Grey Satterfield
Jack Linthicum
2006-08-18 23:41:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by Vince
Post by Grey Satterfield
Judge Taylor's Angry Left credentials notwithstanding, given that Judge
Taylor's order is the first to ever attempt to stop the electronic
surveillance of foreign calls, I think I know what the 6th Circuit will do.
In the meantime, consider that if it looks like a skunk, walks like a skunk,
and spells like a skunk, it must be a skunk. :)
the same is true if it looks like a judge
Indeed, the difference in this instance between "judge" and "skunk" is in
the eye of the beholder -- although we will know after the 6th Circuit
rules.
Grey Satterfield
But only then, Shirley there must be a way of telling without using a
panel of jurists?
Grey Satterfield
2006-08-19 00:48:42 UTC
Permalink
On 8/18/06 6:41 PM, in article
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by Vince
Post by Grey Satterfield
Judge Taylor's Angry Left credentials notwithstanding, given that Judge
Taylor's order is the first to ever attempt to stop the electronic
surveillance of foreign calls, I think I know what the 6th Circuit will do.
In the meantime, consider that if it looks like a skunk, walks like a skunk,
and spells like a skunk, it must be a skunk. :)
the same is true if it looks like a judge
Indeed, the difference in this instance between "judge" and "skunk" is in
the eye of the beholder -- although we will know after the 6th Circuit
rules.
Grey Satterfield
But only then, Shirley there must be a way of telling without using a
panel of jurists?
Well, if the 6th Circuit reverses Judge Taylor she will have been skunked,
and don't call me "Shirley." :)
Vince
2006-08-19 02:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by Vince
Post by Grey Satterfield
Judge Taylor's Angry Left credentials notwithstanding, given that Judge
Taylor's order is the first to ever attempt to stop the electronic
surveillance of foreign calls, I think I know what the 6th Circuit will do.
In the meantime, consider that if it looks like a skunk, walks like a skunk,
and spells like a skunk, it must be a skunk. :)
the same is true if it looks like a judge
Indeed, the difference in this instance between "judge" and "skunk" is in
the eye of the beholder -- although we will know after the 6th Circuit
rules.
Grey Satterfield
no we won't

Calling a judge a "skunk" because you disagree with a ruling is beneath
your dignity

Vince
La N
2006-08-19 02:12:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
On 8/18/06 4:31 PM, in article
Post by Vince
Post by Grey Satterfield
Judge Taylor's Angry Left credentials notwithstanding, given that Judge
Taylor's order is the first to ever attempt to stop the electronic
surveillance of foreign calls, I think I know what the 6th Circuit will do.
In the meantime, consider that if it looks like a skunk, walks like a skunk,
and spells like a skunk, it must be a skunk. :)
the same is true if it looks like a judge
Indeed, the difference in this instance between "judge" and "skunk" is in
the eye of the beholder -- although we will know after the 6th Circuit
rules.
Grey Satterfield
no we won't
Calling a judge a "skunk" because you disagree with a ruling is beneath
your dignity
Grey's gonna have to do some time in the penalty box with "Peter". OTOH,
I've taken Peter out and replaced him with Hines. Ergo, Grey - it's you and
Hines - TIME OUT!

- nilita
miguel
2006-08-18 21:40:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by miguel
snip
Post by D. Patterson
The decision is so full of false assumptions and other major holes, it
is certain to be overturned on appeal.
Name these false assumptions and major holes.
???
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by miguel
Post by D. Patterson
The plaintiffs' and judge's assumption that international telephone calls and
other electronic communications will be secure from interception and
eavesdropping in the event the U.S. Government is barred from such activities
is utterly false and ridiculously so.
Why do you assume either have made such an assumption? That possibility
is completely outside the court's analysis, and completely foreign to
any meaningful application of the requirements of FISA.
Post by D. Patterson
Telephonic and other electronic communications are always subject to
interception by foreign governments, commercial organizations, private
persons, and terrorist organizations.
That certainly may be so. However, it does not provide a legal excuse
for the Administration to ignore FISA.
Post by D. Patterson
Consequently, the there is no reasonable basis for the plaintiffs to claim
that electronic surveillance of the same communications which already subject
to surveillance by others is somehow going to deprive them of a
confidentialty which did not exist before the electronic surveillance by the
U.S. Government.
It's unnecessary for the plaintiffs to make any such claim.
Judge Taylor's Angry Left credentials notwithstanding
Ad hominem has been a central part of your argument. Why don't you put
forward a case that Judge Diggs Taylor has Angry Left credentials? Until
then, your smear campaign against a respected jurist is merely evidence
that you are intellectually bankrupt.
Post by Grey Satterfield
given that Judge
Taylor's order is the first to ever attempt to stop the electronic
surveillance of foreign calls,
Well, if prior presidents chose to completely ignore FISA, then maybe
prior administrations would have been slapped on the hand as well. It's
not the judge's fault that Bush is the biggest imperial asshole ever to
occupy the white house since FISA was passed.
Post by Grey Satterfield
I think I know what the 6th Circuit will do.
In the meantime, consider that if it looks like a skunk, walks like a skunk,
and spells like a skunk, it must be a skunk. :)
What are you referring to here?

miguel
Fred J. McCall
2006-08-18 23:13:52 UTC
Permalink
miguel <***@gmail.com> wrote:

:Grey Satterfield wrote:
:>
:> Judge Taylor's Angry Left credentials notwithstanding
:
:Ad hominem has been a central part of your argument. Why don't you put
:forward a case that Judge Diggs Taylor has Angry Left credentials? Until
:then, your smear campaign against a respected jurist is merely evidence
:that you are intellectually bankrupt.

And your failure to look before you leap indicates that not only are
you intellectually bankrupt but you are stupid into the bargain.

Let's inject just a FEW facts, shall we?

Black, female, lifelong Democrat, politically active, civil rights
activist, managed the campaign of Charles Diggs Jr (Democrat and her
first husband, who was founder and first chairman of the Congressional
Black Caucus) for Congress, worked on the campaign of Coleman Young
(Democrat), Jimmy Carter (Democrat and who rewarded her with her
Judgeship), has a long record of finding FOR the ACLU in cases, often
reversed on such cases on appeal (

Pretty much everyone with any sense expects her to be reversed on
appeal, given the makeup of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

If you want to whine, get the facts. Just crying "ad hominem" is
singularly unconvincing.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
miguel
2006-08-18 23:49:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
:> Judge Taylor's Angry Left credentials notwithstanding
:Ad hominem has been a central part of your argument. Why don't you put
:forward a case that Judge Diggs Taylor has Angry Left credentials? Until
:then, your smear campaign against a respected jurist is merely evidence
:that you are intellectually bankrupt.
And your failure to look before you leap indicates that not only are
you intellectually bankrupt but you are stupid into the bargain.
Let's inject just a FEW facts, shall we?
It would be great if you could, but I doubt you're up to it.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Black, female, lifelong Democrat, politically active, civil rights
activist, managed the campaign of Charles Diggs Jr (Democrat and her
first husband, who was founder and first chairman of the Congressional
Black Caucus) for Congress, worked on the campaign of Coleman Young
(Democrat), Jimmy Carter (Democrat and who rewarded her with her
Judgeship), has a long record of finding FOR the ACLU in cases, often
reversed on such cases on appeal (
This makes her an Angry Leftist? You moron.

