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: demlosers

LOL!

Thats all the info they need!


151 posted on 02/16/2006 2:41:53 PM PST by JRochelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

WHAT are these judges thinking???


152 posted on 02/16/2006 2:55:00 PM PST by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo
The litigant...

http://www.epic.org/

Links to the lawsuit and the judge's order on their homepage.

153 posted on 02/16/2006 2:56:58 PM PST by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

ACLadinU


154 posted on 02/16/2006 2:58:58 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 132 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze
You can't connect dots if you don't collect dots.

Well stated!

155 posted on 02/16/2006 3:06:40 PM PST by Peach (Hillary ran over a cop and didn't even stop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

The Bush administration is free to ignore this "command". The Executive branch controls enforcement.

Screw the judge. Why can't this be left private as it is a concern of national security?


156 posted on 02/16/2006 3:25:00 PM PST by ConservativeMind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach

I just get the feeling that in the not too distant future all of the left's phoney legal complaints will seem VERY meaningless....This war will get a lot hotter before we prevail....

A bit off topic but not for long.....


157 posted on 02/16/2006 3:59:01 PM PST by crowman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo
Maybe, the judge might want to re-think this. A lot of interesting information might come out . Actually it would be ironic if the JD was "made" to go public about who was taped and what was said . Then, they could claim that they were forced to reveal names.
158 posted on 02/16/2006 4:10:40 PM PST by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo
a private group will suffer irreparable harm if the documents it has been seeking since December are not processed promptly

Yeah. No need to be careful and circumspect. It's not like mistakes can happen from undue haste. Oh, wait...

Feds Mistakenly Turned Over Secret Papers ^
  Posted by ivyleaguebrat
On 02/16/2006 6:13:12 PM CST


BREITBART.COM/AP ^ | 2/16/2006
Federal prosecutors and investigators in Dallas acknowledged in court documents that they mistakenly gave defense lawyers information about the inner-workings of secretive counterterrorism investigations. It took federal officials four months to discover that in April they had turned over secret court applications for wiretaps, which often have sensitive information from U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies, according to court papers that were unsealed this week. The materials were given to lawyers for the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and seven of its senior officers, who have been indicted on charges they illegally funneled millions of dollars to support the...

159 posted on 02/16/2006 4:17:56 PM PST by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

Take a cue from Nancy Reagan. Just say no. WTF is the judge gonna do, take someone's birthday away?


160 posted on 02/16/2006 5:07:12 PM PST by trubluolyguy (Islam, Religion of Peace and they'll kill you to prove it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

Somebody with some stones in the executive branch needs to tell this judge to shove his subpoena where the sun don't shine.


161 posted on 02/16/2006 5:22:09 PM PST by Mad_Tom_Rackham (A Liberal: One who demands half of your pie, because he didn't bake one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo; Congressman Billybob
So how does the supposed "irreparable harm" to a "private group" outweigh the interest of the Federal Government in preserving national security? Methinks this commie judge smoked way too much wacky weed when he should have been studying Constitutional Law.
162 posted on 02/16/2006 5:30:26 PM PST by Mad_Tom_Rackham (A Liberal: One who demands half of your pie, because he didn't bake one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad_Tom_Rackham

National security? I just found out one of the ports Dubai is to run is where I live in Philly!


163 posted on 02/16/2006 5:41:05 PM PST by hipaatwo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
its obvious who owns this judge.

A severe case of brain swallowed whole by anus.

164 posted on 02/16/2006 6:06:31 PM PST by Mad_Tom_Rackham (A Liberal: One who demands half of your pie, because he didn't bake one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo; Mo1

Can we send Judge Kennedy to Gitmo? I'd bet he'd fit right in there........


165 posted on 02/16/2006 6:22:36 PM PST by ohioWfan (PROUD Mom of an Iraq War VET! THANKS, son!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
...yea, like the Al Quida operatives and their abettors.

Today's Democrats are more concerned about second-hand smoke than they are about national security. For this, they MUST be held fully accountable in 2006 and 2008 and beyond.

Our overseas enemies = Al Queda

Our domsetic enemies = Al Squida

166 posted on 02/16/2006 6:23:46 PM PST by Mad_Tom_Rackham (A Liberal: One who demands half of your pie, because he didn't bake one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: MarneyK

"In Epstein's view, the President's inherent powers as commander in chief of the armed forces permit him to authorize military action, but not surveillance of conversations involving domestic persons."

