Federal Judge rules NSA surveillance unconstitutional!

[Kefka]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_on_re_us/domestic_spying_lawsuit_3


DETROIT - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

"Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.



Like clockwork, when I see distraction news like the Ramsey case, I know something big is coming.

[Some Rogue]

Wouldn't it have been a better distraction if the Ramsey case was after this story? Besides, I'm sure the Colorado police were in cahoots with a Detroit federal judge on when to bust the case. :jerkit:

[Gan]

Distraction. hahahahahahahahahaha. dont make me get out my foil hat to prevent the conspiratorial bullshit that you're trying to stimulate.

[DeV]

Notice how the distraction is causing another distraction with regard to the lack of replies focusing on the actual ruiling itself. :)

Again, it is the Media, specifically the Editors to blame for the way the news is distributed. So while Kefka does have a point with regard to the priority the news media choose to relay this information, I doubt politics was the motivator. It's whatever sells and for the most part Americans were not that concerened with this story to begin with.

[Back]

The ruling literally only happened a few hours ago. CNN’s site had it as a “Breaking News” banner. I bet you’ll hear a lot more about this story as we hit the weekend and certainly it should be a topic on Face the Nation and Meet the Press.

As far as the real news stories go... over 3,000 Iraqis dead in the month of June and no one wants to admit its a civil war.

[Drew]

I'm torn, I don't paticularly like the program, but I don't think a district judge in Detroit has any sort of way to know if we need it.

[Gan]

I plan on watching it very closely.

In the interim, for those who are thinking of distractions and conspiracies, I do not agree with the ruling. Furthermore, I think we are handing the would be terrorists more avenues to function within our borders. I stated so and more in the thread I started: Civil Rights or Criminal Rights?

You can look that up in the politics folder.

How's that for a distraction?

[Gan]

The ruling literally only happened a few hours ago. CNN’s site had it as a “Breaking News” banner. I bet you’ll hear a lot more about this story as we hit the weekend and certainly it should be a topic on Face the Nation and Meet the Press.

As far as the real news stories go... over 3,000 Iraqis dead in the month of June and no one wants to admit its a civil war.

A civil war that has been proven to have been instigated by Al Queda. Al Zaquari (sp) was one of the biggest instigators, may god poop on his forehead.

I'll admit that the fighting is happening, its been part of their scheme for a while now.

[Warriorbird]

I'm torn, I don't paticularly like the program, but I don't think a district judge in Detroit has any sort of way to know if we need it.

:chuckles: Because you're more qualified than a Federal judge. The issue was the constitutionality of the program.

[Tromp]

:chuckles: Because you're more qualified than a Federal judge. The issue was the constitutionality of the program.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060807/NEWS05/608070381/1001/NEWS

The skinny on Diggs. I say she's more qualified than.... hmmm anyone here.

[Back]

I wonder who the first person to attack her for being a liberal activist judge will be.

[ElanthianSiren]

I predict it goes to the supreme court, where it's talked in circles for potentially years. The supreme court, however, has already conceeded certain points with the detention case that I read made an NSA ruling perilous for the administration. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

-M

[Gan]

We know who would be the first to attack her if she ruled in favor of it.

:whistle:

[Tromp]

Who f'in cares? She's made her bones 100 times over. If she was a coservative anal retentive snit, she'd still have mega years of experience with that resume to rule on this topic. Have at it.

[DeV]

How's that for a distraction?I meant Kefka adding to it by declaring it a distraction and the subsequent replies that focused on that alone. Irony, myself included. :)

Nice to know your thoughts on the subject.

I don't disagree with the ruiling, but I plan to follow the story closely as well as more information comes to light.

[Tea & Strumpets]

I wonder who the first person to attack her for being a liberal activist judge will be.

I don't really see it is a bad thing. On one hand, I don't want our government's hands tied if they are trying to find terrorists. On the other, I don't want the information used for anything else (We already have a system set up if there is just cause to investigate someone, which involves warrants).

It's kind of a fine line and I'm not sure what limitations are imposed on the government at this point. I wouldn't mind seeing it debated, or going to the Supreme Court.

[Kefka]

Distraction. hahahahahahahahahaha. dont make me get out my foil hat to prevent the conspiratorial bullshit that you're trying to stimulate.

Conspiracy to what? Did I mention the government?

[Rainy Day]

I'm torn, I don't paticularly like the program, but I don't think a district judge in Detroit has any sort of way to know if we need it.

WTF? Knowing if we need it has nothing to do with it. It's a matter of whether it's constitutional.

Aside from that, the more freedoms we give up, the more the terrorists win.

RD

[Kuyuk]

WHERE DOES DEV GET HER AVATARS?!

[DeV]

:offtopic: and my little secret.

[Back]

Ready for the spin? Ready yet? Ready? You sure? Ok!

Carter Appointed Judge Rules Against US Anti-Terrorist Program (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/17304.html)


By Sher Zieve - US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, appointed to her position by then President Jimmy Carter, has ruled against the practice of monitoring foreign-based suspected terrorist calls into the US. Although the NSA program monitored calls from foreign-based locations and from suspected terrorist entities, Judge Taylor called the practice unconstitutional and “domestic surveillance”.

Judge Taylor is said to have ruled that the program violated the "right of privacy". The NSA surveillance program was affected without court warrants. The case is expected to be appealed and may even reach the US Supreme Court.

A stay of Judge Taylor's decision is currently being sought.

UPDATE 15:20:32 EDT: It is being reported that Judge Taylor's decision may not be on solid legal ground. One of the requirements for the plaintiffs in the case was to "show actual harm" inflicted by the NSA program. This is said not to include any "potential" harm. No actual harm was presented to the judge by the plaintiffs in the case.

Some legal scholars are saying that Judge Taylor implemented her personal ideology, as opposed to a sound legal decision, with her ruling.

The NSA surveillance program is said to have been part and parcel to foiling the recent UK terrorist plot that would have exploded 10 commercial airliners while they were in-flight.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Fucking hilarious.

[TheEschaton]

Conservatives should start spelling it Konservatives, and nickname themselves The Krazy Konservatives!

Why is it when we say the Supreme Court voted its political leanings rather than the law of the land in 2000, Conservatives get all in a huff, but then they say this, when there is much more proof of political intention in the former case, than in this case.

Edited to add: And I just love the part where they say: "The NSA surveillance program is said to have been part and parcel to foiling the recent UK terrorist plot that would have exploded 10 commercial airliners while they were in-flight." Wave the terror card much? Let's jack up the alert to red!

-TheE-

[Sean of the Thread]

Fact is spin? Why because you don't agree with it?

[Tromp]

What is fact about it?

>> Some legal scholars are saying that Judge Taylor implemented her personal ideology, as opposed to a sound legal decision, with her ruling.

that is definately not a factual statement

>> NSA surveillance program is said to have been part and parcel to foiling the recent UK terrorist plot that would have exploded 10 commercial airliners while they were in-flight.

Nothing factual about that at all.

[Gan]

Damnit, you made me do it.

Please direct your con'spin'acies at my avatar from this point forward.


kthx.

[TheEschaton]

That's a fantastic avatar, Gan. Where'd you get it?

-TheE-

[DeV]

The updated part seems to be no more than opinion at this point.

[Sean of the Thread]

FACT:One of the requirements for the plaintiffs in the case was to "show actual harm" inflicted by the NSA program. This is said not to include any "potential" harm. No actual harm was presented to the judge by the plaintiffs in the case.

