This Just In: Federal Court Knocks Down NSA Warrantless Wiretapping
Well of course it's unconstitutional - the executive just can't listen in or read people's conversations without some legal basis approved by the courts or congress.
To my fellow Republicans: How would you feel if this surveillance were being done not by Bush but by Clinton - Hillary Clinton? Wouldn't you like to stop it now before we get to find out?
To my fellow Republicans: How would you feel if this surveillance were being done not by Bush but by Clinton - Hillary Clinton? Wouldn't you like to stop it now before we get to find out?
posted by ziel | 8/17/2006 01:02:00 PM
8 Comments:
I keep thinking to myself that the political establishment wants to do this to get the dirt on EVERYONE. This will make it easy to keep upsets from happening in elections.
As soon as you become marked in your thirties as someone "going somewhere", either party in control could start listening to your phone calls. Ever had an affair, talked on the phone with the wife about renting that porno in the back room of the video store, talked about a colleague at work that you hate, met with some friends to do a little recreational something you shouldn't? The ruling party in power would know it, even if they didn't have to use it for twenty years.
This would allow the political decisions that the pres makes be based on not what he thinks the opposition may do, but what HE KNOWS they will do. They will be listening to EVERYONE who could concievably be at cross purposes with them at anytime.
AND JUST THINK OF THE MONEY INVOLVED................stock tips? Straight from the effin' source wouldn't you say? Everyone on a cell phone these days.
This is sick. Tapping phones should only be for those who fit the profile, and have warrented suspicion. All Arabs at this point, but thats not what it would be used for. Emmy
That's the one thing tardpublican bushbots can't get through their thick heads.
Everything they are cheering bush for doing they would (and did) scream bloody murder about with bill clinton as president.
They don't comprehend much of the so-called PATRIOT act was pushed by bill clinton after OKC.
I too realize the danger of president hillary.
She will use these powers to protect muslims and mexicans from the ''terrorism'' of the american people...
If only some earlier President had come up with this plan while Georgie Boy was in college, we wouldn't be in this mess we are in now. We'd probably be in a different mess but not this one.
Zeil's point is right on and is a crucial insight to the biggest Replublican problem. They either think the rules don't apply to them or that any means of attack is acceptable against "the enemy". In either case, they are dead wrong.
If we are to preserve the Union, we need, first, to preserve the freedoms to speak, act & assemble that are the backbone of the Union.
Beyond that, Repubilcans needs to somehow come to realize that dissent is not evil. If the same activities that are now going on took place prior to Nixon, that would clearly be grounds for impeachment.
Harlem
Ziel, sorry again for sidestepping the current theme, but this just in, along the lines of the recent article I forwarded you. It´s not Timeselect so you should get it...
If you and I had actually become professional political hacks, I just don´t see how we could survive in the current 2 party system.
Talk about blurring the party lines...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/nyregion/19conn.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5094&en=a5f97f0e22c0bfa9&hp&ex=1156046400&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1155978060-hDgrTSgTSHOnzzbsw3AUAg
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/nyregion/19conn.html?hp&ex=1156046400&en=a5f97f0e22c0bfa9&ei=5094&partner=homepage
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/
nyregion/19conn.html
?hp&ex=1156046400&en=a5f97f0e22c0bfa9&ei=
5094&partner=homepage
Wasn't this suit filed by the ACLU, and isn't the author of this site a known denouncer of that organization? So are we now to conclude that the ACLU is not evil incarnate, but instead a group that champions the rights of Americans?
And it's really a JUDGE who ruled against the wiretapping, not a court. I would hazard a guess that this particular judge has proferred many rulings that the blog author would disagree with vehemently.
I suppose the old "even the stopped clock is right twice a day" quote applies here.
I didn't read the decision, so for all I know it was a nonsensical, overheated rant. No matter - the administration's position is that they can do whatever they want, because we're at war. That is simply untenable.
Post a Comment
<< Home