How is the President to know where to authorize military action if he does not equally have access to the intelligence that would point to the where? Does Epstein think that our country was attacked outside of our borders? We were attacked within our borders.


167 posted on 02/16/2006 7:14:54 PM PST by mjaneangels@aolcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

You can't win wars with scottish law.

Hmmm, Is that!! why Scotland is today part of the United Kingdom?

Inquiring minds want to know, LOL ;OP

168 posted on 02/16/2006 7:33:32 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo
Sounds perfectly fine to me. The government likely already has a list of what information it is withholding, so it has already complied with the judge's order.

of course by nature, the list itself would have a classification of some manner, so the judge and the plaintiffs won't be able to look at it, but that's another story.

169 posted on 02/16/2006 7:44:39 PM PST by jz638
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
How can the FOIA apply to highly classified material?! Good question for Comrade Ginsberg.
170 posted on 02/16/2006 7:47:07 PM PST by Mad_Tom_Rackham (A Liberal: One who demands half of your pie, because he didn't bake one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Peach
The AD hearing has well demonstrated that there are a lot of dots that a lot of people do not want to see connected. IMO, this NSA business is more cover for the real malfeasance.
171 posted on 02/16/2006 7:54:10 PM PST by Mad_Tom_Rackham (A Liberal: One who demands half of your pie, because he didn't bake one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Mad_Tom_Rackham

This judge likes to play moot court.


172 posted on 02/16/2006 8:17:53 PM PST by rdl6989
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Brightside

I knew it was a Clinton judge without looking -- thanks for confirming.

This is why Conservatives don't vote for DemocRATs in elections -- just wish some on here would get a clue that judicial appointments are so critical that you cannot take a chance by putting a DemocRAT back in the WH. When they make their comments there is no difference in the parties, makes me think they are DemocRATs trying to convince conservatives there is no difference. There is a huge difference when it comes to judicial appointments.


173 posted on 02/16/2006 8:21:11 PM PST by PhiKapMom (Throw out OK's Governor DoLittle in 2006! Allen in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MarneyK

With all due respect to your former law professor, in the NSA spying controversy, he doesn't know what he's talking about. First allow me to post his errors from your quotes, followed then by what the courts have concluded are the actual powers of the President, so you can compare the two and see for yourself.

"However, because of the President's constitutional duty to act for the United States in the field of foreign relations, and his inherent power to protect national security in the context of foreign affairs, we reaffirm what we held in United States v. Clay, supra, that the President may constitutionally authorize warrantless wiretaps for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence."
--United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418, 426 (1973)

"We agree with the district court that the Executive Branch need not always obtain a warrant for foreign intelligence surveillance."
--U.S. v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 913 (1980)

"Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment."
--United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (1984)

"The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent [constitutional] authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."
--In re Sealed Case, 310, F3d. 717, 742 (2002)

Note several things about those decisions.

First, contrary to your law professor's opinion that the warrantless intercepts goes "beyond any authority granted the Executive in the Constitution", these decisions clearly demonstrate just the opposite. That virtually every court to have addressed this matter, both pre-FISA as well as post-FISA, have concluded that the President in deed has the inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.

Second, even the FISA court itself has concluded that the President has the inherent constitutional power to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.

Third, contrary to your law professor's opinion that the President's power emanates solely from his duties as Commander-in-Chief, these decisions explicitly shows that the President's authority also arises from his duties as this nation's sole representative in matters of foreign affairs, and that includes foreign intelligence gathering.

Fourth, contrary to your law professor seems to believe regarding FISA, Congress can NOT infringe on President's constitutional powers by any ordinary act of Congress. Absent a constitutional amendment, they have no authority to do so.

Fifth, contrary to your law professor's opinion, the present controversy does NOT involve "domestic" intelligence intercepts, as that term is specifically used by the courts, the law and the intelligence agencies, but rather "foreign" intelligence intercepts. Here's how to recognize the difference...

The difference between "domestic" and "foreign" national security intelligence intercepts has nothing to do with the point of origin, destination or interception of the communication. Nor does it depend on whether either party is a U.S. citizen or resident. The difference between "foreign" and "domestic" national security intercepts is the source of the threat, i.e., whether the threat to national security is origninating from outside this country and whether at least one party to the communication was acting as, or on behalf of, an agent of that foreign power.

That distinction was never made more clear than it was in the Truong case. Truong, a U.S. resident alien, and Humphrey, a U.S. citizen and an employee of the USIA, conspired to commit espionage by delivering confidential government documents to the communist government of Vietnam from 1976 to 1977. In this case, the court held that the intercepts did not require a warrant since both defendants were acting as agents of a foreign power and thus the intercepts were a legitimate exercise of foreign national security intelligence gathering.

Note that in Truong, both the origin and destination of the intercepted calls were within the United States. Note also, that both defendants were U.S. residents, and in Humphrey's case, a U.S. citizen, as well. Yet the court held that these were foreign national security intercepts.

Hope that you find that information useful. And sorry for having to be so hard on your former law professor.

174 posted on 02/16/2006 10:01:27 PM PST by Boot Hill ("...and Joshua went unto him and said: art thou for us, or for our adversaries?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill

Nice job of fluffing up "the line" between foreign intelligence and everything else. So, what is to be done with this foreign intelligence information? For example, what part of it is admissible?


175 posted on 02/16/2006 10:05:23 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

I've read enough of your posts to know that you know perfectly well what the answer to that is!

None of it can be used directly in a criminal prosecution. But it would be useable under 18 USC to obtain a warrant, once the decision had been made to end the intelligence gathering and begin a criminal prosecution.

176 posted on 02/16/2006 10:14:42 PM PST by Boot Hill ("...and Joshua went unto him and said: art thou for us, or for our adversaries?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: conservative physics

"people you are at war with have NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS"

Is this a joke?


177 posted on 02/17/2006 12:35:32 AM PST by NapkinUser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: conservative physics

"As President Lincoln said... the court has ruled, now let them enforce it!"

Not the right quote and it was Andrew Jackson. Try to get it right.


178 posted on 02/17/2006 12:38:54 AM PST by NapkinUser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: mykpfsu

You're headed in the right direction, but you're getting there with flawed arguments.

You're right that Congress has no authority to conduct foreign intelligence operations, but it would be incorrect to assume that is the goal of FISA. FISA merely attempts to regulate the process of foreign intelligence gathering.

Congressional authority to enact a regulatory scheme like FISA comes from Article I, Section 8, clause 18 of the Constitution, which authorizes Congress to "make all laws...necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution". That includes making laws relating to powers belonging to the President.

But here is where Congress got their tit in wringer when they wrote FISA. Note that the "Necessary and Proper" clause only permits Congress to enact those laws that aid in the "carrying into execution" those powers granted by the Constitution. That means, they cannot use that clause to infringe, violate, or compromise a Constitutional grant of authority, only enable it. Therefore, any part of FISA that happened to infringe on a power belonging to the President would be outside Congressional authority to enact (under clause 18), and hence unconstitutional.

Since, virtually every court over the last 30 years, both pre-FISA and post-FISA, and notably including even the FISA court itself, that has ever addressed this matter has concluded that the President does have the inherent constitutional power to conduct warrantless surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information, there can be no serious debate as to the present existence of that Presidential power.

Therefore, while Congress may theoretically have the authority to regulate the process of intelligence gathering, in doing so, it would have to take great care to do so only in furtherance of the President's powers and not to infringe or violate those powers. Any reading of the FISA statutes that would foreclose the President's preeminent constitutional authority in this matter, would also mean that FISA was unconstitutional.

179 posted on 02/17/2006 2:18:57 AM PST by Boot Hill ("...and Joshua went unto him and said: art thou for us, or for our adversaries?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo
"Judge orders NSA spy papers released"

Just say "no". the judiciary is in no constitutional way superior to the executive, particularly in the management of a war.

Sorry judge, there's a war on

180 posted on 02/17/2006 2:29:21 AM PST by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

That is exactly what this is about. Glad it only took 107 posts for someone to state it! The "what" is going to contain an awful lot of redacting and black-out!

181 posted on 02/17/2006 2:53:31 AM PST by Boot Hill ("...and Joshua went unto him and said: art thou for us, or for our adversaries?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
but I found a copy of the actual text of the FOIA and even right in there it says that it doesn't apply to material that is classified for national security reasons, so how can the idiot judge rule that they should be released?

The judge *didn't* rule that classified information needs to be released. He ruled that the government needs to comply with the FOIA.

182 posted on 02/17/2006 3:30:48 AM PST by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Judge Kennedy was appointed to the U.S. District Court in September 1997.

Carter?