While we're at it, show your work please. How many cases has she decided
in favor of the ACLU, and how many of those have been reversed?
Hopefully there's some data to back up your claim, not just regurgitated
verbal diarrhea from Rush or Hannity.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Pretty much everyone with any sense expects her to be reversed on
appeal, given the makeup of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Too bad the 6th Circuit has such conservative partisan axes to grind,
isn't it.
Post by Fred J. McCall
If you want to whine, get the facts. Just crying "ad hominem" is
singularly unconvincing.
You're too stupid to be convinced of anything, I'm afraid.
Grey Satterfield
2006-08-19 00:57:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by miguel
Post by Fred J. McCall
:> Judge Taylor's Angry Left credentials notwithstanding
:Ad hominem has been a central part of your argument. Why don't you put
:forward a case that Judge Diggs Taylor has Angry Left credentials? Until
:then, your smear campaign against a respected jurist is merely evidence
:that you are intellectually bankrupt.
And your failure to look before you leap indicates that not only are
you intellectually bankrupt but you are stupid into the bargain.
Let's inject just a FEW facts, shall we?
It would be great if you could, but I doubt you're up to it.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Black, female, lifelong Democrat, politically active, civil rights
activist, managed the campaign of Charles Diggs Jr (Democrat and her
first husband, who was founder and first chairman of the Congressional
Black Caucus) for Congress, worked on the campaign of Coleman Young
(Democrat), Jimmy Carter (Democrat and who rewarded her with her
Judgeship), has a long record of finding FOR the ACLU in cases, often
reversed on such cases on appeal (
This makes her an Angry Leftist? You moron.
While we're at it, show your work please. How many cases has she decided
in favor of the ACLU, and how many of those have been reversed?
Hopefully there's some data to back up your claim, not just regurgitated
verbal diarrhea from Rush or Hannity.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Pretty much everyone with any sense expects her to be reversed on
appeal, given the makeup of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Too bad the 6th Circuit has such conservative partisan axes to grind,
isn't it.
By miguel's lights the blatantly left-wing and political Judge Taylor is a
bastion of balance and fair-mindedness in a case involving the Bush
administration, whereas the 14 judges of the 6th Circuit as a class have
"conservative partisan axes to grind." What's wrong with this picture?

I have *PLONK!*ed others for less but miguel makes me think he may know a
little law, despite his marked partisan bias, so I want to continue the
debate -- unless he *PLONK!*s me, of course. :)

Grey Satterfield
miguel
2006-08-19 01:27:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by miguel
Post by Fred J. McCall
:> Judge Taylor's Angry Left credentials notwithstanding
:Ad hominem has been a central part of your argument. Why don't you put
:forward a case that Judge Diggs Taylor has Angry Left credentials? Until
:then, your smear campaign against a respected jurist is merely evidence
:that you are intellectually bankrupt.
And your failure to look before you leap indicates that not only are
you intellectually bankrupt but you are stupid into the bargain.
Let's inject just a FEW facts, shall we?
It would be great if you could, but I doubt you're up to it.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Black, female, lifelong Democrat, politically active, civil rights
activist, managed the campaign of Charles Diggs Jr (Democrat and her
first husband, who was founder and first chairman of the Congressional
Black Caucus) for Congress, worked on the campaign of Coleman Young
(Democrat), Jimmy Carter (Democrat and who rewarded her with her
Judgeship), has a long record of finding FOR the ACLU in cases, often
reversed on such cases on appeal (
This makes her an Angry Leftist? You moron.
While we're at it, show your work please. How many cases has she decided
in favor of the ACLU, and how many of those have been reversed?
Hopefully there's some data to back up your claim, not just regurgitated
verbal diarrhea from Rush or Hannity.
Still no answer to this?
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by miguel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Pretty much everyone with any sense expects her to be reversed on
appeal, given the makeup of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Too bad the 6th Circuit has such conservative partisan axes to grind,
isn't it.
By miguel's lights the blatantly left-wing and political Judge Taylor is a
bastion of balance and fair-mindedness in a case involving the Bush
administration, whereas the 14 judges of the 6th Circuit as a class have
"conservative partisan axes to grind." What's wrong with this picture?
What's wrong with it is that you missed the irony. With your claimed
experience you ought to realize how pointless it is to criticize an
opinion based on the politics of the judge, or at least have that be the
centerpiece of your criticism. Rather, the lawyer in you ought to be
able to point at the opinion and discuss where and how the judge misused
or ignored precedent, and making baseless allegations about her being a
73 year old member of the "Angry Left" should be well beneath your dignity.

It is offensive in the extreme for you to be assassinating the character
of Judge Diggs Taylor. Every federal judge I've known on a professional
and personal level is a human being who strives to do the right thing
under the law.

You don't recognize this when you are doing it, but you certainly have
no difficulty recognizing it when I smear the 6th Circuit with the same
crappy accusations. That's the irony.
Post by Grey Satterfield
I have *PLONK!*ed others for less but miguel makes me think he may know a
little law, despite his marked partisan bias, so I want to continue the
debate -- unless he *PLONK!*s me, of course. :)
If you are a lawyer, be a lawyer here. Stop being a swiftboater.

miguel
Grey Satterfield
2006-08-19 11:54:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by miguel
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by miguel
Post by Fred J. McCall
:> Judge Taylor's Angry Left credentials notwithstanding
:Ad hominem has been a central part of your argument. Why don't you put
:forward a case that Judge Diggs Taylor has Angry Left credentials? Until
:then, your smear campaign against a respected jurist is merely evidence
:that you are intellectually bankrupt.
And your failure to look before you leap indicates that not only are
you intellectually bankrupt but you are stupid into the bargain.
Let's inject just a FEW facts, shall we?
It would be great if you could, but I doubt you're up to it.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Black, female, lifelong Democrat, politically active, civil rights
activist, managed the campaign of Charles Diggs Jr (Democrat and her
first husband, who was founder and first chairman of the Congressional
Black Caucus) for Congress, worked on the campaign of Coleman Young
(Democrat), Jimmy Carter (Democrat and who rewarded her with her
Judgeship), has a long record of finding FOR the ACLU in cases, often
reversed on such cases on appeal (
This makes her an Angry Leftist? You moron.
While we're at it, show your work please. How many cases has she decided
in favor of the ACLU, and how many of those have been reversed?
Hopefully there's some data to back up your claim, not just regurgitated
verbal diarrhea from Rush or Hannity.
Still no answer to this?
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by miguel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Pretty much everyone with any sense expects her to be reversed on
appeal, given the makeup of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Too bad the 6th Circuit has such conservative partisan axes to grind,
isn't it.
By miguel's lights the blatantly left-wing and political Judge Taylor is a
bastion of balance and fair-mindedness in a case involving the Bush
administration, whereas the 14 judges of the 6th Circuit as a class have
"conservative partisan axes to grind." What's wrong with this picture?
What's wrong with it is that you missed the irony. With your claimed
experience you ought to realize how pointless it is to criticize an
opinion based on the politics of the judge, or at least have that be the
centerpiece of your criticism. Rather, the lawyer in you ought to be
able to point at the opinion and discuss where and how the judge misused
or ignored precedent, and making baseless allegations about her being a
73 year old member of the "Angry Left" should be well beneath your dignity.
It is offensive in the extreme for you to be assassinating the character
of Judge Diggs Taylor. Every federal judge I've known on a professional
and personal level is a human being who strives to do the right thing
under the law.
You don't recognize this when you are doing it, but you certainly have
no difficulty recognizing it when I smear the 6th Circuit with the same
crappy accusations. That's the irony.
Post by Grey Satterfield
I have *PLONK!*ed others for less but miguel makes me think he may know a
little law, despite his marked partisan bias, so I want to continue the
debate -- unless he *PLONK!*s me, of course. :)
If you are a lawyer, be a lawyer here. Stop being a swiftboater.
I hate to set miguel off again but here goes. Don't look now but the
Swiftboaters had a point. The Kerry apologists disagreed with it but there
it is.

