Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge orders NSA spy papers released
CNN ^

Posted on 02/16/2006 11:23:39 AM PST by hipaatwo

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-226 next last
To: conservative physics

If you're arguing that Marbury Vs Madison was an overstepping of the authority of the Judiciary then I would strongly disagree with you as would Alexander Hamilton and Justice Scalia.


101 posted on 02/16/2006 12:26:34 PM PST by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: cartoonistx

Exactly.

This Judge and what standing army. The MSM? LOL

No way in hell does this happen. If the Judge thinks otherwise, let him try to marshall a standing army to take the information he wants.


102 posted on 02/16/2006 12:27:07 PM PST by Soul Seeker (Mr. President: It is now time to turn over the money changers' tables.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
so how can the idiot judge rule that they should be released?!

Because he is a Judge and he says so

I do expect this to appealed

103 posted on 02/16/2006 12:27:52 PM PST by Mo1 (Republicans protect Americans from Terrorists.. Democrats protect Terrorists from Americans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: MarneyK
The challenges have come from both the "right" and the "left." None has succeeded.

Any of those challenges come from the executive branch? The same branch that has held that in matters of foreign affairs, that though it may use the court, it reserves its authority (under which at least one previous Administration it referred to it as "unassailable"?

104 posted on 02/16/2006 12:28:02 PM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: MarneyK
My highly conservative former law professor, Richard Epstein, said on Lou Dobbs this week that the President's NSA spying initiative is illegal.

If the intended target was an American I would agree with him. Since the targets involved are most likely terrorists aka "Foreign agents" then his point is moot. You have to remember and remind people these are not "wire taps" but intercepts of calls originating from a foreign entity.


105 posted on 02/16/2006 12:28:15 PM PST by darkwing104 (Let's get dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: HOTTIEBOY
I think they should just skip all the charades and start blowing up buildings themselves instead of waiting for the terrorists to do it.

Post of the Day

The dems simply DO NOT CARE what happens to a few thousand more "little people" if it means they get back POWER.

106 posted on 02/16/2006 12:53:19 PM PST by Darkwolf377
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
I do expect this to appealed

Not yet. This is a WHEN order, not a WHAT order. At least it doesn't order any more WHAT than FOIA already provides for. Classified stuff is not released under the FOIA.

107 posted on 02/16/2006 1:01:08 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

Pres. Bush, please tell the judge to "go pound salt....."

Do as Pres. A. Jackson once said when he was ordered by a judge or judges, "I have the divisions and he/they doesn't/don't."


108 posted on 02/16/2006 1:02:12 PM PST by GOPologist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo; onyx; ohioWfan; Texasforever; BigSkyFreeper; Tamzee; mrs tiggywinkle; EllaMinnow; ...

And there is more from this group


http://www.epic.org/epic/staff_and_board.html

David L. Sobel, General Counsel
(snip)
He was formerly counsel to the non-profit National Security Archive, and his clients have included Coretta Scott King, the Nation magazine and ABC News.

Lillie Coney, Associate Director
(snip)
Prior to that, Ms. Coney served as special assistant to Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) on a variety of issues ranging from energy and information technology policy, election reform, to education policy.


109 posted on 02/16/2006 1:03:19 PM PST by Mo1 (Republicans protect Americans from Terrorists.. Democrats protect Terrorists from Americans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: redgirlinabluestate

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/kennedy-bio.html

Info on the judge.... appointed by Clinton.


110 posted on 02/16/2006 1:03:34 PM PST by redgirlinabluestate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

HUM!!! Sounds like a politically correct decision made by someone who cares more about politics than his or her own country.


111 posted on 02/16/2006 1:05:44 PM PST by OKIEDOC (There's nothing like hearing someone say thank you for your help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo
IANAL, but my quick reading of the judge's report leads me to the following conclusions:

1. The DOJ's filing may not have been written with the necessary attention and seriousness that should be required for such an important issue. Did they pawn it off on some inexperienced lawyer? Did they submit some boilerplate without giving it proper thought? It seemed to be too easy for the judge to swat away their weak and not-well-thought-out legal arguments.

2. The judge has glossed over some important distinctions and contradictions with precedents in arriving at his conclusion that twenty days is the maximum allowable time for an expedited FOIA request to be handled.

3. The judge's tortured rationale for concluding that irreparable injury will occur if the production of the requested documents is delayed does not meet the laugh test. He has turned the concept of 'irreparable injury' into something meaningless and unrecognizable.

4. The judge's decision has the smell of having had a predetermined outcome, dressed up with weak legal arguments that should be able to be easily pierced by a competent attorney. So, why didn't the DOJ have a competent attorney work on it in the first place...

112 posted on 02/16/2006 1:08:07 PM PST by Zeppo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Correct!! Please read #108 above. Thank you.


113 posted on 02/16/2006 1:09:13 PM PST by GOPologist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

Marc Rotenberg, Executive Director

(snip)
He served as Counsel to Senator Patrick J. Leahy



Ptooey!


114 posted on 02/16/2006 1:10:03 PM PST by hipaatwo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

What is their connection to the ACLU? ...bet it is there in some way!


