And he did it on July 4th. Goody!

Thanks submitter.

Where are all those anti-American Neo-Cons who claimed the president can't commit a crime because he IS THE LAW. Cowering under their beds until the fireworks stop tonight I assume?

FTA-"A federal judge said that President Bush does not have the constitutional authority to overstep the law establishing the government's ability to conduct warrantless wiretaps on American citizens."

Al Haramain Islamic Foundation? Is that some front for the IRA?

What I would like to know is, who the fark is listening to all the material being gathered by these wiretaps? The gubmint doesn't trust most native Arabic speakers enough to give them clearances, and I personally wouldn't trust at least 80% of Americans who studied it in college to get things right.

important side note:

this decision makes most if not all of the arguments in support of the new FISA bill null and void. democrats are saying they are voting for the bill because they worked in exclusivity... that the authority on these matters lie exclusively with the FISA court.

but this decision states that such exclusivity already exists in the original law.

if you don't like the new FISA bill, call your senators and let them know.

I love this headline.

+1 Would chuckle again!!!

oldebayer:The gubmint doesn't trust most native Arabic speakers enough to give them clearances,

Also, didn't the government fire a bunch of them for being gay, or something?

You know, because that's logical....

"A Federal Court judge", not the Supreme Court. Do you know how many lower court decisions are overturned by SCOTUS in a year?

bearsfolks:Do you know how many lower court decisions are overturned by SCOTUS in a year?

Do you know how many cases are heard by the Supreme Court in a year?

Also, I don't think the conservative judges on the court want to give Obama too much power.

/by the way, he's the next president, sorry for the spoiler

Not until AFTER the election. Wishing it doesn't make it so.

"The broader picture is that this is a big loss for the government," Eisenberg said.

good

submitter:Federal judge smacks George W. Bush with the U.S. Constitution and says "Look at what you've done. BAD"

However, for pet owners, if you don't administer the punishment immediately after the offending act, the pet won't make the connection between the act and punishment and and is likely to do the same thing again.

Does this logic apply to the President as well?

mamoru:
Does this logic apply to the President as well?

Kinda like training the dog just before you put him to sleep....

With decisions like this the US will no longer have the most powerful government in the world.

Cheney responded, "So?"

Good, I say it's about time we fried LBJ and JFK. Oh wait, you're just talking about the *latest* administration to use warrentless wiretaps. My mistake.

Still amazes me that people think Bush set the precident for this. Especially since they call him dumber than a doorknob on one hand then attribute masterstrokes of evil to him; just funny.

CanisNoir 2008-07-05 02:56:52 AM
Good, I say it's about time we fried LBJ and JFK. Oh wait, you're just talking about the *latest* administration to use warrentless wiretaps. My mistake.

Still amazes me that people think Bush set the precident for this. Especially since they call him dumber than a doorknob on one hand then attribute masterstrokes of evil to him; just funny.


But...but...but...LBJ?

C'mon, you're reaching. Besides, modern precedents are the ones we need to establish.

CanisNoir:
Still amazes me that people think Bush set the precident for this. Especially since they call him dumber than a doorknob on one hand then attribute masterstrokes of evil to him; just funny.

Considering his long-standing philosophy of the Executive Branch having unchecked dictatorial powers, most people are pointing at Dick Cheney for that one.

Cyber_Junk:But...but...but...LBJ?

C'mon, you're reaching. Besides, modern precedents are the ones we need to establish.

Reaching? Not really; just getting a handle on the whole BDS thing. You know where people exclaim "he shredded the constitution". Without realizing that everything he's done has been done in the past and we havn't devolved into some facist nightmare.

It has happened before
It will happen again
McCain is the 5th final Cylon!!!

mamoru:Does this logic apply to the President as well?

I know two minpins who are smarter than W.

/ok, maybe not.
//but they are better speakers.

CanisNoir 2008-07-05 02:56:52 AM
Good, I say it's about time we fried LBJ and JFK. Oh wait, you're just talking about the *latest* administration to use warrentless wiretaps. My mistake.

Still amazes me that people think Bush set the precident for this. Especially since they call him dumber than a doorknob on one hand then attribute masterstrokes of evil to him; just funny.