[Gan]

Google/image/tin foil hat

page 1

[Sean of the Thread]

And one of the better ones available I might add. (tin foil hat .jpeg hog = Ganalon)

[Tromp]

Wait I found a fact!

>> US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, appointed to her position by then President Jimmy Carter, has ruled against the practice of monitoring foreign-based suspected terrorist calls into the US.

[Some Rogue]

I kinda liked mine.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a64/lrenzo2/ordinary1.jpg

[Stanley Burrell]

I kinda liked mine.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a64/lrenzo2/ordinary1.jpg

How'm I doing here?

[Gan]

>> NSA surveillance program is said to have been part and parcel to foiling the recent UK terrorist plot that would have exploded 10 commercial airliners while they were in-flight.

Nothing factual about that at all.

Not that the investigation is conclusive (or complete)... but here's something as quoted by CNN.



Law enforcement officials told CNN Friday that suspects in the alleged plot recently made phone calls to several cities in the United States, including Washington and New York. But the officials had no evidence there was a plot afoot to initiate activity in the United States.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/08/13/terror.plot0600/index.html

[TheEschaton]

FACT:One of the requirements for the plaintiffs in the case was to "show actual harm" inflicted by the NSA program. This is said not to include any "potential" harm. No actual harm was presented to the judge by the plaintiffs in the case.

This is the writer's opinion, that "No actualy harm was presented to the judge by the plaintiffs in the case". Whether or not "actual harm" was presented is subject to the opinion of the person(s) hearing the case. And the phrase "this is said" is also misleading. Who's it said by? Even if it's "said", is that the law? Is it possible to overturn such a "saying"?

-TheE-

[Sean of the Thread]

This is the writer's opinion, that "No actualy harm was presented to the judge by the plaintiffs in the case". Whether or not "actual harm" was presented is subject to the opinion of the person(s) hearing the case. And the phrase "this is said" is also misleading. Who's it said by? Even if it's "said", is that the law? Is it possible to overturn such a "saying"?

-TheE-


Now this post is an example of SPIN.

[ElanthianSiren]

Heh, I find this kind of funny. As I tried to highlight, it's one ruling by one judge. I'm sure other justices will read her findings, but as long as there is an appeal possible, I see this administration using it. Historically, I think we need to look at how long high-profile court cases draaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaag on before claiming a victory either way.

Is this a "win" for people who think that the NSA program infringes too much on American privacy? Yes, but it is a small one. It's not the same as the highest court in the land saying "Suspend your programs now; they're unconstitutional." If that ever happens, champagne, in exchange for the drunken entertainment some will provide, is on me.

-M

[Apathy]

The concern should not be about whether the program will be allowed, because no one should be shocked when this ruling is overturned, the concern is what legal groundwork will this make.

I don't like the program, even though I really don't feel affected in any way (except I have cut down on my Iran phone-sex calls) but the slippery slope is very obvious....

It can make absurd ideas seem 'less unconstitutional.'

[Hulkein]

Like clockwork, when I see distraction news like the Ramsey case, I know something big is coming.

You're crazy.

[Hulkein]

I wonder who the first person to attack her for being a liberal activist judge will be.

Don't need any assuming to say she's liberal.


Although Taylor is a liberal with Democratic roots

That's from the article Tromp posted.

[Gan]

OFF TOPIC ALERT!!!

I'm in love (lust) with Hulkein's avatar girl.

That is all.

[Hulkein]

I love her too.

[TheEschaton]

now if she was only as naked as your last avatar, Hulkein, the world would be a fine place to live.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Is this a "win" for people who think that the NSA program infringes too much on American privacy? Yes, but it is a small one. It's not the same as the highest court in the land saying "Suspend your programs now; they're unconstitutional." If that ever happens, champagne, in exchange for the drunken entertainment some will provide, is on me.

-M

Yes, and when the next terrorist plan succeeds because we weren't being diligent enough, the blood can be on you as well.

[TheEschaton]

You're so fucking dramatic, PB. STFU.

-TheE-

O NOESS!!!!11 The terrorists is gonna killz you!!!!1 Run for da hills!

[Parkbandit]

You're so fucking dramatic, PB. STFU.

-TheE-

O NOESS!!!!11 The terrorists is gonna killz you!!!!1 Run for da hills!

There's no drama intended at all. If this country was in the hands of people with your unrealistic viewpoint, we would be living pre- 9/11 still and wondering why we kept getting attacked. "BUT WE R NICE! CAN'T WE JUST GET ALONG?!" We probably would have given away California, Oregon and Washington as part of the appeasement to the new country of Iranistan in hopes they would stop attacking us.

[TheEschaton]

If we lived in a country with my unrealistic viewpoint, we wouldn't be trying to fuck the world over on a daily basis, and causing resentment around the world, thereby necessitating the need to have constitutionally-violating security laws. ;)

-TheE-

[Landrion]

If we lived in a country with my unrealistic viewpoint, we wouldn't be trying to fuck the world over on a daily basis, and causing resentment around the world, thereby necessitating the need to have constitutionally-violating security laws. ;)

-TheE-

That reminds me of all things of a quote from the novel Shatterpoint. "Ive heard it said that the best defense is in creating a society that no one wants to attack."

I gave that line a lot of thought, because something about it struck me. How would you go about such a society? If the dissuading factor of attacking a society is not retaliation or punishment then I wonder what that society must be like. It could not have anything of value, because someone might wish to attack them to take it. It could never stand for anything, because someone might wish to attack in opposition to that stand. I hope I never live in such a society. There are those who would prey even on the dirt-poor homeless. Theres a reason people have signs that say "Free Tibet".

[TheEschaton]

Live in a society with no justifiable reason to attack, Landrion. If they do attack, then it's their fault, and you can open a can of whoop-ass on them.

And it's the ultimate American irony: the sacrifices we would have to make to stop screwing over the rest of the world, would prevent us from living our "American" dream....we could still live in comfort - but not as we currently live.

-TheE-

[Gan]

You're forgetting about the importance of strategic alliances with other members of this global community in your perfect world. With alliances comes adoption of their issues, problems, etc.

Additionally, your isolationist utopia would not give you the benefit of being technologically or industrially capable of opening up the can of whoop ass if someone else attacked you.

Just pointing out a flew glaring inconsistencies in your concept, Gene... (Roddenberry).

:whistle:

[TheEschaton]

Not talking about isolationism, I'm talking about not fucking other countries over. ;)

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Not talking about isolationism, I'm talking about not fucking other countries over. ;)

-TheE-

For every country we're 'fucking over' that you can come up with, I garner I could come up with 5 other countries we're actually helping. And if you come to me with countries like Iran and their peaceful nuclear aspirations.. you may cause me to get a demerit here... so don't do it.

[Parkbandit]

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060807/NEWS05/608070381/1001/NEWS

The skinny on Diggs. I say she's more qualified than.... hmmm anyone here.

Perhaps.. perhaps not. She is just a person.. one person. I am not comfortable with one individual passing her opinion on as law on any matter. Thankfully, she is the beginning point in this process and not the end.

I hope and believe that the Supreme Court will reverse this decision.

[TheEschaton]

The Supreme Court would be cracked to reverse this decision. Especially since Scalia and Thomas seem so set on the gov't not invading a person's privacy rights.

-TheE-

[Back]

Perhaps.. perhaps not. She is just a person.. one person. I am not comfortable with one individual passing her opinion on as law on any matter. Thankfully, she is the beginning point in this process and not the end.

