Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <His website is... um... worth a brief glance.> I want to see it. What's the address.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger It was posted in the DCA section on one thread. Maybe Ed will oblige.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger Ah, had it in my browser history: <a href="http://www.acidheaded.com/" target="_blank">http://www.acidheaded.com/</a> Take a deep breath before clicking.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Individual posters should be taken by the merits of their posts. Credibility is earned over time, and isn't related to whether or not you may be aligned with the political viewpoints. I respond regularly to posters who hold political beliefs that are diametric to mine - but they write lucid cogent posts that allow for a response. If there are posters that arrive on the scene with wild off-the-wall diatribes that aren't grounded in any reality, no one need respond. We can just move along with the topic and sidestep the controversy. Or we can devote forty or so posts to the difference between thoughtful dissenters and muddled rants. Let's take the high road.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Sweet! That sounds like a good time. Dis you follow them or did you camp out at a hole?> followed them for 4 holes, but so did 75% of the people there..so we moved on to others....weather was perfect
Originally Posted By YourPalEd I love the way, if you say the right truth, people respond in 2 minutes with 27 posts or more. I Don't im, instant messaging, but it sure feels like it. It's so nice to have disneyland friends, don't you think? As my disneyland celebrity pal says when asked, by the beyonce, "Do you ever get lonely?" "No, I have zee internet." - clouseau
Originally Posted By YourPalEd Here is a statement you can say you heard directly from Your Pal, Ed, or Acidhead Ed: HAVE FUN, NO MATTER WHAT!!! Take care, and have fun, gulp.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Timothy learys dead. No, no, no, no, hes outside looking in. Timothy learys dead. No, no, no, no, hes outside looking in. Hell fly his astral plane, Takes you trips around the bay, Brings you back the same day, Timothy leary. timothy leary. Timothy learys dead. No, no, no, no, hes outside looking in. Timothy learys dead. No, no, no, no, hes outside looking in. Hell fly his astral plane, Takes you trips around the bay, Brings you back the same day, Timothy leary. timothy leary. Along the coast youll hear them boast About a light they say that shines so clear. So raise your glass, well drink a toast To the little man who sells you thrills along the pier. Hell take you up, hell bring you down, Hell plant your feet back firmly on the ground. He flies so high, he swoops so low, He knows exactly which way hes gonna go. Timothy leary. timothy leary. Hell take you up, hell bring you down, Hell plant your feet back on the ground. Hell fly so high, hell swoop so low. Timothy leary. Hell fly his astral plane. Hell take you trips around the bay. Hell bring you back the same day. Timothy leary. timothy leary. Timothy leary. timothy leary. Timothy leary.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Back to the topic. This judge who Jimmy Carter appointed made a flawed ruling that wil get people killed because we are now handcuffed to listen to terror plots. This comes a week after this type of NSA program helped stop a massive plot. There is no way the NSA program is not legal. The 4th ammendment is not violated. But will a liberal judge who is as dense as a bag of hammers get this? Nope. Bottom line!! If you are a moderate and you are confused about who to vote for let this be a lesson. Democrats will apoint ACLU judges like this lady who just made the worst ruling possible when it comes to our safety. Jimmy Carter is STILL haunting us.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Does someone have a cogent legal analysis as to why this ruling was flawed, other than stating a conclusion? An analysis that states the issue, states the applicable rule, applies the issue and facts to that rule, and THEN state a conclusion?
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger You are our inside man, SPP. What is the general consensus of the legal profession?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Of the 30 or so lawyers I've talked with since this started through today, I'd say 80/20 in favor of the ruling. And even those opposed admit the law is "technically" in favor of this ruling, but an exception should somehow be made. Exceptions, if articulated properly, would likely have been amenable to this judge. She did rule against the ACLU on one issue here, which is of course being overlooked. I haven't had a chance to look at it other than on the surface yet, but initially, it would seem her analysis is correct. So much has been made public already by the Administration that to continue unfettered is contradictory, not to mention hypocritical.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>I've always assumed they were an honest reflection of his opinion. After all, they aren't that far off from (for example) cmpaley's. (Not a criticism of cmpaley!) But cmpaley puts together rational arguments and relevant information to defend his postion. His posts sound very sober and well thought out, even if I don't agree with him a lot.<< Thanks...I think.
Originally Posted By cmpaley At least I got this out of someone: "cmpaley puts together rational arguments and relevant information to defend his postion. His posts sound very sober and well thought out" Nice to know that I'm not the only one who realizes that I'm not pulling stuff out of my behind.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger What I meant was that you tend, sometimes, to post similar "I hate the GOP" posts (which today you clarified to really mean "I don't like the GOP leadership"), but you'll take time to defend it, and do so quite well, as opposed to posting barely coherent text without any rational. And yeah, it was a compliment directed at you.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> This judge who Jimmy Carter appointed made a flawed ruling that wil get people killed because we are now handcuffed to listen to terror plots. << All they have to do is obtain a warrant. How unreasonable is that? >> This comes a week after this type of NSA program helped stop a massive plot. << Unsubstantiated neo-con rumor. Credit on exposing this terror plot is going to pakistan and scotland yard. There has been no mention of bush, the US, or the NSA wire-tapping program. Wishful thinking on your part. >> There is no way the NSA program is not legal. << And you know more about interpretation of constitutional law than this thirty year federal judge - thanks for clearing it all up for us.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I've read the 44 page opinion by Judge Taylor. One of the more salient passages, from page 31, is something we've raised her eon numerous occasions: "In enacting FISA, Congress made numerous concessions to stated executive needs. They include delaying the applications for warrants until after surveillance has begun for several types of exigencies, reducing the probable cause requirement to a less stringent standard, provision of a single court of judicial experts, and extension of the duration of approved wiretaps from thirty days (under Title III) to a ninety day term. All of the above Congressional oncessions to Executive need and to the exigencies of our present situation as a people, however, have been futile. The wiretapping program here in litigation has undisputedly been continued for at least five years, it has undisputedly been implemented without regard to FISA and of course the more stringent standards of Title III, and obviously in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The President of the United States is himself created by that same Constitution." and from page 34-36: The seminal American case in this area, and one on which the government appears to rely, is that of Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) in which Justice Black, for the court, held that the Presidential order in question, to seize steel mills, was not within the constitutional powers of the chief executive. Justice Black wrote that: 'The founders of this Nation entrusted the law-making power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times. It would do no good to recall the historical events, the fears of power and the hopes for freedom that lay behind their choice. Such a review would but confirm our holding that this seizure order cannot stand. Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 589.' Justice Jackson’s concurring opinion in that case has become historic. He wrote that, although the Constitution had diffused powers the better to secure liberty, the powers of the President are not fixed, but fluctuate, depending upon their junctures with the actions of Congress. Thus, if the President acted pursuant to an express or implied authorization by Congress, his power was at it maximum, or zenith. If he acted in absence of Congressional action, he was in a zone of twilight reliant upon only his own independent powers. Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 636-638. But “when the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for he can rely only upon his own Constitutional powers minus any Constitutional powers of Congress over the matter.†Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 637 (Jackson, J.,35 concurring). In that case, he wrote that it had been conceded that no congressional authorization existed for the Presidential seizure. Indeed, Congress had several times covered the area with statutory enactments inconsistent with the seizure. He further wrote of the President’s powers that: 'The example of such unlimited executive power that must have most impressed the forefathers was the prerogative exercised by George III, and the description of its evils in the Declaration of Independence leads me to doubt that they were creating their new Executive in his image. Continental European examples were no more appealing. And if we seek instruction from our own times, we can match it only from the executive powers in those governments we disparagingly describe as totalitarian. I cannot accept the view that this clause is a grant in bulk of all conceivable executive power but regard it as an allocation to the presidential office of the generic powers thereafter stated. Id. at 641.' After analyzing the more recent experiences of Weimar, Germany, the French Republic, and Great Britain, he wrote that: 'This contemporary foreign experience may be inconclusive as to the wisdom of lodging emergency powers somewhere in a modern government. But it suggests that emergency powers are consistent with free government only when their control is lodged elsewhere than in the Executive who exercises them. That is the safeguard that would be nullified by our adoption of the ‘inherent powers’ formula. Nothing in my experience convinces me that such risks are warranted by any real necessity, although such powers would, of course, be an executive convenience. Id. at 652.' Justice Jackson concluded that: 'With all its defects, delays and inconveniences, men have discovered no technique for long preserving free government except that the Executive be under the law, and that the law be made by parliamentary deliberations. Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 655 (Jackson, J., concurring).' Accordingly, Jackson concurred, the President had acted unlawfully. In this case, the President has acted, undisputedly, as FISA forbids. FISA is the expressed statutory policy of our Congress. The presidential power, therefore, was exercised at its lowest ebb and cannot be sustained." In layman's terms, the court concludes that the wiretapping is a naked power grab and Bush simply can't flout the law. She relies on a mix of appellate law to good effect. It's a reasonable, well thought out opinion. Early in the opinion she covers whether the plaintiffs have standing and have suffered any real harm besides a mere "chilling" effect. She concludes they do. Moreover, while not in so many words, she concludes that Bush has shot holes in their ability to use the state secrets privilege, which means that the U.S. can't successfully defend itself without giving away highly sensitive information. Bush's public acknowledgment they're doing this without warrants and will continue to do so makes the point moot. If you want to break it down to its very basics, what the court is saying is all Bush had to do was follow the law, FISA. Making the unilateral determination he didn't have to follow the law is not a power he possesses. Period. There's nothing less activist than a judge telling someone to follow the law as written. Rather, there's not a more conservative view to take here. Bush can still do his wiretaps, he just has to follow FISA. Finally, the court lays waste to the Adminstration's last argument, page 37: "After the terrorist attack on this Country of September 11, 2001, the Congress jointly enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force (hereinafter “AUMFâ€) which states: 'That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.' The Government argues here that it was given authority by that resolution to conduct the TSP in violation of both FISA and the Constitution. First, this court must note that the AUMF says nothing whatsoever of intelligence or surveillance. The government argues that such authority must be implied. Next it must be noted that FISA and Title III, are together by their terms denominated by Congress as the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance may be conducted. Both statutes have made abundantly clear that prior warrants must be obtained from the FISA court for such surveillance, with limited exceptions, none of which are here even raised as applicable. Indeed, the government here claims that the AUMF has by implication granted its TSP authority for more than five years, although FISA’s longest exception, for the Declaration of War by Congress, is only fifteen days from date of such a Declaration. FISA’s history and content, detailed above, are highly specific in their requirements, and the AUMF, if construed to apply at all to intelligence is utterly general. In Morales v. TWA, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992), the Supreme Court taught us that “it is a commonplace of statutory construction that the specific governs the general.†Id. at 384. The implication argued by Defendants, therefore, cannot be made by this court. This post has gone on far too long. A link to the 44 page opinion is here: <a href="http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/08/17/nsa.lawsuit.pdf" target="_blank">http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/im ages/08/17/nsa.lawsuit.pdf</a>