115 posted on 02/16/2006 1:10:19 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: demlosers

LOL!


116 posted on 02/16/2006 1:12:02 PM PST by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

"a private group will suffer irreparable harm "

Al Queida no doubt!


117 posted on 02/16/2006 1:12:34 PM PST by conservativewasp (Liberals lie for sport and hate our country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

Lillie Coney, Associate Director
(snip)
Prior to that, Ms. Coney served as special assistant to Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) on a variety of issues ranging from energy and information technology policy, election reform, to education policy.



O.K. Now this filing makes perfect sense after seeing who is behind it. Scumbags.


118 posted on 02/16/2006 1:12:57 PM PST by hipaatwo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

The Liberals will have us lose this war.... Liberal lips sink ships.... that should be the new War Time Slogan.


119 posted on 02/16/2006 1:14:04 PM PST by tomnbeverly (Liberal Lips Sink Ships....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Hiya Ernie! I'm not sure of a connection but I would be surprised if their isn't one.


120 posted on 02/16/2006 1:14:09 PM PST by hipaatwo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Brightside
In December 1979, he was appointed Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, where he served until his appointment to the federal bench

Carter.

121 posted on 02/16/2006 1:17:13 PM PST by Howlin ("Quick, he's bleeding! Is there a <strike>doctor</strike> reporter in the house?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Mo1

The Legal Challenge to the Child Online Protection Act

Latest News | Procedural History| Legal Documents | Press Releases
Latest News

newSupreme Court Maintains Block on Web Censorship Law. In a decision issued today, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a lower court injunction against enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). EPIC joined a coalition of plaintiffs in a challenge to the Internet censorship law in 1998 and has served as co-counsel in the case. The Court found that the government has not shown that there are no "less restrictive alternatives" to COPA, and that "there is a potential for extraordinary harm and a serious chill upon protected speech" if the law goes into effect. (June 29, 2004)
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/copa/


122 posted on 02/16/2006 1:18:51 PM PST by hipaatwo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: w1andsodidwe
Have we released all the papers on the Kennedy assassination, which were being held out of sensitivity to the family?

Good one. They're still hiding the Castro connection and covering Johnson's butt for covering it up.

123 posted on 02/16/2006 1:20:23 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo
U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy said a private group will suffer irreparable harm if the documents it has been seeking since December are not processed promptly under the Freedom of Information Act.

What private group??? Al Qada??? This is nuts, these damn idiots are traitors and this judge should be publicly horse whipped.

124 posted on 02/16/2006 1:23:44 PM PST by pgkdan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth
Yeah forget the larger group that will suffer harm, The American People! When did judges become the arbiter's of what's secret and what's not? And I'm going nuts over CNN's Cheney coverage, those people are rabid!!
125 posted on 02/16/2006 1:24:05 PM PST by pangaea6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Brightside

SONOFABITCH!


126 posted on 02/16/2006 1:32:12 PM PST by IGOTMINE (Front Sight. Press. Follow Through. It's a way of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MarneyK
I think that's very debatable by legal scholars. The President still uses FISA, and I've read several legal decisions regarding presidential powers, related to the warrantless spying that Clinton did, that clearly infer that the office comes with inherent constitutional deference .. especially in a time of grave threat.

With the magnitude of the cunning and brutality of our enemies, states granting ID's from questionable references, disposable cell phones, plentitude of constantly changing internet options, the technology of today and to come tomorrow, and MOST RISKY ...with a Congress comprised of so many dishonorable folks who absolutely cannot be trusted ....what other prudent choice does this President or would any other president have in such a time?

That's why SCOTUS is so very critical .. the Rats will continue to attack and create constitutional crises, manufacture foment to undermine our traditions and this president, specifically, every way they can. Their MO is to stir up the controversy, get the ACLU and other lib legal, media and financial factions converging on an issue and put US and Bush through voluminous venomous court fights ..because they always have a chance that a liberal activist judge will provide them with the victories they couldn't win legislatively.

I despise these people, and pray that the WH fights this like hell and wins .. on constitutional grounds. Let's bring it on now ... the Rats are gonna provoke a constitutional showdown one way or another anyway.

127 posted on 02/16/2006 1:32:27 PM PST by STARWISE (They (Rats) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan

If you google epic aclu they are co-joined in many lawsuits.


128 posted on 02/16/2006 1:32:37 PM PST by hipaatwo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: demlosers

LOL.

My thoughts exactly.


129 posted on 02/16/2006 1:33:12 PM PST by confederacy of dunces (Workin' & lurkin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

From another article:


"In a joint action last week, the nonprofit National Security Archives and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit alleging that the Justice Department violated the Freedom of Information Act by not providing them with documents about the program requested in separate Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) filings last year. The plaintiffs subsequently requested that their suit be consolidated with two nearly identical ones filed recently by the Electronic Privacy Information Clearinghouse (EPIC). District Court Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. granted the request. "

http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=2818


130 posted on 02/16/2006 1:45:13 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: MarneyK

I am getting so sick and tired of people not being able to see the light at the end of the tunnel. WE ARE FIGHTING A WAR. WE ARE FIGHTING FOR OUR LIVES. What the hell is so hard to understand? I do not know about you but I like life and would rather not die because some Muslim blows himself up in the seat behind me on the train. Every tool needs to be used to help fight this war. It is not like the terrorists are walking around in the U.S. wearing uniforms.