I hope and believe that the Supreme Court will reverse this decision.

Why do you hate freedom, privacy, checks and balances and the Constitution?

[Landrion]

Live in a society with no justifiable reason to attack, Landrion. If they do attack, then it's their fault, and you can open a can of whoop-ass on them.

And it's the ultimate American irony: the sacrifices we would have to make to stop screwing over the rest of the world, would prevent us from living our "American" dream....we could still live in comfort - but not as we currently live.

-TheE-

Interesting. Justifiable you say. But what is justifiable to one group is not so to others. And even if we started living your idea now, we have 200 years of history for people to take shit out on us for - and we're a young country. Then when we do take out the can of whoop-ass we're an aggressor, imperialists, bullies.

Query, just what sort of practice does a society engage in that makes say the 9/11 attacks justified?

[ElanthianSiren]

Yes, and when the next terrorist plan succeeds because we weren't being diligent enough, the blood can be on you as well.

I guess the liberals will have to start wearing meat hats then; we can have a great two way fashion contest between foil and protein. Seriously though, you do realize that the court has a period AFTER conducting surveillance to get a warrant to do so (and did before 911 too!!), right? This one's for you:

http://www.pointshop.com/id-1343/ImgUpload/P_853625_911883.jpg

-M

[Warriorbird]

Yeah. Talk about paranoid. I'm sorry you hate the American system too, Parkbandit. I'm sure a nationalist dictatorship would make you happier.

[Gan]

I guess the liberals will have to start wearing meat hats then; we can have a great two way fashion contest between foil and protein. Seriously though, you do realize that the court has a period AFTER conducting surveillance to get a warrant to do so (and did before 911 too!!), right? This one's for you:

http://www.pointshop.com/id-1343/ImgUpload/P_853625_911883.jpg

-M

So you're saying that all the liberals are meatheads???

:rofl:

[Back]

Any excuse to pull out this beauty...

The details of my life are quite inconsequential.... very well, where do I begin? My father was a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie owner from Belgium with a low grade narcolepsy and a penchant for buggery. My mother was a fifteen year old French prostitute named Chloe with webbed feet. My father would drink, he would womanize. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. My childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When I was insolent I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds- pretty standard really. At the age of twelve I received my first scribe. At the age of fourteen a Zoroastrian named Wilmut ritualistically shaved my testicles. There really is nothing like a shorn scrotum... it's breathtaking- I suggest you try it. ~ Dr. Evil

Does this mean Dr. Evil is a liberal? Whooda thunkit?

[ElanthianSiren]

That was the implication, Gan, yes. I didn't take that last post very seriously, and I apologize to any humourless liberals that I may have offended and any triggerhappy conservatives I may have disappointed. I simply feel that this preliminary ruling isn't as important as the media and some folks are saying that it is, so I can't justify getting all worked up over it. As always, your opinion, may totally differ.

-M
ps. I :heart: meat.

[Back]

That was the implication, Gan, yes. I didn't take that last post very seriously, and I apologize to any humourless liberals that I may have offended and any triggerhappy conservatives I may have disappointed. I simply feel that this preliminary ruling isn't as important as the media and some folks are saying that it is, so I can't justify getting all worked up over it. As always, your opinion, may totally differ.

-M
ps. I :heart: meat.

I am only a partial meat head. My head consists mainly of electricity, water and bone wrapped with the most handsome meat and flesh you have ever seen.

Unless you mean the other head which is pure USDA certified American 12oz. bone-in juicy ribeye.

http://www.hormel.com/kitchen/images/refimages/turkey/labels/usdarawpoultry.gif

Just got an idea for a great tattoo.

[Gan]

I am only a partial meat head. My head consists mainly of electricity, water and bone wrapped with the most handsome meat and flesh you have ever seen.

Unless you mean the other head which is pure USDA certified American 12oz. bone-in juicy ribeye.

http://www.hormel.com/kitchen/images/refimages/turkey/labels/usdarawpoultry.gif

Just got an idea for a great tattoo.

I'm going to have to put on my boots now. The bullshit is getting deep, especially coming from one so short.

[Parkbandit]

Yeah. Talk about paranoid. I'm sorry you hate the American system too, Parkbandit. I'm sure a nationalist dictatorship would make you happier.

LOL.

Sorry Comrade, the thought of any other type of government doesn't interest me. And seriously, who is the paranoid one? One screaming that this program is infringing on their rights or someone saying that this program helps stop terrorism. Sorry, that would be you.

If I was talking to someone overseas that was determined to already be working for a known terrorist.. then sure, I guess I would be opposed to this measure. Fortunately for me, I have no worries since I am a law abiding citizen.

[Parkbandit]

I'm going to have to put on my boots now. The bullshit is getting deep, especially coming from one so short.

Clearly it's the drugs and alcohol talking again.

[Parkbandit]

That was the implication, Gan, yes. I didn't take that last post very seriously, and I apologize to any humourless liberals that I may have offended and any triggerhappy conservatives I may have disappointed. I simply feel that this preliminary ruling isn't as important as the media and some folks are saying that it is, so I can't justify getting all worked up over it. As always, your opinion, may totally differ.

-M
ps. I :heart: meat.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/meathead.jpg

[sst]

LOL.

Sorry Comrade, the thought of any other type of government doesn't interest me. And seriously, who is the paranoid one? One screaming that this program is infringing on their rights or someone saying that this program helps stop terrorism. Sorry, that would be you.

If I was talking to someone overseas that was determined to already be working for a known terrorist.. then sure, I guess I would be opposed to this measure. Fortunately for me, I have no worries since I am a law abiding citizen.

I have a cell phone from a local company, as well as a sat phone that i used from time to time to call home. I have little doubt that my phone calls are intercepted more than once on the way home, and more than one person be they friend or enemy, but if they want to hear me tell my mom that i love her more power to them. How many people's phone conversations do you overhear walking down the street of any major city on a daily basis.

I'm not the one to decide if it is right or wrong, its just that it dosent bother me in the least.

[Parkbandit]

I have a cell phone from a local company, as well as a sat phone that i used from time to time to call home. I have little doubt that my phone calls are intercepted more than once on the way home, and more than one person be they friend or enemy, but if they want to hear me tell my mom that i love her more power to them. How many people's phone conversations do you overhear walking down the street of any major city on a daily basis.

I'm not the one to decide if it is right or wrong, its just that it dosent bother me in the least.

Do you really believe that we have the man power to listen to you talk to your mom over a cell phone or satellite phone? Think about it... there is NO WAY we can monitor every call made by every cell phone in one small city let alone the entire country. THAT is where people are just retarded about this process. "THEY R TAKING AWAY MY FREEDOM!!!!!"

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

LOL.

Sorry Comrade, the thought of any other type of government doesn't interest me. And seriously, who is the paranoid one? One screaming that this program is infringing on their rights or someone saying that this program helps stop terrorism. Sorry, that would be you.

If I was talking to someone overseas that was determined to already be working for a known terrorist.. then sure, I guess I would be opposed to this measure. Fortunately for me, I have no worries since I am a law abiding citizen.

So because you have nothing to hide in your home, how about you let them put cameras in? And microphones? I'm sure that'd help stop Terrorism too. Just monitor everybody on video and mic, and then there'd be nowhere for people to hide. If you're not a terrorist, there's no problem right?

