http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_on_go_pr_wh/warrantless_surveillance
Sorry Cons, AMERICA wins again! Bush's illegal wiretapping has been smashed, once again showing that Bush is a criminal!
Your fascist views will die. HA HA HA, no?
2006-08-17 05:39:36 · 21 answers · asked by Kookoo Bananas 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Right on! Go 18 USC §2511 go.
{EDIT to airforceterp330} The term fascist probably wasn't directed at the entire conservative movement, just at those in the Bush administration attempting to impose "a right-wing authoritarian hierarchical government, opposed to democracy" (dictionary definition). In other words, it was only referring to those individuals who are fascist, not to everyone in the same political party.
{EDIT to KevinW} I think you're confusing this with the private cases against phone companies for violations of the Stored Communications Act relating to the NSA program, all recently consolidated under Judge Walker. This was an unrelated suit under Judge Taylor against the government, challenging the program itself under 50 U.S.C. §1801 (FISA) and 18 U.S.C. §2511 (Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control Act). See the links below for details on that other series of consolidated cases.
2006-08-17 05:46:45 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
i do no longer believe the ruling, yet i in my view do no longer care....the two events have reported that it is something that they might would desire to alter anyhow. It seems as though they'll exchange the regulation to allow this form of wiretapping. The previous regulation isn't very specific as many of the varieties of communications used on the instant weren't around whilst the regulation became into written. so some distance as invasion of privateness, which isn't a superb in the form, the only people who would desire to rigidity are those calling or receiving calls from generic terrorists....the media rather overblew the case.
2016-10-02 05:03:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush uses theUN- Patriot Act to protect Him !! Why do you think made the UN-Patriot Act? So it would protect him from his CRIMES! Maybe America should Wake up and read the Act so you will understand it Protects Bush from crimes on the American People. Bush over wrote the Constitution with that Act and he hides behind the UN-Patriot Act all the time. Wake up America Bush has covered his A** in so many ways!!!
2006-08-17 06:15:42 · answer #3 · answered by jdfnv 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well about 70% of Americans believe that Mr. Bush was right to tap international calls made by terrorists. So its a plus for the court system and minority opinion. Which is usually the case when it goes to the courts. Which is fine by me I"m often in the minority opinion. I am not however in this case. Britain is allowed to do things like this and they are hardly a police state. I despise the "slippery slope" defense.
It's from Rasmussen. 64%. I couldn't really remember and rounded up. Is Fox News the standard liberal come back? It always gives me a laugh. ABC poll too. See links:
But they also believe they were justified. You left that out.
2006-08-17 05:56:58 · answer #4 · answered by MEL T 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
SCOTUS has yet to touch the issue. I'd like to see warrantless wiretaps go away, but with the current composition of the court, I don't know how likely that is.
2006-08-17 05:57:19 · answer #5 · answered by timm1776 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Didn't read the whole story did you......they would have to give up government secrets to prove their case, and they may do that eventually....also it states that she was the first one to determine is was illegal, and it has been flip flopping through the court system for what{?}, 17 months now? Wait until everything is said and done...and we will see......and that does not show he is a criminal....that shows the NSA is criminal.....but again, I state, that is one of at least 4 if not 5 or 6 courts that have ruled against.....do you think it is over really? Then you are more stupid than you are perceived
2006-08-17 05:47:53 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Jimmy Carter strikes again
Look at the history of this judge. Do a little research. During the University of Michigan affirmative action case. A judge that was blindly assigned to it, he was next available on the docket, this loony liberal judge SUSPECTED he was against it. So she tried to TAKE the case away from him. She must of thought if he's biased, he better be biased my way.
Also why on earth would the ACLU do a lawsuit against the federal government in Michigan?? Because they know they have a heavily liberal leaning judge.
You also forget Billy Bob Clinton used this SAME program. Yeah...lets do a little research.
The kooks, loonies, and conspiracy theory wackos are out in full force today
2006-08-17 05:48:20 · answer #7 · answered by John 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
This is a great day for America and the rule of Law!!!!!
MEL T...where the hell do you get 70% from ...fox?
Who in the hell wants the government in their business....why lie or say crap that is so stupid?
Thanks coragryph for correcting the often misinformed Kevin
Melt do you love going around voting thumbs down on every opinion you dont agree with...even if they are right?
Melt why why did you leave out this part..
"Nearly two in three Americans surveyed said they believe that federal agencies involved in anti-terrorism activities are intruding on the personal privacy of their fellow citizens,"
2006-08-17 06:00:20 · answer #8 · answered by tough as hell 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Last time I checked the Supreme Court is the decider if something is constitutional or not....District courts can't rule on constitutionality....just FYI.
2006-08-17 06:02:57 · answer #9 · answered by jpxc99 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
How do you think those 25 terrorists were just caught in England???? When we have a repeat of 9/11 we'll know who to blame. You dems are a bunch of freakin' cry babies.
2006-08-17 05:48:36 · answer #10 · answered by BoSox 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