CLICK FOR TODAY'S CARTOONS

Saturday, August 19, 2006

Carter Appointee Gives Special Rights to Americans She Kills

If there was ever any doubt in the mind of a moderate or a conservative that the extreme left has totally taken over the mainstream press in this country, that doubt should have been completely erased by listening to a tape run by Rush Limbaugh on his radio program Friday. The tape contained several clips of left-wing TV and radio talking heads (including Bob Schieffer of CBS) making comments about the Michigan District Court judge’s incredible decision regarding the NSA program of eavesdropping on the conversations of foreign Al Qaeda with accomplices in the USA. Each of these commenters said things like, “a defeat for President Bush”, “shows President Bush committed an illegal impeachable act”, “a defeat for President Bush’s war on terror”. What nonsense.

I would point out that Presidents Carter and Clinton issued similar executive orders during their presidencies, and they were not even wartime presidents. I would point out that the latest terror plot to blowup in flight several jets bound for America was uncovered partly through the use of these NSA intercepts. I would point out that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor is giving special rights to Americans that would be dead if it were not for this program. I would point out that there has not been another 9/11 in this country in five years because of programs that she would dismantle. I would point out that even the liberal Washington Post has labeled her decision, “poorly reasoned”.

Excerpts:

Judge Rules Against Wiretaps
NSA Program Called Unconstitutional
By Dan Eggen and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 18, 2006; A01

A federal judge in Detroit ruled yesterday that the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program is unconstitutional, delivering the first decision that the Bush administration's effort to monitor communications without court oversight runs afoul of the Bill of Rights and federal law.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ordered a halt to the wiretap program, secretly authorized by President Bush in 2001, but both sides in the lawsuit agreed to delay that action until a Sept. 7 hearing. Legal scholars said Taylor's decision is likely to receive heavy scrutiny from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit when the Justice Department appeals, and some criticized her ruling as poorly reasoned.

Ruling in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups in the Eastern District of Michigan, Taylor said that the NSA wiretapping program, aimed at communications by potential terrorists, violates privacy and free speech rights and the constitutional separation of powers among the three branches of government. She also found that the wiretaps violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law instituted to provide judicial oversight of clandestine surveillance within the United States….

The NSA declined to discuss Taylor's ruling or whether it had suspended any surveillance activities. The office of John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, also declined to comment….

Several dozen lawsuits have been filed around the country challenging the program's legality, but yesterday's ruling marked the first time that a judge had declared it unconstitutional. Experts in national security law argued, however, that Taylor offered meager support for her findings on separation of powers and other key issues.
"Regardless of what your position is on the merits of the issue, there's no question that it's a poorly reasoned decision," said Bobby Chesney, a national security law specialist at Wake Forest University who takes a moderate stance on the legal debate over the NSA program. "The opinion kind of reads like an outline of possible grounds to strike down the program, without analysis to fill it in."…

ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero called the decision "another nail in the coffin" of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism strategies. "The judge very clearly points out that this, at its core, is about presidential powers," he said.
Washington Post

This case was brought by the ACLU and by CAIR, and the ACLU attorneys are reported to be Muslims, one of whom has previously admitted to contributing to the Hezbollah. Thus we can add more reasons to oppose these evil organizations, and put an end to this madness. If you want a complete background on these attorneys and the litigants, go here.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

11 Comments:

At 6:35 AM, Anonymous Joe Alves Jr. said...

What really makes me laugh is people like "Dingy Harry" Reid and his transparent hippocracy when he gets up and decries NHA wire taps, but heaven forbid if we should every get hit with another attack like 9/11, this same political pinhead is going to get up and blame the President for not connecting the dots. And I thought Tom Dashole was bad! "Yes Harry,--I guess we're all stupid, Hu?"

 
At 9:10 AM, Blogger Repack Rider said...

I am a United States Army veteran and I am disgusted by Americans who are such spineless cowards that they would sign away rights bought for them with the blood of patriots, as long as someone will reassure them that by giving up their rights they will be saved from the boogieman. Is there anything in the Constitution that says it is invalid as long as people can be sufficiently scared? Apparently a lot of Americans don't care about rights that cost good people their lives, rights that people all over the world envy us for, because they didn't have to personally earn them, patriotism be damned.

Are you going to give up your guns when the government comes for them? Why not? You didn't give much of a struggle when they canceled the First and Fourth Amendments, so what difference would giving up the Second Amendment make?

If the purpose of terrorists is to terrorize the population, why would the president accomplish their goals for them by telling them that we are so scared of them that we will give up the most precious document in our history, the Constitution? If, as some say, "they hate us for our freedom," why give it up because of them? I don't care whether terrorists like me, because they are the ENEMY, and I can't see giving up rights established two centuries ago just so they won't hate me. When did the president start working for Al Qaeda by helping them accomplish their goals of scaring Americans and destroying our freedom?

I would rather take my chances with terrorists than give up any of my rights, and any American who would give up their rights because a foreigner threatened them, with the assistance of the president, is a God-damned sniveling coward, unworthy of citizenship. If our military was composed of the kind of cowards who so willingly give up their rights because they are scared, we would never have won a battle.

America used to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave," but now it is the land where we gave up our freedom because it is the home of the cowards. Too bad that doesn't rhyme, because it should be the new national anthem

What happened to you people? Did any of you ever serve in the military? What would it take to embarrass you about your cowardice and lack of patriotism?

What happened to defending the Constitution? Why are you leaving that to the liberals to do for you?

 
At 9:34 AM, Blogger RussWilcox said...

Repack Rider, Can you name a single instance where an innocent American has lost a right such as you are citing? I'm not talking about being inconvenienced; I'm talking about something serious, like being thrown in prison for expressing an idea.