Seriously, it's hilarious that you're so adamant about loving America but you're more than happy to comply with laws that already are or could rapidly escalate into unwarranted invasions of privacy, something that goes directly against our constitution, and bill of rights. And then you try to imply that anybody who wants their privacy has something to hide? It just never occurs to you that a lot of us don't want our private lives invaded for a reason as broad as "National Security" and especially when we HAVE been law abiding and done nothing to deserve it. Seriously, this wins the Dumbass Statement of the Week.


That was the implication, Gan, yes. I didn't take that last post very seriously, and I apologize to any humourless liberals that I may have offended and any triggerhappy conservatives I may have disappointed. I simply feel that this preliminary ruling isn't as important as the media and some folks are saying that it is, so I can't justify getting all worked up over it. As always, your opinion, may totally differ.

-M
ps. I meat.

Heh, I agree with you. It's one ruling and ultimately it's going to be pulled apart a lot more. Rarely are rulings like these "final". It's a step in the right direction for people who don't like what's going on, but it's hardly over.

[Stanley Burrell]

Wow.

Mel gets so many cool points for posting up Kay Slay.

DJ Clue would've made me sad, too.

[Parkbandit]

So because you have nothing to hide in your home, how about you let them put cameras in? And microphones? I'm sure that'd help stop Terrorism too. Just monitor everybody on video and mic, and then there'd be nowhere for people to hide. If you're not a terrorist, there's no problem right?

You equate the government wiretapping people talking to terrorists in other countries to having them put cameras and microphones in my house? I would have a response to you.. but it's clear you are too fucking retarded to understand.

Maybe you should worry more about your GS alteration nightmare and let the adults talk here.

[Gan]

On one hand you have people who say that allowing the NSA surveillance to continue could lead to severe civil rights violations against US citizens (or any person standing on US soil).

On the other hand you have people saying that by dis-allowing the NSA surveillance to be stopped, could thwart a terrorist attack on US soil.

The first hand worries about something that could happen, but has not happened yet.

The second hand worries about something that could happen, again.

I'll take hand number two please.

[ElanthianSiren]

On one hand you have people who say that allowing the NSA surveillance to continue could lead to severe civil rights violations against US citizens (or any person standing on US soil).

On the other hand you have people saying that by dis-allowing the NSA surveillance to be stopped, could thwart a terrorist attack on US soil.

The first hand worries about something that could happen, but has not happened yet.

The second hand worries about something that could happen, again.

I'll take hand number two please.

You can't say it hasn't happened yet actually. The Bush administration themselves refused to contest or even provide evidence on the information/cases because it would "compromise" the war on terror. You can't say with certainty that no one's rights have been violated until you know completely everything that they've done (which we may never know, as every administration carries administration secrets -- I'm playing devil's advocate with your example).

Given the choice between oversight and the lackthereof, I'll take oversight please.

-M

[Parkbandit]

You can't say it hasn't happened yet actually. The Bush administration themselves refused to contest or even provide evidence on the information/cases because it would "compromise" the war on terror. You can't say with certainty that no one's rights have been violated until you know completely everything that they've done (which we may never know, as every administration carries administration secrets -- I'm playing devil's advocate with your example).

Given the choice between oversight and the lackthereof, I'll take oversight please.

-M


You are right.. I can't say with certainty that someone's right's have not been violated. I CAN say with certainty that on 9-11-01, 2,752 innocent people died because our government didn't take the necessary steps to know about this plot before hand.

If you have to worry about who you are talking to overseas because they might just be on the governments terrorist watch list.. then I can completely understand your issue with this program. Like I posted before, the US government couldn't give a rats ass if you call Aunt Bessy on her birthday to say hi.. there is no way in hell we have anywhere near the manpower to monitor all the conversations in the country.

That's the problem with most liberal talking points.. they aren't based upon logic or fact, just hysteria.

[Gan]

Lets look at this again...

Terrorists plan on using chemical explosives to blow up 3 planes flying overseas from UK to US.

US gets tip, hits the phones to scan for overseas activity, and in scanning 100 overseas phonecalls (without the callers every knowing they were scanned) from alleged terrorist location to or from the US, they pick up evidence that helps foil the plot, thus saving 3 planes with 300+ people on board each plane.

How do you feel about the stealth scanning if you were a passenger on one of those target planes? Damn happy I bet.

How do you feel if you were one of the people who had their call scanned, without ever knowing you were scanned? If the conversation does not talk about bombs, planes, killing people, or exploding chemicals, it really does not matter, because its not recorded or notated for context. If the conversation does contain that type of topic or conversation, its understandible that you'd be pissed.

How do you feel as joe citizen who does not make overseas phone calls to target terrorist locations? It really should not matter, because it does not affect you.

How do you feel as joe citizen who's making overseas calls to target terrorist locations? Newsflash darwin candidate: you have no business making calls to those locations, discussing those kinds of topics, just because of the nature of the business transacted from those locations. If your business is legit, then you have nothing to worry about... if not then you'll get the picture soon enough.

The needs of the many clearly outweigh the needs of the few.

[Warriorbird]

I can say that Iraq and 9-11 had nothing to do with each other...and you'll keep talking, Parkbandit. Cuts both ways.

[Celexei]

PB you have my favorite avatar that I've ever seen...that is all...oh Fuck Bush..THAT IS ALL!

[Rainy Day]

The concern should not be about whether the program will be allowed, because no one should be shocked when this ruling is overturned, the concern is what legal groundwork will this make.

I don't like the program, even though I really don't feel affected in any way (except I have cut down on my Iran phone-sex calls) but the slippery slope is very obvious....

It can make absurd ideas seem 'less unconstitutional.'

100% agree. (Except for the Iran phone sex calls part. I use a number in Lebanon.)

RD

[Rainy Day]

You are right.. I can't say with certainty that someone's right's have not been violated. I CAN say with certainty that on 9-11-01, 2,752 innocent people died because our government didn't take the necessary steps to know about this plot before hand.

You're conveniently leaving out a significant fact. The NSA already had the ability to do the surveilance. There was already a secret court in place to acquire warrants for this very thing. The nice thing about warrants is that you need to show some sort of probable cause or proof that your surveilance is needed to protect the US.

What's at issue that the law in question allows the government to bypass the warrant process in order to spy on US citizens. The Bill of Rights was designed to prevent that type of thing. And with very good reason.

I always find it disturbing when people who love this country are willing to give up some of their rights when these very rights they are willing to give up are integral to why this country is one worth loving.

The proper solution is that if the warrant process is taking too long, then fix that.

RD

[Parkbandit]

I can say that Iraq and 9-11 had nothing to do with each other...and you'll keep talking, Parkbandit. Cuts both ways.

I swear there must be a website out there that gives you your talking points WB.

He scans them for key words, copy/paste and voila! He's made a good post! Except, what normally happens, he quickly scans the response points and finds a key word.. 9-11! PB SAID 9-11!!! QUICK! I NEED A COMEBACK!!!

scan

scan

scan

HERE! I FOUND ONE THAT SAYS 9-11 ON IT!!! COPY/PASTE!! w00t! My work is done!!!!

We're not talking about Iraq.. yes WB we know the war in Iraq is unjust. It's killing innocent civilians and yes, my god yes, we know that there were no WMD found! WE GET IT! YOU HAVE WON!!!!

Now, if you could actually be so bold as to keep on topic here, that would be utterly fucking fantastic.

[Parkbandit]

PB you have my favorite avatar that I've ever seen...that is all...oh Fuck Bush..THAT IS ALL!