131 posted on 02/16/2006 1:45:38 PM PST by abercrombie_guy_38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeUSA

The DNC, the ACLU, or Al Queda. What's the difference?


132 posted on 02/16/2006 1:46:52 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth
"I want to know what "private group will suffer irreperable harm"..if this information isn't released.

He better not be talking about the terrorists..."

Hey, he's a liberal. Makes perfect sense.

133 posted on 02/16/2006 1:52:42 PM PST by TheClintons-STILLAnti-American (Keep the adults in charge of Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Brightside
Clinton appointee.

I never would've guessed......./sarcasm

134 posted on 02/16/2006 1:53:22 PM PST by b4its2late (Terrorists will either succeed in changing our way of life, or we will change theirs. - Rummy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Soul Seeker

It would never come to that. They are hoping W does refuse, so they can move to impeach. jmo.


135 posted on 02/16/2006 1:57:39 PM PST by beansox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo
How many thousands of Americans will have to die in a terrorist dirty bomb, biological warfare type attack on this country before liberals in the MSM or the judicial branch of our government even begin to catch a clue?
This is outrageous in the extreme ...
136 posted on 02/16/2006 2:02:54 PM PST by BluH2o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt; Txsleuth

bump and thanks for the ping txsleuth


137 posted on 02/16/2006 2:07:52 PM PST by prairiebreeze (The Mainstream Media: today's carnival barkers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: wmileo

I hate this stuff! They can say "a PRIVATE GROUP" BUT we can't keep hidden our NSA surviellance - I DON'T THINK SO!!


138 posted on 02/16/2006 2:13:29 PM PST by CyberAnt (Democrat Leadership: No program - no ideas - no clue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt

Why would the freedom of information act cover anything that is still classified?


139 posted on 02/16/2006 2:18:16 PM PST by gondramB (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus
Unconstitutional Order!

will this be challenged???

140 posted on 02/16/2006 2:24:15 PM PST by pollywog (Psalm 121;1 I Lift my eyes to the hills from whence cometh my help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Brightside

"Clinton appointee. "

Well, Carter, then Clinton.

Seriously, I can't believe the government can be required to reveal anything that is classified. Hopefully it's non-classified stuff they are asking for.


141 posted on 02/16/2006 2:28:49 PM PST by gondramB (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

What an epic blunder


142 posted on 02/16/2006 2:31:55 PM PST by NonValueAdded ("If I were a Cuban, I'd certainly be on a raft," Isane Aparicio Busto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarneyK
Just because he is some law professor does not make him brilliant. I know because many of my supposed brilliant law professors turned out to be not so bright when forced outside of their little ivory tower.
143 posted on 02/16/2006 2:34:01 PM PST by excludethis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

Just say "no, take us to the SCOTUS court!"


144 posted on 02/16/2006 2:34:37 PM PST by Wasanother (Terrorist come in many forms but all are RATS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
Why would the freedom of information act cover anything that is still classified?

There is an exception to the FOIA for classified documents. But that does not permit the Government to ignore the request-- they have to respond, on an item-by-item basis, and either release the document or assert whichever exceptions they think are applicable.

This judge did not order the Government to turn over any documents-- he ordered them to respond to the request. This is a valid order and will probably be upheld if it is appealed. I assume the Government will respond by asserting the national security exception.

145 posted on 02/16/2006 2:35:03 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Peach

How many dozens have times have we heard about "failure to connect the dots".

You can't connect dots if you don't collect dots.


146 posted on 02/16/2006 2:35:41 PM PST by prairiebreeze (The Mainstream Media: today's carnival barkers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Interesting ... thank you.


147 posted on 02/16/2006 2:35:58 PM PST by gondramB (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: sully777
Out of control!

When are the judges going to be made to stop trying to manage this country? The judicial has no business meddling with the secret intelligence gathering programs used for the WOT. If I were GWB or Gonzales I would just plain ignore this judge - what enforcement official does he have at his disposal? STFU.

148 posted on 02/16/2006 2:36:14 PM PST by p23185
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pirate21
Now we're fighting wars via the courts?!?!? Outrage! The judiciary joins the legislature in a p!$$ing contest against the Executive branch. Sorry, but the Executive wields the power in fighting wars -- Commander in Chief, remember? They'd better go to the Supreme Court and get this overturned.

If I were GWB that is exactly what I would do - either push it up or completely ignore it. Judicial branch has no input on managing the war. Military Tribunals should rule.

149 posted on 02/16/2006 2:38:00 PM PST by p23185
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Ya got me!

Some of these judges believe they are above the law - meaning they can rule whatever they want and it's the law. They are wrong on that count. If that were the case - there would be no law. Idiots!


150 posted on 02/16/2006 2:40:26 PM PST by CyberAnt (Democrat Leadership: No program - no ideas - no clue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-226 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson