8/18/06 freedom 1 bush 0?

Question

this is what bush was doing.. the wire taps violates the separation of powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III....Republicans can talk about freedom all day long...but it takes a Democrat to enforce the rule of Law...I raise my glass to this brave judge!!!

Leogirl0804?
did you get a perm? just for this occasion?

Answer 1

Yes. Finally.

The sad thing is, the administration could have done all of the same things and conducted all of the same surveillance within the laws, just by following the proper due process.

Bush just chose to ignore the laws, because he didn't think the executive branch should be limited by Congress or the courts.

For those unfamiliar with the laws in question, read them for yourself. Form your own opinion about what the laws required.

Read 50 U.S.C. §1801 et al. (FISA) Warrantless wiretapping is illegal if anyone US citizen or resident alien is a party to the conversation. Read 18 U.S.C. § 2511: Compliance with FISA "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance... may be conducted".

Bush could have followed the laws, and our administration would have been able to do the same scope and degree of surveillance. The existing laws allowed for that, if the proper procedures were followed. Bush just chose to ignore that laws. That's the difference.

Also, I'm not so sure the Supreme Court will side with Bush on this one, though. They've slapped him down several times for violating federal laws and overstepping constitutional requirements.

And here, he did it because (in his own words) he didn't think the court should have any authority to review executive actions. And the Supreme Court cannot let that sort of attitude slide.

The precedent it would set, that the executive can willfully violate federal laws any time he wants without judicial oversight, would destroy the checks and balances that our entire constitutional system depends upon to function.

Answer 2

U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor declared that the NSA program violates Americans’ rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, but also the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) passed by Congress.





We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no power not created by the Constitution.

kinda brings tears to your eyes to read that doesn't it

Answer 3

We did invade then withdrew. Now we invaded and are occupying. a million. Saddam became into purely complete for crimes against humanity... a number of those crimes have been committed in the 80s or earlier. specific, jointly as he became into on the U. S. payroll and became into supported in his attack on Iran. 2. Gulf conflict 1989 - Saddam invades Kuwait and we bypass in and run him out.... good. He additionally had WMDs on the time. specific, we knew pertaining to to the WMD's as a results of fact we nevertheless had the receipts for them. He gave up his WMD's whilst the inspectors went in and became into on no account deceptive approximately them in the slightest degree. He cooperated completely with UN inspection communities. The Kuwait subject became into completely to guard Saudi oil. 3. Now he's complete and Iraq is occupied for those crimes and violations... Why did no longer we do it then? it relatively is all teach! we don't care approximately that petty crime he became into complete for in the slightest degree. This became right into a PR stunt undeniable and straightforward, a dumb one that backfired thoroughly... We did no longer do it then for a similar reason we did no longer do it to human beings like Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Somoza in Nicaragua, Marcos in the Philippines, Duvalier in Haiti, the Saudi royal kin and many different brutal killers we help or have supported.

Answer 4

The judge really was quite brave to make that call. Let's hope that there is no retribution suffered because the judge dared stand up to the administration, like what happened to Plame.

Answer 5

Cheers dude.... But Bush is not at 0.... We have a lot of points to take back from him. There is all the cover up on 9-11 and Osama Bin Laden....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8797525979024486145&q=911&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5946593973848835726&q=Loose+Change&hl=en

Answer 6

It takes a Liberal Judge to tie the hands of law enforcement and give rights to terrorist and criminals. The program will continue, don't worry about that.

Answer 7

A typical decision for a Carter appointee.

Answer 8

A Jimmy Carter Judge. And I wouldn't raise that glass to high just yet. It's Under Appeal. If it does get removed then DON'T ***** if we get attacked again. Don't Say WHY didn't they STOP It. Just sit there and KEEP your Mouth SHUT if it happens.

Answer 9

It's more like:

Terrorists/Libs-1
Americans' safety, freedom and way of life-0

I keep wondering why liberals want the terroists to win and force us to convert to Islam or be beheaded...This is a head-scratcher. I think they have this "freedom" thing reversed! I'd rather Bush listen to me talking sweet to my husband on the phone than to have Islamic Jihadists blowing me up...Call me crazy!

Answer 10

Let's hope that the Supreme court upholds this... Wait they are mostly nominated by Republicans. Let's enjoy this while we can.