I found the picture and had Ninique edit out the hand and put the bird in. She did an amazing job imo.

[Celexei]

I found the picture and had Ninique edit out the hand and put the bird in. She did an amazing job imo.

Most definatly have to agree!

[Parkbandit]

You're conveniently leaving out a significant fact. The NSA already had the ability to do the surveilance. There was already a secret court in place to acquire warrants for this very thing. The nice thing about warrants is that you need to show some sort of probable cause or proof that your surveilance is needed to protect the US.

What's at issue that the law in question allows the government to bypass the warrant process in order to spy on US citizens. The Bill of Rights was designed to prevent that type of thing. And with very good reason.

I always find it disturbing when people who love this country are willing to give up some of their rights when these very rights they are willing to give up are integral to why this country is one worth loving.

The proper solution is that if the warrant process is taking too long, then fix that.

RD

You are right.. they were already doing this program well before 9-11-01... but clearly they seem to be MUCH more vigilant about it now (I hope anyway)

I guess the real issue is, Do you trust your Government? The government is telling me that they are monitoring calls made to specific individuals overseas and that if a call is made to these individuals from the US, then they will be monitored for terrorist activity. Is there an opportunity for abuse by individuals? Yea, but like all programs, there needs to be people who can be trusted in positions that can safeguard those abuses.

I think good of the program seriously outweighs the occasional abuse that could happen.

[Parkbandit]

The needs of the many clearly outweigh the needs of the few.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/spock.jpg

[Gan]

I guess what really pisses me off is that most of those people screaming the loudest about the NSA wiretapping would never be in a situation where they would feel the effects of it, ever. They are the proverbial granny blue-hair in an airport full of middle aged middle-eastern muslim dressed men.

And yet they feel like its their rights that are being trampled upon!!!!! Do us all a favor and unstick your ACLU membership card from your forehead, we dont need it to recognize who you are because of the pitch and tone of your bandstanding.

The fact of the matter is that this issue has been politicized so much that its being spoon fed to the radical left who are just looking for an excuse to feed on anything that happens to be against the current administration.

[Celephais]

I found the picture and had Ninique edit out the hand and put the bird in. She did an amazing job imo.

Sorry if it's off topic, but it just reminded me of this... hehe...

http://tinyurl.com/q85eu

[Celexei]

thats feckin funny

[Back]

The issue is doing it without subpoena, thats all. Subpoenas are not hard to get but this administration decided they did not need to. Like Rainy said, they could easily have gone to congress to get some leeway.

Don’t fall into the trap of thinking the ACLU is the bad guy. Thats some seriously twisted shit.

[Rainy Day]

The fact of the matter is that this issue has been politicized so much that its being spoon fed to the radical left who are just looking for an excuse to feed on anything that happens to be against the current administration.

I suppose that's one explanation. Or maybe it's that some of us think that this country is great and one of the main reasons it's great is because of the Constitution. Anything that erodes the Constitution is a very bad thing. Because as someone else mentioned, once you start, where do you stop? Who is in the White House is completely irrelevant to this philosophy.

RD

[Kefka]

If the program's legit, they can use legit means of getting the information they're looking for. They want to bypass getting warrants and they expect us to trust them?

[ElanthianSiren]

Maybe it's that some of us think that this country is great and one of the main reasons it's great is because of the Constitution. Anything that erodes the Constitution is a very bad thing. Because as someone else mentioned, once you start, where do you stop? Who is in the White House is completely irrelevant to this philosophy.

RD

I thought this was a very important sentiment (the idea of precident). For certain people, many things that this administration has done are in line with their personal ideology, and I accept that. The methods however, (underwriting more bills than any time iin US history for example), have set a precident that has tilted administrative process. I wonder how many people who think that this ideology is so wonderful will be whining when/if the dems ever get back into power, and they pull the same tricks taught to us by Bush. Don't like a bill? -Underwrite it.

This is part of the reason (checks and balances) that the Republicans in congress TALK about killing the nuclear option (fillibuster) but never will. Responsible people realize that power shifts and that power needs checks to prohibit abuse. I think RD is spot on to remember that the principles and workings of our country, including what we will allow as citizens, go beyond its leadership at any given time.

-M

[Sean of the Thread]

I seriously wonder if most of you are retarded.

[CrystalTears]

You can't have complete freedom or security without sacrificing some of one for the other.

[DeV]

^ We already do that, but agreed.

Also, well said, ES.

[Parkbandit]

If the program's legit, they can use legit means of getting the information they're looking for. They want to bypass getting warrants and they expect us to trust them?


Because 1 judge decided it wasn't legal does not automatically make this program illegal. She's one individual, low on the judicial branch.

Before we start saying this is the end of democracy in America.. let's wait to see what the Supreme Court says.

[Latrinsorm]

Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.First we let them vote, then they think they can question the President. :no:
Live in a society with no justifiable reason to attack, Landrion.Justifiable to whom? There are a large number of people on these forums alone who consistently behave irrationally. How can you justify something to an irrational person?
something that goes directly against our constitutionThe Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches (and seizures). The Constitution is not governed by the whims of an individual citizen; by which I mean what you or I (for instance) consider unreasonable is not necessarily the same as what is Constitutionally unreasonable.

[Warriorbird]

Right...and just because you and a bunch of conservatives want everything that Bush does to be golden...doesn't make it so.

[Gan]

Right...and just because you and a bunch of liberals want everything that Bush does to be shitstained...doesn't make it so.

Fixed that for you...

[Parkbandit]

I'd post that "I'm a hypocrite button" for WB.. but I would have to post it up after every political post he made.

I think it would lose it's message.

[DeV]

I think it would lose it's message.You lose for keeping me waiting on my alt's guild promotion, damn you. That is all.

p.s. I <3 politics.

[Parkbandit]

You lose for keeping me waiting on my alt's guild promotion, damn you. That is all.

p.s. I <3 politics.


Jesus Christ.. another alt? Maybe you should concentrate on only 5 toons at a time :P

(What's this alt's name, did I invite her to the guild already?)

[DeV]

Jesus Christ.. another alt? Maybe you should concentrate on only 5 toons at a time :P

(What's this alt's name, did I invite her to the guild already?)God, you are getting old, all the more reason to be gentle with you. I sent you a PM. :medieval:

[Warriorbird]

"I'd post that "I'm a hypocrite button" for WB.. but I would have to post it up after every political post he made.

I think it would lose it's message."

I'd post the compassionate conservative pink Vader in response...but I don't feel like wasting the time. I'm only as much a hypocrite as you are. The areligious socially liberal Republican meets the conservative Democrat. We're America...as much as you may hate it and try to claim I'm "extreme."

[sst]

One Thing to note about all this. A cheap cell phone here (iraq) costs about $40, you can also buy phones from anyone on the street just about. Sim Card another 10$. So for basically $50 you can have a band new phone and make 3 days of calls off it before you go and buy a new sim card with a different phone number and start all over. For all intensive purposes you can have a new phone number every day. So to get a court order to do this stuff is not really going to work, since their phone number has already changed by the time all the paperwork is done.

[TheEschaton]

ummmm, but we shouldn't have legislative control over how Iraq works or whether we can tap their phone lines. ;)


-TheE-

[Gan]

One Thing to note about all this. A cheap cell phone here (iraq) costs about $40, you can also buy phones from anyone on the street just about. Sim Card another 10$. So for basically $50 you can have a band new phone and make 3 days of calls off it before you go and buy a new sim card with a different phone number and start all over. For all intensive purposes you can have a new phone number every day. So to get a court order to do this stuff is not really going to work, since their phone number has already changed by the time all the paperwork is done.

