Bush defends surveillance program

AP on Yahoo ^ | 8/18/06 | Deb Reichman - ap

[VRWCmember]

...I instructed the Justice Department to appeal immediately...
Ahem. George, the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. All appeals stop there.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit on Thursday was the first to find the National Security Agency surveillance program unconstitutional. The program involves monitoring international phone calls and e-mails to and from the United States involving people with suspected ties to terrorists.

Ahem. GingisK, last time I checked, Carter appointee and clinton promotee Anna Diggs Taylor had been neither appointed nor confirmed to the Supreme Court.

[stickandpucknut]

no that wacko judge is a michigan sup court judge PURPOSLEY picked by the aaclu due to the fact she was appoited by Carter.WE must make sure they dont take back over in nov cause with this ruling the RATS will immediatley start impeachment hearings.Imagine the president getting impeached because he was trying to do the BEST job possible trying to PROTECT AMERICA.If this happens this country will be F-ED UP for a long time.

[Eagles Talon IV]

Are you under the impression this ruling came from the USSC?

[ktvaughn]

Yeah. What the hell is wrong with FISA unless they want to spy on folks they can't get a warrant on? The FISA courts don't have a problem issuing warrants on anyone the administration says is a legitimate target.

[Eagles Talon IV]

So the FISA Court when it said Bush was within the law and followed the FISA COURT guid lines was incorrect?

And you get your information from.....?

[MPJackal]

Ahem, this was a District judge, not the Supreme Court. I guess you missed that. Must have been while you were studying the Constitution.

[outloud]

Is the country at war or not?
No, it is not. There has been no declaration of war, therefore there is not state of war. There are low-scale conflicts here and there.

War does not set aside the Constitution. War is waged to protect the Constitution. One cannot protect an instrument by disregarding it.


Even though we have not formally voted in Congress to declare war, there is a reason: we are not fighting against a country but a bunch of cowards who hide among women and children like little dogs afraid of the thunder, who revel in the death of their children and teach them to die instead of live, and who are instructed to lie to their enemies to take a tactical advantage over them. The radical Islamofacist you coddle today will cuddle up next to you with a suicide vest tomorrow.
You better wake up and start waging war to defend the Constitution because radical Islamofacists will burn it where it lies if they take over. Which by the way, could be within our lifetimes if you, the Democrats in Congress, and the kook fringe running the Democratic party continue on the same course at the same pace you are today.

[lonestar67]

The Court of Review found -- and I quote now -- quote, "Simply no basis for the FISA court's reliance on FISA to limit criminal prosecutors' abilities to advise intelligence officials." Close quote. The court also found that the government may use FISA when it has a, quote, "measurable foreign intelligence purpose other than just criminal prosecution." Close quote. Further, the court ruled that so long as the government entertains a realistic option of dealing with the FISA target, other than through criminal prosecution, it satisfies the "significant purpose" test.

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2002/11/ag111802.html

The court's opinion may be viewed in full at:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html

[steve-b]

Yeah. What the hell is wrong with FISA unless they want to spy on folks they can't get a warrant on? The FISA courts don't have a problem issuing warrants on anyone the administration says is a legitimate target.

The FISA court has processed tens of thousands of applications over the years. The number they have rejected can be counted on the fingers of Klutzo Butterfingers the Retired Chainsaw Juggler.

The Administration seems to have been driven by an ideological agenda, not any real problem with following the existing procedures.

[I see my hands]

It should be enough that both the left and terrorists are happy with this decision.

The whites of their eyes are clearly visible, yet they stand.

[ohioWfan]

Wow, sam. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

There was nothing 'meek' about the President's response, and the idea that he is 'running out the clock' is almost too absurd to debate.

Could you try to actually think before you post next time??

[ohioWfan]

I love it when mindless Bush bashers make utter fools of themselves.

Thanks, GingisK! :)

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

All of a sudden, these POS left-wing pukes suddenly care about the Constitution when the evil Republican is President. Clinton used the Constitution as toilet paper and "judges" such as Diggs were nowhere to be found.

[GingisK]

District judge, not the Supreme Court.

Yep, I missed that.

[Alwayswatching]

Did you see Bush today? I have never seen him so down. His body language,his tone of voice,his state of distraction. And he was late for the presser to boot.It really alarmed me. Did anyone notice this?

[MPJackal]

It happens to the best of us.

[samadams2000]

I will be more careful, and hopeful. I am just fit to be tied about how passive we are fighting these koranimals.

[Alas Babylon!]

LOL!

Gingis.... Beyotch, you've been pwned!!!!!!!!!

[GingisK]

You better wake up and start waging war to defend the Constitution because radical Islamofacists will burn it where it lies if they take over.

I am doing just that. There are domestic enemies of the Constitution. Anyone who advocates setting it aside for any reason is one of those.

I did mistakingly assume that the Supreme Court had made this ruling.

There are plenty of tools already in place to fight terrorism. One does not have to set aside the Constitution or other laws of the land to protect the same. Common sense, if it prevailed, would suffice in most cases. It defies common sense to leave the southern border porous when it would be so easy for terrorists to infiltrate through there. It defies common sense to stop profiling people when they board airplanes. Many things done or not done by the government defy common sense.

As for me being a Democrat .... have you ever wondered how the terms "liberal" and "conservative" were established? It seems that a conservative is one who would preserve the Constitution and our way of life. I have noticed that GWB doesn't do this. He defies many rulings of this nature, and allows our way of life to be trampled by the horde from Mexico. I just don't see how you mistake Bush as being particularly pro-American or pro-Constitution. GWB is a globalist.

[GingisK]

One cannot protect his enemies if he expects to have a constition to protect any longer.

I agree. We should stop admitting folks of the Muslim faith into this Nation, and seal the border with Mexico. I'd suggest a Constitutional Amendment to take exception with the validity of Islam as a religion. Then we should gather all of the invaders up, and ship them out.

It would make sense to declare war on Islam ... that would provide the necessary powers without trampling the Constitution.

The Constitution cannot be protected by trampling it. Period.