You can't even spell "precedent" correctly, so no one really gives a fark what you have to say, and rightfully so, but just for shiats and giggles, "But he did it first!" is not an acceptable answer beyond the second grade. Just so you know.

CanisNoir:

It has happened before
It will happen again

Only if we allow it.

We were blind before, but now we have eyes.
Shall we believe what we see, or shall we shut them?

He's still president?

"At the same time, Judge Walker barred the U.S. branch of the now-defunct Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, an Islamic charity based in Ashland, Calif., from using a top secret document to push forward its lawsuit challenging the government's surveillance of that group."

I think it was Ashland, Oregon - not California..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Haramain_Foundation

/too lazy to click-pop

"A Federal Court judge", not the Supreme Court. Do you know how many lower court decisions are overturned by SCOTUS in a year?

Just give Bush another Supreme Court Nominee and all this "Checks and Balances" nonsense will be DONE AWAY WITH.

/YEA! Supreme Executive!!!!
/BOOO! Constitution and "Checks and Balances!"

CaptainFatass:CanisNoir 2008-07-05 02:56:52 AM
Good, I say it's about time we fried LBJ and JFK. Oh wait, you're just talking about the *latest* administration to use warrentless wiretaps. My mistake.

Still amazes me that people think Bush set the precident for this. Especially since they call him dumber than a doorknob on one hand then attribute masterstrokes of evil to him; just funny.

You can't even spell "precedent" correctly, so no one really gives a fark what you have to say, and rightfully so, but just for shiats and giggles, "But he did it first!" is not an acceptable answer beyond the second grade. Just so you know.

Anyone who tosses out someones entire opinion because of a mis-spelled word at 3am isn't worthy of debate. But for shiats and giggles, do you click your jackboots together each time a dictionary page is turned or just raise your right hand in salute?

Nya you mis-spelled one word while typing tired therefore you are an idiot; unless you agree with me, then I don't point out the error. Yea real mature buddy.

CanisNoir 2008-07-05 03:34:32
CaptainFatass:CanisNoir 2008-07-05 02:56:52 AM
Good, I say it's about time we fried LBJ and JFK. Oh wait, you're just talking about the *latest* administration to use warrentless wiretaps. My mistake.

Still amazes me that people think Bush set the precident for this. Especially since they call him dumber than a doorknob on one hand then attribute masterstrokes of evil to him; just funny.

You can't even spell "precedent" correctly, so no one really gives a fark what you have to say, and rightfully so, but just for shiats and giggles, "But he did it first!" is not an acceptable answer beyond the second grade. Just so you know.

Anyone who tosses out someones entire opinion because of a mis-spelled word at 3am isn't worthy of debate. But for shiats and giggles, do you click your jackboots together each time a dictionary page is turned or just raise your right hand in salute?

Nya you mis-spelled one word while typing tired therefore you are an idiot; unless you agree with me, then I don't point out the error. Yea real mature buddy.

The typo was but an indication of your ignorance. Your argument was proof in full.

CanisNoir:CaptainFatass:CanisNoir 2008-07-05 02:56:52 AM

Nya you mis-spelled one word while typing tired therefore you are an idiot; unless you agree with me, then I don't point out the error. Yea real mature buddy.

Your rong. Speling errs our very emportant. They say a lot a bout inteligence

CaptainFatass:The typo was but an indication of your ignorance. Your argument was proof in full.

Still the question remains unanswered; is it a click of the heels or just the right arm going up when the Dictionary is opened? Might also want to discover the definition of "argument" for I provided none. I offered nothing more than an observation that other administrations have used it before and we have yet to devolve into a Fascist nightmare. (Not an argument, statement of fact)
But thanks for being there Oh Protector of Proper Spelling; I'm sure there's a beer comercial in the making for you.

/mispells for the hell of it on Fark sometimes, just to watch the Spelling Nazi's trip over themselves to look stupid.
//Yes, ivalidating an argument because of spelling errors makes you look stupid, not the other way around.

CanisNoir 2008-07-05 03:46:00 AM
CaptainFatass:The typo was but an indication of your ignorance. Your argument was proof in full.

Still the question remains unanswered; is it a click of the heels or just the right arm going up when the Dictionary is opened? Might also want to discover the definition of "argument" for I provided none. I offered nothing more than an observation that other administrations have used it before and we have yet to devolve into a Fascist nightmare. (Not an argument, statement of fact)
But thanks for being there Oh Protector of Proper Spelling; I'm sure there's a beer comercial in the making for you.