You bring up a very important point in this argument.

Who would have thought that technology would outpace red tape and political pork??? /sarcasm.

Like I pointed out in another thread, are we so fixed on civil rights that we're stuck with criminal rights???

[ElanthianSiren]

What point is that?

Like RD said -- if the warrant system is broken, fix the warrent system. Do not, as a leader of the freeworld, authorize the circumvention of that warrent system "cuz I said so". It's just bad practice and bad precident.

-M
ps. WB, those comics are funny. What's the direct link to that particular one -- ucomics gives me a splash page for a ton of them, and the images link gives me a forbidden page.

[Parkbandit]

"I'd post that "I'm a hypocrite button" for WB.. but I would have to post it up after every political post he made.

I think it would lose it's message."

I'd post the compassionate conservative pink Vader in response...but I don't feel like wasting the time. I'm only as much a hypocrite as you are. The areligious socially liberal Republican meets the conservative Democrat. We're America...as much as you may hate it and try to claim I'm "extreme."

I never claimed you were extreme.. I claimed you are a hypocrite.

Don't make me post examples.. it would make you look like a bigger dumbass.

My advice? Let it go.

[Parkbandit]

God, you are getting old, all the more reason to be gentle with you. I sent you a PM. :medieval:


I don't mind it gentle.. or rough.

:)

[Soulpieced]

For those of you who may not have heard, a pretty serious conflict of interest was found regarding the judge being on a board that has funded approximately $45k worth of funds to a Michigan chapter of the ACLU. Good old ethics.

[Landrion]

For those of you who may not have heard, a pretty serious conflict of interest was found regarding the judge being on a board that has funded approximately $45k worth of funds to a Michigan chapter of the ACLU. Good old ethics.

Conservative Slander! Conspiracy! Haliburton did it!

j/k

[ElanthianSiren]

Hopefully, the ruling will be upheld, but certainly I feel it's sound enough for another judge to retry the case (nice waste of time/money too); if the foundation for such a program is as sound as the administration claims though, I can't see why they'd worry about its judicial review in the Supreme Court.

Anyway, I'd be very curious to see the transcripts, where they argue specifically why they haven't overstepped their bounds before the highest court, as they have failed again and again to provide evidence in their defense.

-M

[Warriorbird]

"My advice? Let it go."

My advice? Threats are cheap. Least it isn't random insults for once. Show off my "hypocrisy" all you want. Even if I am a hypocrite (the threatening tone amuses me) it doesn't somehow make any of your stances right. It just makes you obsessed. Much like certain portions of the Republican Party. Hopefully they won't forget their winning strategy of "ideals over people" however. I'm sure the smear department went into high gear as soon as the decision went down.

[Gan]

Yes, I'm sure the GOP secretly donated 45k to the ACLU posed as that judge just so their great smear engine would have something to do. /conspiratorily and sarcasticly


rofflehahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Back]

Some republicans need to realize that a difference of opinion and/or criticism are/is not the same as a terrorist attack.

[Ravenstorm]

Oh my God. She gave money to the ACLU. Get her off the bench!

And while we're cleaning the benches, Justice Roberts belonged to the Federalist Society. Disbar him!

[Hulkein]

Oh my God. She gave money to the ACLU. Get her off the bench!

And while we're cleaning the benches, Justice Roberts belonged to the Federalist Society. Disbar him!

You don't see any possible problems with the fact that the ACLU is the one bringing this case to her? No loyalty issues that may cause bias?

If a case brought by the Fedarlist Society ends up in the hands of Roberts, your analogy/joke will be accurate.

[Back]

From http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060807/NEWS05/608070381/1001/NEWS


"She'll rule based on what the law requires, not on what people perceive her biases to be," Southfield lawyer Harold Pope III said last week. Pope is a former president of the National Bar Association, a prominent black lawyers' group.

Pope said Taylor, a former City of Detroit staff attorney who defended Mayor Coleman Young's efforts to integrate city government in the mid-1970s, ruled against Pope and Detroit in 1993, declaring unconstitutional a program that reserved municipal contracts for minority vendors.

The woman is a liberal African-American woman, true, but at work she is a judge.

You really can’t bring up the money thing without shooting yourself in the foot with Delay, Ney, Cunningham and everyone Abramoff ever talked to, AND, again the premise that scince everyone does it its ok but not in this case is seriously flawed.

Especially since she was on a board that I assume consisted of more people than herself who GAVE money to ACLU rather than received money.

Seriously, who the fuck are you trying to kid here?

[Warriorbird]

Many judges belong to intensely conservative wacked out far right churches. I don't give a damn. Scalia is a member of the Catholic League. I don't give a damn. I think he's perfectly qualified to hear abortion cases...as little as I might like it.

[sst]

ummmm, but we shouldn't have legislative control over how Iraq works or whether we can tap their phone lines. ;)


-TheE-

Correct, and we don't. What we are doing however is intercepting the phone calls from countries like Iraq, where it is very easy to get around the red tape that America. If we want to hear what Ali Baba is saying to all his minions about blowing up a plane, what easier way than to intercept his call coming into the country.

[sst]

Many judges belong to intensely conservative wacked out far right churches. I don't give a damn. Scalia is a member of the Catholic League. I don't give a damn. I think he's perfectly qualified to hear abortion cases...as little as I might like it.


If it was an abortion case brought up by his church, we both know you would have a problem with it warriorbird

[ElanthianSiren]

If it was an abortion case brought up by his church, we both know you would have a problem with it warriorbird


You mean like the case that Alito sat on the panel for, which included a serious decision for Vanguard, while personally holding securities in the company? -Happens all the time.

I feel that belonging to an organization that donates money to a group is less questionable than sitting on a panel while holding securities (one of the reasons I said I felt the decision would probably stand). For a justice to overturn it, they would be shooting themselves in the foot with regard to their own personal freedoms. Perhaps the case will illustrate to certain people in this administration, however, why you need levels of review (ie they're lucky one judge isn't the supreme court).

-M

[sst]

You mean like the case that Alito sat on the panel for, which included a serious decision for Vanguard, while personally holding securities in the company? -Happens all the time.

I feel that belonging to an organization that donates money to a group is less questionable than sitting on a panel while holding securities (one of the reasons I said I felt the decision would probably stand). For a justice to overturn it, they would be shooting themselves in the foot with regard to their own personal freedoms. Perhaps the case will illustrate to certain people in this administration, however, why you need levels of review (ie they're lucky one judge isn't the supreme court).

-M

Then he should have recused himself from the case due to a conflict of interest. Sadly people never always do the right thing, and that doesn't matter which side of the political spectrum they are on.

[Gan]

Odd thing is that I can not find any substantiation about Judge Taylor's ACLU activities, so either the earlier post regarding her donations are speculation or its just not newsworthy enough to be put on the internet.

With that said, it will be interesting to see if her ruling survives the 6th District Circut Appeals Court (or wherever this ruling is being appealed to). For now, a battle against the Bush's administration legal strategy on terrorism has been won... but not the war.

[Warriorbird]

His church is the Catholic Church. Why should I care? It's a massive organization. I was more referring to the countless horde of wonky conservative appeals court judges to be honest. I think it's just fine if some justice who's a member of Fred Phelps's church hears a case on abortion, for example, despite thinking they're pretty likely to be prejudiced in a particular direction. There's a difference between donating and collecting a salary.