183 posted on 02/17/2006 4:09:38 AM PST by Mr. Brightside (I know what I like.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
That is exactly what this is about. Glad it only took 107 posts for someone to state it! The "what" is going to contain an awful lot of redacting and black-out!

Yup. See also Post 48 ;-)

184 posted on 02/17/2006 4:12:39 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
LOL, you and I did the same thing with the link that "K-oneTexas" posted in #37. One read and it was clear that this decision was no big deal. However, it will get a bit dicey when the plaintiffs get a couple dozen boxes of this...


And the judge tries to order an in camera hearing to determine for himself whether the redaction was reasonable. That could turn into a mess.

185 posted on 02/17/2006 4:27:38 AM PST by Boot Hill ("...and Joshua went unto him and said: art thou for us, or for our adversaries?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: NapkinUser
no it's not a joke.

you think people we are at war with have constitutional rights?

If enemy combatants had constitutional rights, we would have to consider them innocent until proven guilty, not use excessive force, read them their Miranda rights, set bail for them, give them a phone call and a lawyer, ect, ect...
186 posted on 02/17/2006 5:56:00 AM PST by conservative physics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

"He has his writ. Now let him enforce it."


187 posted on 02/17/2006 6:10:23 AM PST by Inwoodian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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.

He's a two-fer!

188 posted on 02/17/2006 7:25:14 AM PST by Howlin ("Quick, he's bleeding! Is there a <strike>doctor</strike> reporter in the house?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: demlosers
Excellent post.

I've written Sen. Grassley and still question why he seems to be the only legislator concerned about the 120 pages of dedacted material from the Barrett report dealing with clinton's misuse of IRS information against his enemies.

I feel the entire country was harmed beyond repair by Sandy Burglar's theft and destruction of classified, annotated documents dealing with the 9/11 Hearings that could have placed clinton and his administration in a very bad, if not criminal light.

I recall early 1992 when I worked closely with the US Attorney of our district and he was replaced immediately by clinton, as were all US Attorneys across the nation who did not fit the clinton template.
This is a dangerous, treasonous, partisan sham.
EODGUY
189 posted on 02/17/2006 8:14:28 AM PST by EODGUY (Liberals hate it when you hold them accountable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill; Cboldt
For example, what part of [the foreign intelligence information] is admissible?
None of it can be used directly in a criminal prosecution.

That's not true. If the information is obtained legally, it's admissible in a criminal prosecution. Courts don't exclude evidence unless the evidence was obtained in violation of the defendant's rights.

190 posted on 02/17/2006 9:09:24 AM PST by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

now how about ordering the complete Barrett report released?


191 posted on 02/17/2006 10:09:05 AM PST by Mr. K (Some days even my lucky rocket ship underpants don't help...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

Does a federal Judge have the authority to order a coequal branch of the government to turn over internal documents and does a judge have the power to order the release of classified material?

I don't think so.

I'd appeal or ignor


192 posted on 02/17/2006 11:49:37 AM PST by Jim Verdolini (We had it all, but the RINOs stalked the land and everything they touched was as dung and ashes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarneyK

"This is not the view of many on this forum, but as a former student of Epstein, I know him not only to be the least liberal guy I know, but probably the most brilliant legal scholar I know -- and I've known a few."

Now if he could only explain away the uninterupted series of court decisions that say the exact opposite.


193 posted on 02/17/2006 11:52:40 AM PST by Jim Verdolini (We had it all, but the RINOs stalked the land and everything they touched was as dung and ashes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: MarneyK

"FISA has been challenged repeatedly in the courts on Fourth Amendment grounds, separation of powers grounds, political question grounds -- you name it, it's been tried. The challenges have come from both the "right" and the "left." None has succeeded. Opinions continue to vary, but as far as the courts are concerned, FISA is constitutional."

Yes, but that does not say much. The act is a legal procedure for foreign wiretaps. Saying it is legal does not say that it can restrict the perfectly legal practice used by the administration.

Put another way, a legal act of Congress does not trump the Constitution itself. Congress cannot remove or limit any plenary power inherant in any other branch of government.


194 posted on 02/17/2006 11:57:34 AM PST by Jim Verdolini (We had it all, but the RINOs stalked the land and everything they touched was as dung and ashes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

"FISA is not constitutional. When have courts EVER given Congress the right to conduct foreign intelligence operations? Never."

You are confusing two concepts. The act is constitutional in its providing a route for a specific action. The route is legal as has been confirmed in a lot of cases. The act would only be unconstitutional if it was used to limit the executive in carrying out his plenary powers. Even then, the act would be legal, just not legally binding on the executive.

It is a lot like posting a 55mph speed limit. That does not mean drivers are limited to only 55. They can also drive more slowly and, if they are an official vehicle carrying out an official mission, the speed can be far greater. The law is legal but not binding in all cases. FISA is a perfectly legal route to wiretaps but is not the only route.


195 posted on 02/17/2006 12:03:25 PM PST by Jim Verdolini (We had it all, but the RINOs stalked the land and everything they touched was as dung and ashes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: NapkinUser

""As President Lincoln said... the court has ruled, now let them enforce it!"

Not the right quote and it was Andrew Jackson. Try to get it right."

Actually, Lincoln ignored quite a few supreme court decisions during the war, he just did not comment on it.


196 posted on 02/17/2006 12:08:05 PM PST by Jim Verdolini (We had it all, but the RINOs stalked the land and everything they touched was as dung and ashes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Sandy

You are correct in part, it but also incorrect in other parts.

It is correct to state that any evidence used to prosecute an individual must be legally obtained. But the question (in the present case) then becomes, when did the warrantless intercepts change from being legal to illegal and the answer to that is found in the "primary purpose" test.

The Truong court, who is credited with the genesis of the primary purpose test, concluded that while the President may lawfully conduct warrantless surveillance for the purpose of gathering foreign counter intelligence, it would NOT be similarly lawful for the government to do so when the primary purpose of the intercepts has changed to commencing a criminal prosecution of the targeted individual.

Therefore, when I stated that "none of it can be used directly in a criminal prosecution", that was a true statement because the evidence Cboldt was referring to was gathered through warrantless intercepts solely for counter intelligence purposes. The moment the intent of the surveillance changed to commencing a criminal prosecution, the government would be obligated to obtain a warrant in order for the intercepts to remain lawful, and the warrantless evidence gathered prior to that point, would be excluded, under the primary purpose test.

Outside of their intelligence value, the only use the warrantless intercepts could play in a criminal prosecution, would be in drafting the probable cause affidavit, necessary for obtaining a criminal warrant.

197 posted on 02/17/2006 1:37:12 PM PST by Boot Hill ("...and Joshua went unto him and said: art thou for us, or for our adversaries?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind
Screw the judge. Why can't this be left private as it is a concern of national security?

You are right. I wish the President would really stand up to these rogue judges who pay no price for their partisan rulings. Congress needs to strap on their spines and impeach a couple of judges for being traitorous. No wonder we hold politics and the courts in greater and greater conmtempt each year.

198 posted on 02/17/2006 6:34:46 PM PST by Rapscallion (Democrats: Once a party; now a hate group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

This Kennedy is as liberal and dishonest as Ted Kennedy.

This judicial POS was appointed by the Clintoons. He is an ACLU tool and has a history of BS like this.

Red Hot Cuppa Politics: ACLU Darling Judge Orders Release of Surveillance Documents To Protect Civil Rights Group...
... Act... Judge Henry Kennedy was appointed federal judge by none other than President William Jefferson Clinton. Prior to ... To say that Judge Kennedy is a liberal is the ...cuppapolitics.blogspot.com/2006/02/aclu-darling-judge-orders-releas... - 41k - Cached - More from this site - Save

ABC News: White House Wag: Courts Back Clinton
... In a ruling last week, U.S. District Court Judge Henry Kennedy threw out Broaddrick's lawsuit ... last week, another federal judge rejected a claim by a Clinton White House staffer that ...abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121718 - 25k - Cached -

It will take 2 to 3 decades before these maggot infested left wing Clintoon judicial appointees are flushed out of the system.


199 posted on 02/18/2006 6:44:21 AM PST by Grampa Dave (The NY Slimes has been committing treason and sedition for decades.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
The moment the intent of the surveillance changed to commencing a criminal prosecution, the government would be obligated to obtain a warrant in order for the intercepts to remain lawful, and the warrantless evidence gathered prior to that point, would be excluded, under the primary purpose test.

The primary purpose test is dead. If the intercepts don't violate the 4th Amendment or FISA or the Wiretap Act, there is no legal ground for excluding any evidence obtained.

200 posted on 02/18/2006 9:40:49 PM PST by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | 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