 
At 9:49 AM, Anonymous Joe Alves Jr. said...

I'm a member of the NRA and I'm not about to give up my guns for anyone, but I do want this president to have the tools to fight terrorism, and if he doesn't have the tools to protect us, then Congress ought to give it to him. I agree with Repack Rider, the Liberals are nothing but yellow lilly livered cowards who want to stick their heads in the sand like Clinton did, and say-- "we're an antagonistic country and this is all our fault", or "we have to try to understand them." This is all a bunch of B.S.

 
At 4:25 PM, Blogger Repack Rider said...

Can you name a single instance where an innocent American has lost a right such as you are citing?

Jose Padilla is an American citizen, held without trial and access to an attorney for three years.

Because the president has admitted that they did not secure the necessary warrants through the FISA court as the law requires, obviously every single citizen whose calls were heard had their rights violated. Asking for their names is pointless, since the government, while admitting to the practice, did not release their identities.

I'm a member of the NRA and I'm not about to give up my guns for anyone, but I do want this president to have the tools to fight terrorism,

Funny that you care about your Constitutional right to own a gun, but not about your Constitutional right not to have your calls listened to. I don't pick and choose the rights I want to defend, I want to defend all of them.

Why are you so scared of terrorists? You are hundreds of times more likely to die stopping a bullet fired by an American citizen than from a terrorist attack, so if you really want to be safe, let's all give up our guns.

Won't give 'em up? Good. But I guess you didn't really want to be safe, did you?

Why give up a Fourth Amendment right so many brave and patriotic people died to secure for you, just because some foreign asshole is threatening you? I'm not scared, and even if I was as scared of terrorists as you claim to be, I wouldn't admit it and beg the president to take my rights if he promises to keep me safe.

Be a man and stand up for America. The price of freedom is blood, and sometimes innocent people, like those who died on 9/11, have to pay it just as soldiers on the battlefield pay it. I'm not giving up my rights just because some guy in another country hates my freedom.

Seems like a good reason to hang on to it.

and if he doesn't have the tools to protect us, then Congress ought to give it to him.

I don't want to call anyone names, but that is a chickensh!t attitude. I'm guessing you haven't done any military service, but you should. It would help you get over that.

I would rather be free than safe, if I have to choose between the two. You would rather be safe than free.

The Constitution is the Constitution, and congress can't make laws that violate it, no matter how much the president wants powers that the Constitution doesn't give him.

My world has been turned upside down here. I can't believe that CONSERVATIVES, or people who claim to be conservative, are all for letting the president violate the Constitution as long as he PROMISES that he won't misuse that power, and the people defending it are LIBERALS.

Isn't it supposed to be the other way around?

 
At 4:42 PM, Blogger RussWilcox said...

Jose Padilla is not an innocent American, he is a thug who adopted Al Qaeda and is still going through the court system because of his plan to smuggle into this country a dirty bomb. Not a good example.

 
At 9:10 AM, Anonymous Joe Alves Jr. said...

Hey,---Let them tap my phone, I don't have anything to hide! The Liberal Left in this country is doing nothing for me except trying to take my guns, trying to take God out of this country, promoting Gay Marriage, killing unborn children, and promoting socialism. Need I go on? I need the Left in this country like I need another hole in my head. Maybe I ought to start supporting the ACLU, then. They need all the money they can get to fight for NAMBLA and protect the rights of the two child Pedophiles who raped and murdered little Jeffrey Curley in Massachutts!

 
At 10:37 AM, Blogger RussWilcox said...

This fellow, repack rider, is worried about rearranging chairs on the Titanic. If he had been on Flight 93, he would have been the only passenger on the plane not to understand that the four Islamists were hijacking it. Let's not waste any more time on him.

 
At 10:40 AM, Anonymous steve said...

I don't think this is as simple as you make it sound. I see both sides...

Although wiretaps do not threaten me personally because I have nothing to hide...that does not mean the gov't should be able to listen WITHOUT DUE CAUSE...maybe that due cause is the key tipping point...

I want the constitution protected, but I want to be personally protected also. I do rely on the government to get that done.

Bush should not make up his own laws, he should not have free hand...but then again he should not have to. The flip side - I don't want to be blown up because someone somewhere did not cross a t or get a form stamped....

Whatever happened to common sense? (and I agree the aclu does not have it)

 
At 10:40 AM, Anonymous steve said...

I don't think this is as simple as you make it sound. I see both sides...

Although wiretaps do not threaten me personally because I have nothing to hide...that does not mean the gov't should be able to listen WITHOUT DUE CAUSE...maybe that due cause is the key tipping point...

I want the constitution protected, but I want to be personally protected also. I do rely on the government to get that done.

Bush should not make up his own laws, he should not have free hand...but then again he should not have to. The flip side - I don't want to be blown up because someone somewhere did not cross a t or get a form stamped....

Whatever happened to common sense? (and I agree the aclu does not have it)

 
At 6:49 PM, Blogger Repack Rider said...

Jose Padilla is not an innocent American, he is a thug who adopted Al Qaeda and is still going through the court system because of his plan to smuggle into this country a dirty bomb.

That was the story we were told, but the man deserves a fair trial and legal counsel, which are rights every American citizen is supposed to have.

Unfortunately for the cover story, it fell apart when subjected to cross-examination. This is a lesson. As Ronald Reagan said, "Trust, but verify." The government's story on Padilla has been exposed as a tissue of lies, and I'm surprised that you hadn't heard that.

The Padilla case is a texbook example of constitutional violations, and your "guilty-before-the-trial" statement shows that you bought into it.

When the government comes into conflict with the Constitution, as it did with the NSA wiretapping, GO WITH THE CONSTITUTION.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home