[Gan]

His church is the Catholic Church. Why should I care? It's a massive organization. I was more referring to the countless horde of wonky conservative appeals court judges to be honest. I think it's just fine if some justice who's a member of Fred Phelps's church hears a case on abortion, for example, despite thinking they're pretty likely to be prejudiced in a particular direction. There's a difference between donating and collecting a salary.

You would not be ok if it was the church who sponsored the lawsuit, and provided representation as the plaintiff. Only then to find out that said judge, hearing said case, was in fact a huge contributor and member of the plaintiff's organization.

Get your comparative facts straight.

[Parkbandit]

If it was an abortion case brought up by his church, we both know you would have a problem with it warriorbird


WHAT!!!! THAT WOULD MAKE WB A HYPOCRITE! HOW FUCKING DARE YOU!!!!

[Parkbandit]

Someone provide the link for the ACLU connection.. because I never heard that before and I can't find anything on it now. Could just be another case of political spin and Republican bullshit.

[Warriorbird]

"You would not be ok if it was the church who sponsored the lawsuit, and provided representation as the plaintiff. Only then to find out that said judge, hearing said case, was in fact a huge contributor and member of the plaintiff's organization.

Get your comparative facts straight."

Comparative facts straight. I'd say the ACLU is far above the average church. I'd be just fine if the Catholic League or some other large conservative organization paid for an anti abortion lawsuit and Scalia heard it. Would you? Were you fine with judges being Republicans and hearing evidence from Ken Starr? Probably. Are you excited about all the people who don't have open minds hearing Roe V. Wade appeals? A lot of conservatives are. Doesn't make it somehow wrong.

Now...if she took money FROM the ACLU...that'd be another matter to me.

I don't tend to answer people who wail in all caps.

[Gan]

So its ok if she does it because you say the Republicans do it???

WTF?

[Warriorbird]

No. It's okay if they do similar too. I don't find it a problem unless someone was in the pay of an organization like that. They disbarred a very liberal North Carolina judge because he was in the pay of some gambling representatives. I've seen one of the Durham County District Attorneys gamble very heavily. I pretty much agree that he should be able to keep his job and prosecute gambling cases.

[Parkbandit]

I don't tend to answer people who wail in all caps.

EXCELLENT! I'LL BE USING CAPS FROM NOW ON TO RESPOND TO YOUR BULLSHIT!

[Parkbandit]

Comparative facts straight. I'd say the ACLU is far above the average church. I'd be just fine if the Catholic League or some other large conservative organization paid for an anti abortion lawsuit and Scalia heard it. Would you? Were you fine with judges being Republicans and hearing evidence from Ken Starr? Probably. Are you excited about all the people who don't have open minds hearing Roe V. Wade appeals? A lot of conservatives are. Doesn't make it somehow wrong.

Now...if she took money FROM the ACLU...that'd be another matter to me.


First of all, I really don't get why judges even contribute to any political group. It only opens them up for the perception of misconduct.. even if they really are good. If this judge gave money to the ACLU, then clearly this would and should be perceived as inappropriate behavior from a judge. I still haven't found any credible source on this accusation though.

[CrystalTears]

Er.. so it's okay for a judge to contribute to a biased group, but if they wear a cross they should be disbarred or something for taking sides since they're supposed to be unbiased? OMG FUCKING PLEASE I DON'T GET YOU PEOPLE.

[TheEschaton]

He's saying that to contribute to a group is not as bad as being on the payroll on the group. Being on the payroll implies specific, personal stakes in a matter, while contributing to a group who eventually happens to present a case in front of you is not conspiracy, but rather, at best, a case of some interest to you on a personal, yet philosophical/abstract level, which you should be able to put behind you in favor of sound judicial review.

-TheE-

[CrystalTears]

True, not as bad as being paid off, but he still holds a personal investment in the group he contributed to. Personally I don't mind it, I just think it's hypocrital to be okay with biased groups and not okay with religion. But I went off on a tangent, sorry.

[Soulpieced]

Consider reading the Federal Acquisition Regulation (3.104) if you'd like to know more about a concept called conflict of interest. I would consider a judge or lawmaker to be in the same category as an acquisition professional.

[Soulpieced]

Here's a link to the article. I believe it was originally written by the New York Times. Also appears that Judges DO file financial disclosures, I don't remember the document number.

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=23233

[Soulpieced]

Upon second look, yes, administrative law judges do have to file said SF 278. So.... she basically broke ethics laws by presiding as a judge in a case in which she participated personally and substantially in funding the plaintiffs.

http://www.usoge.gov/pages/forms_pubs_otherdocs/fpo_files/forms/fr278_00.pdf#search=%22standard%20financial%20disc losure%20form%22

[Gan]

SP for the win.

Thanks for finding that information.

[Gan]

The other idea that seems to have surfaced is whether or not judges can participate in things such as contributing to organizations - political, personal, religious, etc...

I think they can participate in as many things as they wish. HOWEVER, they MUST adhere to the ethical and legal definition of a conflict of interest WHEN a case is presented in their court where either the plaintiff or defendant, or issue brought before the court is directly connected to said participation.

Its a real simple thing to just refer the case to another judge's docket for review.

[Soulpieced]

Ganalon, the answer to that is they can, just that they would not be able to preside as a judge in a case in which they HAVE contributed to any of those organizations. Which is exactly what the problem is here.

[ElanthianSiren]

Except that if I read that correctly, she didn't contribute; an organization that she belongs to did.


-M
edit: my point in mentioning the Alito matter wasn't to chastise Alito. It was that she will use the same defense that Alito used under the criticism of his actions with VanGuard, which worked when he did it. Precident has been set. I agree both should have recused themselves, but I doubt very highly that justices recuse as often as they should.

[Back]

What point is that?

Like RD said -- if the warrant system is broken, fix the warrent system. Do not, as a leader of the freeworld, authorize the circumvention of that warrent system "cuz I said so". It's just bad practice and bad precident.

-M
ps. WB, those comics are funny. What's the direct link to that particular one -- ucomics gives me a splash page for a ton of them, and the images link gives me a forbidden page.

Ok, I take issue with this statement but totally understand the point.

My issue is that I don’t think any American in power is the leader of the free world. You did not say “the”, you used “a”, so in that sense I might agree, IF Bush wasn’t such a dumb hick being played by the corporations.

He certainly is not “a” leader of the free world when he trashes the UN, spies on the people who elected him into office, and treats those who did not vote him into office as his enemies (terrorists).

Bush is far from a leader, far from the kind of person who inspires unity and global harmony.

Your point is not lost. How can the so-called leader of the free world tap everyone else but keep his administration as secret as it is?

[Kefka]

Um... last time I checked, the ACLU fought for civil liberties whether you were liberal or conservative. She should recuse herself from a case because she donated to an organization that fights to protect our civil liberties? As a federal judge, wouldn't she have to recuse herself from every case that threatens to infringe on our liberties? To say her judgement was anything but sound is grasping at straws.

[Back]

Ganalon, the answer to that is they can, just that they would not be able to preside as a judge in a case in which they HAVE contributed to any of those organizations. Which is exactly what the problem is here.

Actually, I think you are making some assumptions here. I have a few of my own, but lets look at the facts.

I have to give you credit for pulling out that source from ChronWatch.com (http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=23233), who if you look at thier Home page (http://www.chronwatch.com/) declares...
“ChronWatch.com (http://www.chronwatch.com) is a media watchdog and conservative news site, with a focus on the San Francisco Chronicle. We provide commentary on recent Chronicle articles, journalists and publications, in addition to our own guest columns and editorial.
Last I checked, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor was out of Detroit, Michigan. Whatever, its a story, everyone has some leeway...


Their source for that article happens to be JudicialWatch.org (http://www.judicialwatch.org/judge_conflict_of_interest.shtml[/url), which ChronWatch.com (http://www.chronwatch.com/) cites, but I have yet been able to click through to the JudicialWatch.org (http://www.judicialwatch.org/index.shtml) site.

Being the savvy person that I am, I went there and found the accusation (http://www.judicialwatch.org/judge_conflict_of_interest.shtml). Its true JudicialWatch.org (http://www.judicialwatch.org/index.shtml) broke this story as far as I can tell and the conservatives are running crazy with it. Big surprise. Click on About Us (http://www.judicialwatch.org/about.shtml) and you start to see a pattern...


Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. Through its educational endeavors, Judicial Watch advocates high standards of ethics and morality in our nation’s public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people. Judicial Watch fulfills its educational mission through litigation, investigations and public outreach.


JudicialWatch.org (http://www.judicialwatch.org/index.shtml) have been using words like “may have” and “potential”. Yep, they’ve managed to cast a shadow of a doubt on a judge who up until now has never been questioned before.


Lets dig a little deeper. I went to the trouble of finding out who was behind JudicialWatch.org (http://www.judicialwatch.org/index.shtml). I mean, they went through all the trouble to dig this up on Diggs... why not find out who pays them? Right?

Guess what? Its no surprise...

JudicialWatch.org (http://www.judicialwatch.org/index.shtml) gets money from The Carthage Foundation (http://www.scaife.com/carthage.html) and the Sarah Scaife Foundation (http://www.scaife.com/sarah.html), both funded by Scaife Foundations (http://www.scaife.com/). This is all according to SourceWatch.com (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Mellon_Scaife).

Punch “Richard Mellon Scaife” into Google and its corroborated. A man who inherited wealth who once called a Wall Street Journal journalist a “communist cunt”.

------------------------------------------------

Facts aside, my opinions.

People need to think for themselves.




Peace.

[TheEschaton]

Richard Mellon Scaife makes me regret being a citizen of this country.


Luckily, there's many fine Americans who more than make up for him, and make me glad to be an American. ;)

-TheE-

[Gan]

:rofl: at mr. moveon.org (http://forum.gsplayers.com/member.php?u=35) trashing someone's source story.

[Parkbandit]

Ok, I take issue with this statement but totally understand the point.

My issue is that I don’t think any American in power is the leader of the free world. You did not say “the”, you used “a”, so in that sense I might agree, IF Bush wasn’t such a dumb hick being played by the corporations.

He certainly is not “a” leader of the free world when he trashes the UN, spies on the people who elected him into office, and treats those who did not vote him into office as his enemies (terrorists).

Bush is far from a leader, far from the kind of person who inspires unity and global harmony.

Your point is not lost. How can the so-called leader of the free world tap everyone else but keep his administration as secret as it is?

LOL..

You really should lay off the weed man.. it makes you paranoid and stupid.

[Parkbandit]

Um... last time I checked, the ACLU fought for civil liberties whether you were liberal or conservative. She should recuse herself from a case because she donated to an organization that fights to protect our civil liberties? As a federal judge, wouldn't she have to recuse herself from every case that threatens to infringe on our liberties? To say her judgement was anything but sound is grasping at straws.

She's ruling on a case where civil liberties were in question. By giving to an organization who 'fights' for civil liberties, I am sure you can see the issue people have with her ruling.

Like I said.. she's one individual who doesn't agree with the policy. Big deal. She's low on the judicial ladder.. let's wait until the Supreme Court decides on it.

[Parkbandit]

:rofl: at mr. moveon.org (http://forum.gsplayers.com/member.php?u=35) trashing someone's source story.


Actually.. he's right. I don't see that as a credible source whatsoever. We would chastise him for doing the same (Which we have hundreds of times) and should give the same measure of doubt to this source.

[Gan]

Actually.. he's right. I don't see that as a credible source whatsoever. We would chastise him for doing the same (Which we have hundreds of times) and should give the same measure of doubt to this source.

I'm not arguing the credibility of the source or whether or not Backlash is correct in his assertions.

I'm pointing out that Backlash has spent a lifetime on this board defending the notion that biased sources are sufficient for agrument.

The very fact that he's partaking in what he's spent oh so many posts defending against other's accusations shows that he's not above using the same tactics if the need or situation suits him. HYPOCRACY ALERT!!!


Ok, before anyone jumps on this source as a left wing “smear” site, consider the facts they present.

My opinion has nothing to do with the fact that you cant seem to admit that you are just going to dismiss anything you disagree with on a bullshit basis of nuetering the source with comments of bias and nuetrality.

Great link. Yes, its on a Democratic site, but every statement has a source. (the date at the end of each statement) Thats how Democrats play it for the most part, with facts, not scrounging for things to distort like Republicans do.

I see a lot of shit about posting sources. I see a lot of hypocrisy in saying one source is a “liberal rag” then turing around and saying “thats a tin-foil hat wearing source.”

Try not to let the source bother you and read it objectively.
And one last long one (for context) just so the point is driven home.


Well, having observed the party line tactics for a while now I offer my observations.
1. If you accuse a republican of something they will claim its partisan politics.
A seemingly airtight defense except when you consider that a republican’s entire motivation to attack is that everyone else is not republican. Who is playing partisan?
2. Everyone does it.
The lowest common denominator argument. Right, just because you have stooped back to Cro-Magnon man tactics doesn't mean everyone else has. Its very telling of your strategy though.
3. They will accuse you of whatever you accuse them of.
Clever, enough to make you think a second, but still diversionary and untrue.
4. Every source is biased.
Except yours? Nice try.
5. We have God on our side.
Need I say more?
I swear its like Rove kept his kindergarten schoolyard playbook and uses it to this day.

[ElanthianSiren]

Perhaps Backlash read the source objectively and found it lacking for the reasons that he mentioned.

I'm trying to dig up how large the organization is (Diggs' thing, not the Judicial Watch). Seems they're fairly large. Again, Alito's diffusion defense would hold, especially if she's sitting on a board with 50 other people. Judicial Watch makes it sound like it's just her.

http://www.cfsem.org/press_room/fact_sheet.html

• The Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan was founded in 1984 as a permanent community endowment, built with gifts from hundreds of individuals and organizations committed to a strong future for southeast Michigan.

• With $491 million in assets, the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan ranks among the top 30 community foundations in the nation in terms of total assets and grantmaking.

• The Community Foundation is governed by a board of up to 50 community leaders which awards grants to support a wide variety of activities and programs benefiting education, arts and culture, health, human services, community development and civic affairs in the seven-county region of southeast Michigan.

-M

[Back]

4. Every source is biased.

Except yours? Nice try.

Just so we are clear on what I said that particular day.

Jeebus, Gan, lets not get too obsessive over this. I don’t think I’ve ever claimed NOT to be a hypocrite in some way or another. Pretty sure I’ve admitted it before, so you are really just wasting your time.

This judge made an unpopular decision and this site dug up dirt to cast a doubt in people’s minds, when there is really absolutely nothing to the story. Now the conservative blogs and sites are running with it and I would not be surprised if she were not already getting death threats from some seriously whacko right-wingers.