Grey Satterfield
Vince
2006-08-19 12:19:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by miguel
Post by Grey Satterfield
I have *PLONK!*ed others for less but miguel makes me think he may know a
little law, despite his marked partisan bias, so I want to continue the
debate -- unless he *PLONK!*s me, of course. :)
If you are a lawyer, be a lawyer here. Stop being a swiftboater.
I hate to set miguel off again but here goes. Don't look now but the
Swiftboaters had a point. The Kerry apologists disagreed with it but there
it is.
Grey Satterfield
You and I both know the difference between politics and law. Claimed
errors in law should be pointed out in an appropriate manner. Comments
that would not be allowed in an appellate brief are simply political
comments and should not be mixed in with legal analysis.

I have read the decision and believe that a narrow holding that the FISA
preempts the president's program is supportable even if much of the
opinion is dicta. I also believe that it was unnecessary to reach the
constitutional question.



A few commentators have weighed in

from various news sources



"The entire constitutional case turns on whether monitoring
terrorism-related international calls it an unreasonable search," said
Pepperdine law professor Douglas Kmiec."Nothing in the case law suggests
it is, and much affirming various warrant exceptions for checkpoints and
border searches suggests it is not."


But Georgetown law professor Paul Rothstein, back from conducting a
seminar in London on the legal fight over the surveillance program,
said, "The ruling that it's unconstitutional is a very, very close
question. I think there is no clear-cut precedent."


"It is not a foregone conclusion that a conservative-dominated court is
going to say, 'President Bush did this and we're going to uphold what he
wants,'" said Robert A. Sedler, a law professor at Wayne State
University. "There are many issues in this case. Conservative judges
often have a very strongly libertarian streak."


Cincinnati attorney Scott Greenwood, a former ACLU general counsel who
has had some 40 cases before the 6th Circuit, said regardless of the
court's makeup, judges are likely to take a hard look at the separation
of powers issues in the wiretapping case. "Civil liberties are not
liberal and they're not conservative," he said.

"It's pretty sweeping," said Robert Bennett, a professor at Northwestern
University's law school, noting that the ruling went beyond faulting the
administration for violating Congressional rules on wiretapping. "The
Bush administration is losing pretty regularly on assertions that it's
overstepping its authority."

"It's [FISA} not the most difficult statute to comply with but they do
have to have some reasonable belief that the person may commit a crime,"
said Evan Caminker, dean of the University of Michigan's law school,
explaining that this ruling outlaws "fishing expeditions".

She ruled, for instance, that the NSA program, which eavesdrops on
international communications of people in the United States without
court permission, violated the First Amendment because it might have
chilled the speech of people who feared they might have been monitored.
That ruling is "rather innovative" and "not a particularly good
argument," Jack Balkin, a law professor at Yale who believes the program
is illegal, wrote on his Web log.

"It's just a few pages of general ruminations about the Fourth
Amendment, much of it incomplete and some of it simply incorrect," Orin
S. Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University who believes
the administration's legal justifications for the program are weak, said
of Taylor's Fourth Amendment analysis on a Web log called the Volokh
Conspiracy.

Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los
Angeles, who presides over the Volokh Conspiracy Web log and says he is
skeptical of the legality of the NSA program, called the decision "not
just ill-reasoned, but rhetorically ill-conceived."

"If I were the ACLU," Volokh said, "I would rather have a decision that
came across as more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger and that was as deliberate,
meticulous, thoughtful and studiously impartial as possible."

Vince
La N
2006-08-19 13:35:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
I hate to set miguel off again but here goes. Don't look now but the
Swiftboaters had a point. The Kerry apologists disagreed with it but there
it is.
Ummm ... what was their "point", Grey? They came across as whiney little
b*tches. I couldn't change the channel quick enough when their ads came on.

- nilita
Grey Satterfield
2006-08-19 15:31:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by La N
Post by Grey Satterfield
I hate to set miguel off again but here goes. Don't look now but the
Swiftboaters had a point. The Kerry apologists disagreed with it but there
it is.
Ummm ... what was their "point", Grey? They came across as whiney little
b*tches. I couldn't change the channel quick enough when their ads came on.
The harm that the Swiftboaters did to Kerry happened because they kept his
Viet Nam record front and center in the campaign. That hurt Kerry -- badly
-- because he then had to explain how he went from self-proclaimed war hero
to calling his fellow Viet Nam veterans, "war criminals."

I give Kerry credit for having served honorably in Viet Nam, if a little
self-servingly, but he he got what was coming to him because of his
grotesque disloyalty to his fellow veterans after he got home. In short,
what goes around comes around.

Grey Satterfield
Fred J. McCall
2006-08-19 03:06:44 UTC
Permalink
miguel <***@gmail.com> wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> miguel <***@gmail.com> wrote:
:> :Grey Satterfield wrote:
:
:> :> Judge Taylor's Angry Left credentials notwithstanding
:
:> :Ad hominem has been a central part of your argument. Why don't you put
:> :forward a case that Judge Diggs Taylor has Angry Left credentials? Until
:> :then, your smear campaign against a respected jurist is merely evidence
:> :that you are intellectually bankrupt.
:
:> And your failure to look before you leap indicates that not only are
:> you intellectually bankrupt but you are stupid into the bargain.
:
:> Let's inject just a FEW facts, shall we?
:
:It would be great if you could, but I doubt you're up to it.
:
:> Black, female, lifelong Democrat, politically active, civil rights
:> activist, managed the campaign of Charles Diggs Jr (Democrat and her
:> first husband, who was founder and first chairman of the Congressional
:> Black Caucus) for Congress, worked on the campaign of Coleman Young
:> (Democrat), Jimmy Carter (Democrat and who rewarded her with her
:> Judgeship), has a long record of finding FOR the ACLU in cases, often
:> reversed on such cases on appeal (
:
:This makes her an Angry Leftist? You moron.
:
:While we're at it, show your work please. How many cases has she decided
:in favor of the ACLU, and how many of those have been reversed?
:Hopefully there's some data to back up your claim, not just regurgitated
:verbal diarrhea from Rush or Hannity.
:
:> Pretty much everyone with any sense expects her to be reversed on
:> appeal, given the makeup of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
:
:Too bad the 6th Circuit has such conservative partisan axes to grind,
:isn't it.
:
:> If you want to whine, get the facts. Just crying "ad hominem" is
:> singularly unconvincing.
:
:You're too stupid to be convinced of anything, I'm afraid.

In other words, you're just a stupid troll.

Bye bye.

<plonk>
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
miguel
2006-08-19 04:07:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by miguel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by miguel
Post by Grey Satterfield
Judge Taylor's Angry Left credentials notwithstanding
Ad hominem has been a central part of your argument. Why don't you put
forward a case that Judge Diggs Taylor has Angry Left credentials? Until
then, your smear campaign against a respected jurist is merely evidence
that you are intellectually bankrupt.
And your failure to look before you leap indicates that not only are
you intellectually bankrupt but you are stupid into the bargain.
Let's inject just a FEW facts, shall we?
It would be great if you could, but I doubt you're up to it.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Black, female, lifelong Democrat, politically active, civil rights
activist, managed the campaign of Charles Diggs Jr (Democrat and her
first husband, who was founder and first chairman of the Congressional
Black Caucus) for Congress, worked on the campaign of Coleman Young
(Democrat), Jimmy Carter (Democrat and who rewarded her with her
Judgeship), has a long record of finding FOR the ACLU in cases, often
reversed on such cases on appeal (
This makes her an Angry Leftist? You moron.
While we're at it, show your work please. How many cases has she decided
in favor of the ACLU, and how many of those have been reversed?
Hopefully there's some data to back up your claim, not just regurgitated
verbal diarrhea from Rush or Hannity.
Where's that "long record," Freddy boy?
Post by miguel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Pretty much everyone with any sense expects her to be reversed on
appeal, given the makeup of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Too bad the 6th Circuit has such conservative partisan axes to grind,
isn't it.
Post by Fred J. McCall
If you want to whine, get the facts. Just crying "ad hominem" is
singularly unconvincing.
You're too stupid to be convinced of anything, I'm afraid.
In other words, you're just a stupid troll.
Bye bye.
<plonk>
You fucking pansy ass. You dish and then you run away like Brave Sir
Robin. Run away! Run away!

In honor of Freddy J. McCall, I post the following:

Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away away.
When danger reared it's ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Robin!

miguel
Hal
2006-08-19 12:25:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by miguel
Post by miguel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by miguel
Post by Grey Satterfield
Judge Taylor's Angry Left credentials notwithstanding
Ad hominem has been a central part of your argument. Why don't you put
forward a case that Judge Diggs Taylor has Angry Left credentials? Until
then, your smear campaign against a respected jurist is merely evidence
that you are intellectually bankrupt.
And your failure to look before you leap indicates that not only are
you intellectually bankrupt but you are stupid into the bargain.
Let's inject just a FEW facts, shall we?
It would be great if you could, but I doubt you're up to it.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Black, female, lifelong Democrat, politically active, civil rights
activist, managed the campaign of Charles Diggs Jr (Democrat and her
first husband, who was founder and first chairman of the Congressional
Black Caucus) for Congress, worked on the campaign of Coleman Young
(Democrat), Jimmy Carter (Democrat and who rewarded her with her
Judgeship), has a long record of finding FOR the ACLU in cases, often
reversed on such cases on appeal (
This makes her an Angry Leftist? You moron.
While we're at it, show your work please. How many cases has she decided
in favor of the ACLU, and how many of those have been reversed?
Hopefully there's some data to back up your claim, not just regurgitated
verbal diarrhea from Rush or Hannity.
Where's that "long record," Freddy boy?
Post by miguel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Pretty much everyone with any sense expects her to be reversed on
appeal, given the makeup of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Too bad the 6th Circuit has such conservative partisan axes to grind,
isn't it.
Post by Fred J. McCall
If you want to whine, get the facts. Just crying "ad hominem" is
singularly unconvincing.
You're too stupid to be convinced of anything, I'm afraid.
In other words, you're just a stupid troll.
Bye bye.
<plonk>
You fucking pansy ass. You dish and then you run away like Brave Sir
Robin. Run away! Run away!
Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away away.
When danger reared it's ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Robin!
Hey fredy, whouldn't want you to miss this because of your problem with
plonk.
Grey Satterfield
2006-08-19 12:02:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
:> :> Judge Taylor's Angry Left credentials notwithstanding
:> :Ad hominem has been a central part of your argument. Why don't you put
:> :forward a case that Judge Diggs Taylor has Angry Left credentials? Until
:> :then, your smear campaign against a respected jurist is merely evidence
:> :that you are intellectually bankrupt.
:> And your failure to look before you leap indicates that not only are
:> you intellectually bankrupt but you are stupid into the bargain.
:> Let's inject just a FEW facts, shall we?
:It would be great if you could, but I doubt you're up to it.
:> Black, female, lifelong Democrat, politically active, civil rights
:> activist, managed the campaign of Charles Diggs Jr (Democrat and her
:> first husband, who was founder and first chairman of the Congressional
:> Black Caucus) for Congress, worked on the campaign of Coleman Young
:> (Democrat), Jimmy Carter (Democrat and who rewarded her with her
:> Judgeship), has a long record of finding FOR the ACLU in cases, often
:> reversed on such cases on appeal (
:This makes her an Angry Leftist? You moron.
:While we're at it, show your work please. How many cases has she decided
:in favor of the ACLU, and how many of those have been reversed?
:Hopefully there's some data to back up your claim, not just regurgitated
:verbal diarrhea from Rush or Hannity.
:> Pretty much everyone with any sense expects her to be reversed on
:> appeal, given the makeup of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
:Too bad the 6th Circuit has such conservative partisan axes to grind,
:isn't it.
:> If you want to whine, get the facts. Just crying "ad hominem" is
:> singularly unconvincing.
:You're too stupid to be convinced of anything, I'm afraid.
In other words, you're just a stupid troll.
Bye bye.
<plonk>
Miguel continues to fascinate me. He is a Poster Child for the Angry Left.
He is a lawyer and I suspect a pretty good one when he has his ideological
dogs in check. But he proves my point that even otherwise bright people who
are members of the Angry Left have no balance or judgment with respect to
any issue involving the George W. Bush or his administration. I am
satisfied that it was this same malady that led Judge Taylor to write her
ill-advised opinion. Here is a link to an interesting piece critiquing that
opinion by a lawyer who had filed an amicus brief in the case:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWVlOGNiZmIyMmZkYTg2OGFiYzM3ZGU4Nzc0MjF
jNzQ

Grey Satterfield
Vince
2006-08-19 12:22:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by Fred J. McCall
:> :> Judge Taylor's Angry Left credentials notwithstanding
:> :Ad hominem has been a central part of your argument. Why don't you put
:> :forward a case that Judge Diggs Taylor has Angry Left credentials? Until
:> :then, your smear campaign against a respected jurist is merely evidence
:> :that you are intellectually bankrupt.
:> And your failure to look before you leap indicates that not only are
:> you intellectually bankrupt but you are stupid into the bargain.
:> Let's inject just a FEW facts, shall we?
:It would be great if you could, but I doubt you're up to it.
:> Black, female, lifelong Democrat, politically active, civil rights
:> activist, managed the campaign of Charles Diggs Jr (Democrat and her
:> first husband, who was founder and first chairman of the Congressional
:> Black Caucus) for Congress, worked on the campaign of Coleman Young
:> (Democrat), Jimmy Carter (Democrat and who rewarded her with her
:> Judgeship), has a long record of finding FOR the ACLU in cases, often
:> reversed on such cases on appeal (
:This makes her an Angry Leftist? You moron.
:While we're at it, show your work please. How many cases has she decided
:in favor of the ACLU, and how many of those have been reversed?
:Hopefully there's some data to back up your claim, not just regurgitated
:verbal diarrhea from Rush or Hannity.
:> Pretty much everyone with any sense expects her to be reversed on
:> appeal, given the makeup of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
:Too bad the 6th Circuit has such conservative partisan axes to grind,
:isn't it.
:> If you want to whine, get the facts. Just crying "ad hominem" is
:> singularly unconvincing.
:You're too stupid to be convinced of anything, I'm afraid.
In other words, you're just a stupid troll.
Bye bye.
<plonk>
Miguel continues to fascinate me. He is a Poster Child for the Angry Left.
He is a lawyer and I suspect a pretty good one when he has his ideological
dogs in check. But he proves my point that even otherwise bright people who
are members of the Angry Left have no balance or judgment with respect to
any issue involving the George W. Bush or his administration. I am
satisfied that it was this same malady that led Judge Taylor to write her
ill-advised opinion. Here is a link to an interesting piece critiquing that
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWVlOGNiZmIyMmZkYTg2OGFiYzM3ZGU4Nzc0MjF
jNzQ
Grey Satterfield
I'll use Authoritarian Right each time you use Angry Left.
Neither adds much to any analysis.

Vince
Grey Satterfield
2006-08-19 00:46:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
:>
:> Judge Taylor's Angry Left credentials notwithstanding
:Ad hominem has been a central part of your argument. Why don't you put
:forward a case that Judge Diggs Taylor has Angry Left credentials? Until
:then, your smear campaign against a respected jurist is merely evidence
:that you are intellectually bankrupt.
And your failure to look before you leap indicates that not only are
you intellectually bankrupt but you are stupid into the bargain.
Let's inject just a FEW facts, shall we?
Black, female, lifelong Democrat, politically active, civil rights
activist, managed the campaign of Charles Diggs Jr (Democrat and her
first husband, who was founder and first chairman of the Congressional
Black Caucus) for Congress, worked on the campaign of Coleman Young
(Democrat), Jimmy Carter (Democrat and who rewarded her with her
Judgeship), has a long record of finding FOR the ACLU in cases, often
reversed on such cases on appeal (
Pretty much everyone with any sense expects her to be reversed on
appeal, given the makeup of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
If you want to whine, get the facts. Just crying "ad hominem" is
singularly unconvincing.
What concerns me most is this: miguel's ardent defense of Judge Taylor
supports the inference that miguel already knew of Judge Taylor's long
history of left-wing political activism and disingenuously ignored it.

Grey Satterfield
miguel
2006-08-19 01:15:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by Fred J. McCall
:>
:> Judge Taylor's Angry Left credentials notwithstanding
:Ad hominem has been a central part of your argument. Why don't you put
:forward a case that Judge Diggs Taylor has Angry Left credentials? Until
:then, your smear campaign against a respected jurist is merely evidence
:that you are intellectually bankrupt.
And your failure to look before you leap indicates that not only are
you intellectually bankrupt but you are stupid into the bargain.
Let's inject just a FEW facts, shall we?
Black, female, lifelong Democrat, politically active, civil rights
activist, managed the campaign of Charles Diggs Jr (Democrat and her
first husband, who was founder and first chairman of the Congressional
Black Caucus) for Congress, worked on the campaign of Coleman Young
(Democrat), Jimmy Carter (Democrat and who rewarded her with her
Judgeship), has a long record of finding FOR the ACLU in cases, often
reversed on such cases on appeal (
Pretty much everyone with any sense expects her to be reversed on
appeal, given the makeup of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
If you want to whine, get the facts. Just crying "ad hominem" is
singularly unconvincing.
What concerns me most is this: miguel's ardent defense of Judge Taylor
supports the inference that miguel already knew of Judge Taylor's long
history of left-wing political activism and disingenuously ignored it.
Uh, please point out the "ardent" defense. If you practiced for 50
years, then you are truly a discredit to the bar, using lies to sully
the reputation of this judge.

miguel
Fred J. McCall
2006-08-19 03:42:50 UTC
Permalink
Grey Satterfield <***@cox.net> wrote:

:On 8/18/06 6:13 PM, in article ***@4ax.com,
:"Fred J. McCall" <***@earthlink.net> wrote
:> miguel <***@gmail.com> wrote:
:> :Grey Satterfield wrote:
:> :>
:> :> Judge Taylor's Angry Left credentials notwithstanding
:> :
:> :Ad hominem has been a central part of your argument. Why don't you put
:> :forward a case that Judge Diggs Taylor has Angry Left credentials? Until
:> :then, your smear campaign against a respected jurist is merely evidence
:> :that you are intellectually bankrupt.
:>
:> And your failure to look before you leap indicates that not only are
:> you intellectually bankrupt but you are stupid into the bargain.
:>
:> Let's inject just a FEW facts, shall we?
:>
:> Black, female, lifelong Democrat, politically active, civil rights
:> activist, managed the campaign of Charles Diggs Jr (Democrat and her
:> first husband, who was founder and first chairman of the Congressional
:> Black Caucus) for Congress, worked on the campaign of Coleman Young
:> (Democrat), Jimmy Carter (Democrat and who rewarded her with her
:> Judgeship), has a long record of finding FOR the ACLU in cases, often
:> reversed on such cases on appeal (
:>
:> Pretty much everyone with any sense expects her to be reversed on
:> appeal, given the makeup of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
:>
:> If you want to whine, get the facts. Just crying "ad hominem" is
:> singularly unconvincing.
:
:What concerns me most is this: miguel's ardent defense of Judge Taylor
:supports the inference that miguel already knew of Judge Taylor's long
:history of left-wing political activism and disingenuously ignored it.

I'm not concerned at all. Miguel's response to the facts (elsewhere)
makes it clear that he's just a loudmouth troll himself. Facts don't
matter to such. They just want to play their idiot Usenet games.

I really wish the political idiots of all stripes would just stay in
their own newsgroups.
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
miguel
2006-08-19 04:20:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by miguel
Post by Grey Satterfield
Judge Taylor's Angry Left credentials notwithstanding
Ad hominem has been a central part of your argument. Why don't
you put forward a case that Judge Diggs Taylor has Angry Left
credentials? Until then, your smear campaign against a
respected jurist is merely evidence that you are intellectually
bankrupt.
And your failure to look before you leap indicates that not only
are you intellectually bankrupt but you are stupid into the
bargain.
Let's inject just a FEW facts, shall we?
Black, female, lifelong Democrat, politically active, civil
rights activist, managed the campaign of Charles Diggs Jr
(Democrat and her first husband, who was founder and first
chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus) for Congress, worked
on the campaign of Coleman Young (Democrat), Jimmy Carter
(Democrat and who rewarded her with her Judgeship), has a long
record of finding FOR the ACLU in cases, often reversed on such
cases on appeal (
Pretty much everyone with any sense expects her to be reversed on
appeal, given the makeup of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
If you want to whine, get the facts. Just crying "ad hominem" is
singularly unconvincing.
What concerns me most is this: miguel's ardent defense of Judge
Taylor supports the inference that miguel already knew of Judge
Taylor's long history of left-wing political activism and
disingenuously ignored it.
I'm not concerned at all. Miguel's response to the facts (elsewhere)
makes it clear that he's just a loudmouth troll himself. Facts
don't matter to such. They just want to play their idiot Usenet
games.
I really wish the political idiots of all stripes would just stay in
their own newsgroups.
Are you done crying yet, Freddy?
Grey Satterfield
2006-08-18 23:27:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by miguel
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by miguel
snip
Post by D. Patterson
The decision is so full of false assumptions and other major holes, it
is certain to be overturned on appeal.
Name these false assumptions and major holes.
???
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by miguel
Post by D. Patterson
The plaintiffs' and judge's assumption that international telephone calls and
other electronic communications will be secure from interception and
eavesdropping in the event the U.S. Government is barred from such activities
is utterly false and ridiculously so.
Why do you assume either have made such an assumption? That possibility
is completely outside the court's analysis, and completely foreign to
any meaningful application of the requirements of FISA.
Post by D. Patterson
Telephonic and other electronic communications are always subject to
interception by foreign governments, commercial organizations, private
persons, and terrorist organizations.
That certainly may be so. However, it does not provide a legal excuse
for the Administration to ignore FISA.
Post by D. Patterson
Consequently, the there is no reasonable basis for the plaintiffs to claim
that electronic surveillance of the same communications which already subject
to surveillance by others is somehow going to deprive them of a
confidentialty which did not exist before the electronic surveillance by the
U.S. Government.
It's unnecessary for the plaintiffs to make any such claim.
Judge Taylor's Angry Left credentials notwithstanding
Ad hominem has been a central part of your argument. Why don't you put
forward a case that Judge Diggs Taylor has Angry Left credentials? Until
then, your smear campaign against a respected jurist is merely evidence
that you are intellectually bankrupt.
Post by Grey Satterfield
given that Judge
Taylor's order is the first to ever attempt to stop the electronic
surveillance of foreign calls,
Well, if prior presidents chose to completely ignore FISA, then maybe
prior administrations would have been slapped on the hand as well. It's
not the judge's fault that Bush is the biggest imperial asshole ever to
occupy the white house since FISA was passed.
Post by Grey Satterfield
I think I know what the 6th Circuit will do.
In the meantime, consider that if it looks like a skunk, walks like a skunk,
and spells like a skunk, it must be a skunk. :)
Perhaps miguel could cite an instance where a president had to react to a
series of terrorist attacks that killed 3,000 Americans, and more
importantly had to try to protect them from future attacks. Sheesh!

Grey Satterfield
miguel
2006-08-18 23:54:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by miguel
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by miguel
snip
Post by D. Patterson
The decision is so full of false assumptions and other major holes, it
is certain to be overturned on appeal.
Name these false assumptions and major holes.
???
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by miguel
Post by D. Patterson
The plaintiffs' and judge's assumption that international telephone calls and
other electronic communications will be secure from interception and
eavesdropping in the event the U.S. Government is barred from such activities
is utterly false and ridiculously so.
Why do you assume either have made such an assumption? That possibility
is completely outside the court's analysis, and completely foreign to
any meaningful application of the requirements of FISA.
Post by D. Patterson
Telephonic and other electronic communications are always subject to
interception by foreign governments, commercial organizations, private
persons, and terrorist organizations.
That certainly may be so. However, it does not provide a legal excuse
for the Administration to ignore FISA.
Post by D. Patterson
Consequently, the there is no reasonable basis for the plaintiffs to claim
that electronic surveillance of the same communications which already subject
to surveillance by others is somehow going to deprive them of a
confidentialty which did not exist before the electronic surveillance by the
U.S. Government.
It's unnecessary for the plaintiffs to make any such claim.
Judge Taylor's Angry Left credentials notwithstanding
Ad hominem has been a central part of your argument. Why don't you put
forward a case that Judge Diggs Taylor has Angry Left credentials? Until
then, your smear campaign against a respected jurist is merely evidence
that you are intellectually bankrupt.
Post by Grey Satterfield
given that Judge
Taylor's order is the first to ever attempt to stop the electronic
surveillance of foreign calls,
Well, if prior presidents chose to completely ignore FISA, then maybe
prior administrations would have been slapped on the hand as well. It's
not the judge's fault that Bush is the biggest imperial asshole ever to
occupy the white house since FISA was passed.
Post by Grey Satterfield
I think I know what the 6th Circuit will do.
In the meantime, consider that if it looks like a skunk, walks like a skunk,
and spells like a skunk, it must be a skunk. :)
Perhaps miguel could cite an instance where a president had to react to a
series of terrorist attacks that killed 3,000 Americans, and more
importantly had to try to protect them from future attacks. Sheesh!
Sheesh is right. Your argument is so stupid I don't even know how to
respond. It certainly adds nothing to illuminate the legal issues now,
does it?
Grey Satterfield
2006-08-19 01:04:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by miguel
Post by Grey Satterfield
Perhaps miguel could cite an instance where a president had to react to a
series of terrorist attacks that killed 3,000 Americans, and more
importantly had to try to protect them from future attacks. Sheesh!
Sheesh is right. Your argument is so stupid I don't even know how to
respond. It certainly adds nothing to illuminate the legal issues now,
does it?
I thought about responding in an ironic way, saying something about Bush and
Nazi's, the claimed erosion of civil rights (although there is no evidence),
there is no terrorist threat (9/11 was a long time ago), and maybe end with
something humorous. Alas, I gave up on all that because the Angry Left
really believes that Bush is as bad as Hitler, that the civil rights of
ordinary Americans are being taken away, and that there is no terrorist
threat. Sad but there it is. They REALLY have lost their minds!

Grey Satterfield
miguel
2006-08-19 01:33:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by miguel
Post by Grey Satterfield
Perhaps miguel could cite an instance where a president had to react to a
series of terrorist attacks that killed 3,000 Americans, and more
importantly had to try to protect them from future attacks. Sheesh!
Sheesh is right. Your argument is so stupid I don't even know how to
respond. It certainly adds nothing to illuminate the legal issues now,
does it?
I thought about responding in an ironic way, saying something about Bush and
Nazi's, the claimed erosion of civil rights (although there is no evidence),
Have you read the Patriot Act? Hell, even the administration admits that
there has been an erosion of civil rights. Why else would they be
arguing that sometimes we have to sacrifice some liberty for some security?
Post by Grey Satterfield
there is no terrorist threat (9/11 was a long time ago), and maybe end with
something humorous. Alas, I gave up on all that because the Angry Left
really believes that Bush is as bad as Hitler, that the civil rights of
ordinary Americans are being taken away, and that there is no terrorist
threat. Sad but there it is. They REALLY have lost their minds!
Where is your evidence to support any of these assertions?

miguel
Grey Satterfield
2006-08-18 01:15:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Last week the Detroit Free Press profiled Judge Taylor, noting that she "is
a liberal with Democratic roots" who campaigned for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and
Even if Taylor harpoons the spying program, experts said, the decision
likely would be overturned by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Given the composition of the 6th Circuit and its previous rulings in
related areas, it seems more likely to favor national security over civil
liberties if that issue is squarely presented," said Carl Tobias, a law
professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia. "And that's what this
case is all about."
It's just as I said when I first identified who Judge Taylor is. The
chances of this opinion not being reversed are not high.

Grey Satterfield
Jack Linthicum
2006-08-18 11:02:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Last week the Detroit Free Press profiled Judge Taylor, noting that she "is
a liberal with Democratic roots" who campaigned for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and
Even if Taylor harpoons the spying program, experts said, the decision
likely would be overturned by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Given the composition of the 6th Circuit and its previous rulings in
related areas, it seems more likely to favor national security over civil
liberties if that issue is squarely presented," said Carl Tobias, a law
professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia. "And that's what this
case is all about."
It's just as I said when I first identified who Judge Taylor is. The
chances of this opinion not being reversed are not high.
Grey Satterfield
Do you think either the Sixth Circuit or the Supreme Court will rule
on it before the next election?
Grey Satterfield
2006-08-18 11:54:13 UTC
Permalink
On 8/18/06 6:02 AM, in article
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Last week the Detroit Free Press profiled Judge Taylor, noting that she "is
a liberal with Democratic roots" who campaigned for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and
Even if Taylor harpoons the spying program, experts said, the decision
likely would be overturned by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Given the composition of the 6th Circuit and its previous rulings in
related areas, it seems more likely to favor national security over civil
liberties if that issue is squarely presented," said Carl Tobias, a law
professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia. "And that's what this
case is all about."
It's just as I said when I first identified who Judge Taylor is. The
chances of this opinion not being reversed are not high.
Grey Satterfield
Do you think either the Sixth Circuit or the Supreme Court will rule
on it before the next election?
The 6th Circuit may not rule on the matter before November but I think the
ruling's effectiveness will be stayed in the meantime. Judge Taylor's is
the first ruling to hold the foreign telephone intercepts unconstitutional
and a motion for a stay is pending before her. In the meantime her ruling
is NOT in effect so the intercepts go on. Because the ruling does seem
likely to be overturned on appeal I suspect that the 6th Circuit will stay
its effectiveness even if Judge Taylor won't.

Grey Satterfield
miguel
2006-08-18 20:28:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Last week the Detroit Free Press profiled Judge Taylor, noting that she "is
a liberal with Democratic roots" who campaigned for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and
Even if Taylor harpoons the spying program, experts said, the decision
likely would be overturned by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Given the composition of the 6th Circuit and its previous rulings in
related areas, it seems more likely to favor national security over civil
liberties if that issue is squarely presented," said Carl Tobias, a law
professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia. "And that's what this
case is all about."
I disagree with this statement. At its legal core this case is about
whether the President can ignore Congress re FISA. The answer, under
Youngstown Steel, is no. The courts will have to engage in a lot of
slick work to avoid that conclusion.
Post by Grey Satterfield
It's just as I said when I first identified who Judge Taylor is. The
chances of this opinion not being reversed are not high.
I doubt much of her reasoning will be affirmed. However, I will not be
surprised to see the result stand.

miguel
Grey Satterfield
2006-08-18 23:18:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by miguel
Post by Grey Satterfield
It's just as I said when I first identified who Judge Taylor is. The
chances of this opinion not being reversed are not high.
I doubt much of her reasoning will be affirmed. However, I will not be
surprised to see the result stand.
Is it just me or is there an internal inconsistency here?

Appellate courts do sometimes affirm when a lower court reaches the right
result for the wrong reason but it's rare. Courts that screw up the
reasoning usually have screwed up the result, too.

Grey Satterfield
miguel
2006-08-18 23:42:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by miguel
Post by Grey Satterfield
It's just as I said when I first identified who Judge Taylor is. The
chances of this opinion not being reversed are not high.
I doubt much of her reasoning will be affirmed. However, I will not be
surprised to see the result stand.
Is it just me or is there an internal inconsistency here?
It's just you.
Post by Grey Satterfield
Appellate courts do sometimes affirm when a lower court reaches the right
result for the wrong reason but it's rare. Courts that screw up the
reasoning usually have screwed up the result, too.
I disagree with the "rare" characterization. In the case of this
opinion, I expect the reviewing court will not concur with the first
amendment argument, and I also expect that she may not be affirmed on
the fourth amendment argument either. However, the FISA issue is pretty
clearcut.

miguel
Grey Satterfield
2006-08-19 00:50:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by miguel
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by miguel
Post by Grey Satterfield
It's just as I said when I first identified who Judge Taylor is. The
chances of this opinion not being reversed are not high.
I doubt much of her reasoning will be affirmed. However, I will not be
surprised to see the result stand.
Is it just me or is there an internal inconsistency here?
It's just you.
Post by Grey Satterfield
Appellate courts do sometimes affirm when a lower court reaches the right
result for the wrong reason but it's rare. Courts that screw up the
reasoning usually have screwed up the result, too.
I disagree with the "rare" characterization. In the case of this
opinion, I expect the reviewing court will not concur with the first
amendment argument, and I also expect that she may not be affirmed on
the fourth amendment argument either. However, the FISA issue is pretty
clearcut.
I practiced trial and appellate law for nearly 50 years and have read,
literally, thousands of opinions. Trust me, it's rare.

Grey Satterfield
miguel
2006-08-19 01:17:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by miguel
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by miguel
Post by Grey Satterfield
It's just as I said when I first identified who Judge Taylor is. The
chances of this opinion not being reversed are not high.
I doubt much of her reasoning will be affirmed. However, I will not be
surprised to see the result stand.
Is it just me or is there an internal inconsistency here?
It's just you.
Post by Grey Satterfield
Appellate courts do sometimes affirm when a lower court reaches the right
result for the wrong reason but it's rare. Courts that screw up the
reasoning usually have screwed up the result, too.
I disagree with the "rare" characterization. In the case of this
opinion, I expect the reviewing court will not concur with the first
amendment argument, and I also expect that she may not be affirmed on
the fourth amendment argument either. However, the FISA issue is pretty
clearcut.
I practiced trial and appellate law for nearly 50 years and have read,
literally, thousands of opinions. Trust me, it's rare.
I have been doing the same for over 30 years, and two of those years
were spent writing some of those opinions while clerking for a member of
the federal judiciary. So no, I won't trust you about it being rare.
I'll trust my own experience, thank you.

miguel
miguel
2006-08-19 04:47:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by miguel
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by miguel
Post by Grey Satterfield
It's just as I said when I first identified who Judge Taylor is. The
chances of this opinion not being reversed are not high.
I doubt much of her reasoning will be affirmed. However, I will not be
surprised to see the result stand.
Is it just me or is there an internal inconsistency here?
It's just you.
Post by Grey Satterfield
Appellate courts do sometimes affirm when a lower court reaches the right
result for the wrong reason but it's rare. Courts that screw up the
reasoning usually have screwed up the result, too.
I disagree with the "rare" characterization. In the case of this
opinion, I expect the reviewing court will not concur with the first
amendment argument, and I also expect that she may not be affirmed on
the fourth amendment argument either. However, the FISA issue is pretty
clearcut.
I practiced trial and appellate law for nearly 50 years and have read,
literally, thousands of opinions. Trust me, it's rare.
Rarity is hardly the issue, though. The question isn't one of
probability divorced from content.

As a citation in favor of my argument, I offer http://tinyurl.com/rjqoj

As you probably know, the University of Chicago Law School is a notably
conservative school. Yet, Professor Cass Sunstein of UC states the
decision will be affirmed on grounds other than those offered by the
district court judge:

"Indeed, Cass R. Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago,
predicted that the plaintiffs would win the case on appeal, but not for
the reasons Judge Taylor gave.

'The chances that the Bush program will be upheld are not none, but
slim,' Professor Sunstein said. 'The chances that this judge’s analysis
will be adopted are also slim.'”

Hamdan pretty much sucked all the life out of the administration's
argument for bypassing FISA. Virtually every legal scholar of any note
agrees. It will be very difficult for the 6th Circuit to bypass Hamdan
and overrule Diggs Taylor's decision.

miguel
God's Creator! (HTML)
2006-08-19 06:59:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by miguel
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by miguel
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by miguel
It's just as I said when I first identified who Judge Taylor is. The
chances of this opinion not being reversed are not high.
I doubt much of her reasoning will be affirmed. However, I will not be
surprised to see the result stand.
Is it just me or is there an internal inconsistency here?
It's just you.
Post by Grey Satterfield
Appellate courts do sometimes affirm when a lower court reaches the right
result for the wrong reason but it's rare. Courts that screw up the
reasoning usually have screwed up the result, too.
I disagree with the "rare" characterization. In the case of this
opinion, I expect the reviewing court will not concur with the first
amendment argument, and I also expect that she may not be affirmed on
the fourth amendment argument either. However, the FISA issue is pretty
clearcut.
I practiced trial and appellate law for nearly 50 years and have read,
literally, thousands of opinions. Trust me, it's rare.
Rarity is hardly the issue, though. The question isn't one of
probability divorced from content.
As a citation in favor of my argument, I offer http://tinyurl.com/rjqoj
As you probably know, the University of Chicago Law School is a
notably conservative school. Yet, Professor Cass Sunstein of UC states
the decision will be affirmed on grounds other than those offered by
"Indeed, Cass R. Sunstein, a law professor at the University of
Chicago, predicted that the plaintiffs would win the case on appeal,
but not for the reasons Judge Taylor gave.
'The chances that the Bush program will be upheld are not none, but
slim,' Professor Sunstein said. 'The chances that this judge’s
analysis will be adopted are also slim.'”
Hamdan pretty much sucked all the life out of the administration's
argument for bypassing FISA. Virtually every legal scholar of any note
agrees. It will be very difficult for the 6th Circuit to bypass Hamdan
and overrule Diggs Taylor's decision.
miguel
Thus Spake: *G* *O* *D* *S* *C* *R* *E* *A* *T* *O* *R*


Like the U.S. congress;
The U.S. Judicial branch is concerned about Bush taking
power from their turf also.