/mispells for the hell of it on Fark sometimes, just to watch the Spelling Nazi's trip over themselves to look stupid.
//Yes, ivalidating an argument because of spelling errors makes you look stupid, not the other way around.

The fact that you haven't even mastered basic English indicates that you aren't the sharpest tool in the shed. The fact that you employ the "But he did it first!" defense seals the deal.

So when is the Hague Court gonna smack him with the death penalty?

CanisNoir:Cyber_Junk:But...but...but...LBJ?

C'mon, you're reaching. Besides, modern precedents are the ones we need to establish.

Reaching? Not really; just getting a handle on the whole BDS thing. You know where people exclaim "he shredded the constitution". Without realizing that everything he's done has been done in the past and we havn't devolved into some facist nightmare.

It has happened before
It will happen again
McCain is the 5th final Cylon!!!



It's been done before, sure. But context matters: Bush is not the first president to overstep his clear Constitutional authority, but he's certainly up there among the most frequent offenders. And unlike presidents like FDR, Bush doesn't really have a good reason for it. The guy seems to do it just to generate PR events where he can accuse the federal judiciary of hating freedom.

Well, I'm sure that will put an end to all that nasty tomfoolery and shady hijinks going on over at the white house. Yes siree...all that was required was a federal judge to say, "Tsk tsk tsk," and the boys snap to and behave.
Shoulda thought of that sooner. Problem solved, indeed.

CaptainFatass:The fact that you haven't even mastered basic English indicates that you aren't the sharpest tool in the shed. The fact that you employ the "But he did it first!" defense seals the deal.

heh, again you miss the point; there was no defense offered. As for my mastery of English, it seems to be better than your mastery of reading comprehension.

You sir, are a poor mans liberal Danploon.

El_Dan:It's been done before, sure. But context matters: Bush is not the first president to overstep his clear Constitutional authority, but he's certainly up there among the most frequent offenders. And unlike presidents like FDR, Bush doesn't really have a good reason for it. The guy seems to do it just to generate PR events where he can accuse the federal judiciary of hating freedom.

Actually I tend to think Bush has just as good a reason as the others; we are in a war after all. He had to get warrants after the fact from what I understood, granted it was about three to four months after the fact but it wasn't like he was just willy nilly listening to people.

Personally if the CIA see's a call going overseas that they think might have some intel, I'm all for them listening in and then spending the next 3 weeks trying to justify it rather than attempting to justify it and then miss the intel. Then again they are only monitoring calls that go over seas, so it's not like they are listening in to the weekly drug order.

Etchy333:oldebayer:The gubmint doesn't trust most native Arabic speakers enough to give them clearances,

Also, didn't the government fire a bunch of them for being gay, or something?

You know, because that's logical....

The Army fired a few for that, and then a whole bunch more who weren't planning on actually going to war when they signed on jumped for the same thing. IIRC, anyway, it's been a while.

The judge rules the gov't was wrong to illegally wiretap.

The judge rules that THIS wiretap must be proved.

The judge rules that even though a different branch of the government accidently gave this charity documents proving the government wiretapped them, those documents may not be used in court because those documents are secret.


This is basically what the new FISA bill does.
It will allow the government to continue to wiretap even after losing in FISA court AND the government can retain all information
even if the final judgement is against the tap.
What part of the constitution allows illegal seizure?
The FISA court is currently the exculsive determiner of wiretaps
that were begun without a warrant.
Obama and the rest are wrong to change it to allow the government to retain tapped information even after a FISA rejection.
The new law is not just about telecom immunity.
The new law broadens the power of the executive to do just what Bush did, ignore FISA.

CanisNoir:El_Dan:It's been done before, sure. But context matters: Bush is not the first president to overstep his clear Constitutional authority, but he's certainly up there among the most frequent offenders. And unlike presidents like FDR, Bush doesn't really have a good reason for it. The guy seems to do it just to generate PR events where he can accuse the federal judiciary of hating freedom.

Actually I tend to think Bush has just as good a reason as the others; we are in a war after all. He had to get warrants after the fact from what I understood, granted it was about three to four months after the fact but it wasn't like he was just willy nilly listening to people.