Go figure...


God's Creator!
(I don't forgive shit!)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Todays U.S. Holy Wars News:
http://www.antiwar.com
http://icasualties.org/oif/
D. Spencer Hines
2006-08-18 06:31:02 UTC
Permalink
Reasonable Suspicion vs. Probable Cause.

DSH
------------------------------------------------------------

"Criminal investigations. British law-enforcement officials clearly have a
more robust ability to investigate suspected terrorist activity than do U.S.
police agencies.

This is true in a range of areas. For example, traditionally there has been
much more direct cooperation between British intelligence and police
services; there was never the sort of "wall" between foreign intelligence
and law enforcement functions that the U.S. maintained before Sept. 11.

Similarly, British officials need not meet the very strict requirement of
"probable cause" to obtain warrants that U.S. investigative bodies must
satisfy under the Bill of Rights.

In Britain, a warrant can generally issue on a showing of "reasonable
suspicion."

DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY [both of whom are attorneys]
Monday, August 14, 2006

The Wall Street Journal
Julian Richards
2006-08-18 08:03:07 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 07:31:02 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Reasonable Suspicion vs. Probable Cause.
Similarly, British officials need not meet the very strict requirement of
"probable cause" to obtain warrants that U.S. investigative bodies must
satisfy under the Bill of Rights.
In Britain, a warrant can generally issue on a showing of "reasonable
suspicion."
It is about the balance between rights of the individual to be
protected from society against the responsibility of the individual to
the society.

In the USA the balance is in favour of the rights of the individual;
in the UK and much of the EU, those rights are weakened to allow the
state to provide additional protection to all citizens. There is no
right or wrong answer to this, a country has to determine where this
balance lies for itself. In the light of recent events, the USA may
have to move somewhat towards the UK model in certain ways.

When does free speech become unacceptable incitement?
When does the right to privacy become a danger to the common good?

It keeps lawyers in work, I suppose.
--

Julian Richards

www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"

THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
D. Spencer Hines
2006-08-18 17:31:29 UTC
Permalink
REVIEW & OUTLOOK

"President Taylor
A federal judge rewrites the Constitution on war powers."

Friday, August 18, 2006

"In our current era of polarized politics, it was probably inevitable that
some judge somewhere would strike down the National Security Agency's
warrantless wiretaps as unconstitutional. The temptations to be hailed as
Civil Libertarian of the Year are just too great.

So we suppose a kind of congratulations are due to federal Judge Anna Diggs
Taylor, who won her 10 minutes of fame yesterday for declaring that
President Bush had taken upon himself "the inherent power to violate not
only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the
Constitution, itself."

Oh, and by the way, the Jimmy Carter appointee also avers that "there are no
hereditary Kings in America." In case you hadn't heard.

That's another reason the Angry-Left Democrats HATE George Walker Bush --
because his father was President. That hasn't happened since John Adams and
John Quincy Adams -- and both of them were one-termers. -- DSH

The 44-page decision, which concludes by issuing a permanent injunction
against the wiretapping program, will doubtless occasion much rejoicing
among the "imperial Presidency" crowd. That may have been part of her point,
as, early in the decision, Judge Taylor refers with apparent derision to
"the war on terror of this Administration."

We can at least be grateful that President Taylor's judgment won't be the
last on the matter. The Justice Department immediately announced it will
appeal and the injunction has been stayed for the moment.

But her decision is all the more noteworthy for coming on the heels of the
surveillance-driven roll up of the terrorist plot in Britain to blow up
U.S.-bound airliners. In this environment, monitoring the communications of
our enemies is neither a luxury nor some sinister plot to chill domestic
dissent. It is a matter of life and death.

So let's set aside the judge's Star Chamber rhetoric and try to examine her
argument, such as it is. Take the Fourth Amendment first. The "unreasonable
search and seizure" and warrant requirements of that amendment have their
roots in the 18th-century abuses of the British crown. Those abuses involved
the search and arrest of the King's political opponents under general and
often secret warrants.

Judge Taylor sees an analogy here, but she manages to forget or overlook
that no one is being denied his liberty and no evidence is being brought in
criminal proceedings based on what the NSA might learn through listening to
al Qaeda communications. The wiretapping program is an intelligence
operation, not a law-enforcement proceeding. Congress was duly informed, and
not a single specific domestic abuse of such a wiretap has yet been even
alleged, much less found.

As for the First Amendment, Judge Taylor asserts that the plaintiffs -- a
group that includes the ACLU and assorted academics, lawyers and journalists
who believe their conversations may have been tapped but almost surely
weren't -- had their free-speech rights violated because al Qaeda types are
now afraid to speak to them on the phone.

But the wiretapping program is not preventing anyone from speaking on the
phone. Quite the opposite -- if the terrorists stopped talking on the phone,
there would be nothing to wiretap. Perhaps the plaintiffs should have sued
the New York Times, as it was that paper's disclosure of the program that
created the "chill" on "free speech" that Judge Taylor laments.

The real nub of this dispute is the Constitution's idea of "inherent
powers," although those two pages of her decision are mostly devoted to
pouring scorn on the very concept. But jurists of far greater distinction
than Judge Taylor have recognized that the Constitution vests the bulk of
war-making power with the President. It did so, as the Founders explained in
the Federalist Papers, for reasons of energy, dispatch, secrecy and
accountability.

Before yesterday, no American court had ever ruled that the President lacked
the Constitutional right to conduct such wiretaps.

President Carter signed the 1978 FISA statute that established the special
court to approve domestic wiretaps even as his Administration declared it
was not ceding any Constitutional power.

BINGO! -- DSH

And in the 2002 decision In Re: Sealed Case, the very panel of appellate
judges that hears FISA appeals noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v.
Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the
issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct
warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."

We couldn't find Judge Taylor's attempt to grapple with those precedents,
perhaps because they'd have interfered with the lilt of her purple prose.

ZAAAAAAPPPP! -- DSH

Unlike Judge Taylor, Presidents are accountable to the voters for their
war-making decisions, as the current White House occupant has discovered.

Judge Taylor can write her opinion and pose for the cameras -- and no one
can hold her accountable for any Americans who might die as a result."

The Wall Street Journal
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Correct! And she really doesn't give a damn. She simply wants to be
crowned, feted and lauded as Civil Libertarian of the Year and the National
Security of the American People be damned.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor
D. Spencer Hines
2006-08-18 20:25:58 UTC
Permalink
Brannigan is really quite amusing -- and VERY unimaginative

If anyone has a hard disagreement with him, Brannigan labels them as
"Brown-Shirt Lite" or as an outright Nazi.

Yet some very naive people, such as "Hippo", still think Brannigan's heart
is in the right place.

Hilarious!

Some People just never learn from History and have VERY poor judgement of
People in general.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor
Grey Satterfield
2006-08-18 23:12:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Brannigan is really quite amusing -- and VERY unimaginative
If anyone has a hard disagreement with him, Brannigan labels them as
"Brown-Shirt Lite" or as an outright Nazi.
Yet some very naive people, such as "Hippo", still think Brannigan's heart
is in the right place.
Hilarious!
Some People just never learn from History and have VERY poor judgement of
People in general.
Sometimes I am tempted to agree with Peter Skelton's conclusion that Vince
really IS a troll. :)

Grey Satterfield
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...