Personally if the CIA see's a call going overseas that they think might have some intel, I'm all for them listening in and then spending the next 3 weeks trying to justify it rather than attempting to justify it and then miss the intel. Then again they are only monitoring calls that go over seas, so it's not like they are listening in to the weekly drug order.

Except intel agencies were already allowed to intercept calls and get permission later.

All Bush did is remove the need for a short term, post hoc judicial rubber stamp, which suggests either that this was a political move, or that he is using wiretapping for some truly ridiculous shiat.

El_Dan:All Bush did is remove the need for a short term, post hoc judicial rubber stamp, which suggests either that this was a political move, or that he is using wiretapping for some truly ridiculous shiat.

Well in that case I would call it a Political Move; I always believe a politician is going to act politically. Hell, he's gone soon and doesn't like McCain; what kind of nefarious schemes could he truly be up to?

CanisNoir:what kind of nefarious schemes could he truly be up to?

The same nefarious schemes they're always up to Pinky, staying in power.

Jeffrey.Rodriguez:CanisNoir:what kind of nefarious schemes could he truly be up to?

The same nefarious schemes they're always up to Pinky, staying in power.

heh NARF!!!

Thank God the remaining liberal justices are in good health or we'd be looking at a quick reversal courtesy Herr Roberts, Alito, et al.

CanisNoir:Actually I tend to think Bush has just as good a reason as the others; we are in a war after all.

I have had nothing but patience with you, but this seals it. Repeat after me:

We are not at war.

If you cannot admit that singular simple point, then any reason for debating you ceases to exist.

Occam's Chainsaw:I have had nothing but patience with you, but this seals it. Repeat after me:

We are not at war.

If you cannot admit that singular simple point, then any reason for debating you ceases to exist.

Okay here's something that was put much better than I regarding whether or not we are at war...

am constantly amazed by the libs peculiar focus on the concept of a declaration of war. No where in the constitution does it ever provide us a template for such an item, and does not limit "Congressionally Mandated Use of Force authorizations."

In this conflict the president received a mandate for the use of force from Congress, and now the libs moan about how we do not have the APPROPRIATE FORMAT FOR THE DOCUMENT. Argh!

Its like they seek us to go into "Form-Flow" and find a SF 1000-1776 "Open Warfare form" form, and to go to block 2a "Congressionally Authorized Use of Force" and scribble it out and pen in "Declaration of War."

Yes, we are at war; congress authorized the use of force.

Too bad it's not the supreme court and it'l never matter

oldebayer 2008-07-04 11:35:38 PM
Al Haramain Islamic Foundation? Is that some front for the IRA?

What I would like to know is, who the fark is listening to all the material being gathered by these wiretaps? The gubmint doesn't trust most native Arabic speakers enough to give them clearances, and I personally wouldn't trust at least 80% of Americans who studied it in college to get things right.

The military trained them at DLI, then kicked them out for having the ghey. Then the government contracted linguist jobs out, and they were all hired for at least twice what they were making in the Army.

Remove all Republicans: If no judge is allowed to see what he does and he doesn't have to disclose anything about the wiretaps under "state secrets" or "executive privilege" or whatever new designation they come up with, HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?

Look at the track record. There has been partisan misuse of almost every government department since these guys took over.

I snipped your comments about the current administration -- because it's even worse than you think. The state secrets argument went to the Supreme Court in ... 1953 ... based on a huge set of LIES.

There's some interesting background and context in the LA Times (pops), including this little tidbit about the precedent: The government, it seems, was seeking to cover its embarrassment and hide its mistakes, not to protect the country's security.

The bastards were abusing this in the 1950s. It's a truly unfortunate precedent for a pack of lying liars that we have now.

CanisNoir 2008-07-05 02:56:52 AM
Good, I say it's about time we fried LBJ and JFK. Oh wait, you're just talking about the *latest* administration to use warrentless wiretaps. My mistake.

Still amazes me that people think Bush set the precident for this. Especially since they call him dumber than a doorknob on one hand then attribute masterstrokes of evil to him; just funny.


What part of FISA Act of 1978 do you not understand?

Sorry, Charlie, but JFK and LBJ were not only way prior to that, but they also had no control over J. Edgar Hoover.

And yes, I know FISA Act is redundant.