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

Skip to comments.

Al Qaeda Bugging Case Defines Election Stakes
Human Events ^ | Aug. 28, 2006 | Human Events

Posted on 08/27/2006 5:22:28 PM PDT by FairOpinion

In a nutshell, Judge Taylor claimed that under our Constitution, Hitchens’ right to never have his overseas telephone calls intercepted without a warrant trumps the right of Americans not to be blown to smithereens.

The Constitution, however, says no such thing.

The truth is, Democratic Presidents long before Bush conducted warrantless electronic surveillance for national security reasons—and every time the issue was reviewed by a federal appellate court, the court ruled for the President.

In 2002, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review said: “The Truong court, as did all other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information…. We take it for granted that the President does have that authority.”

(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: alqaeda; gwot; homelandsecurity; issues; nsa; spying; terrorattack; terrorism; waronterror; wiretap; wot
Excellent article, suggest bookmarking it to be used to refute liberal rants/lies on the subject.
1 posted on 08/27/2006 5:22:30 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Everyone knows it's true, of course. The moronic filth of the liberal party, however, insist the Constitution really doesn't invest military power in the hands of the Executive.

No. They shopped for a fellow fanatic and wrote up their little papers to "prove" otherwise.

2 posted on 08/27/2006 5:44:18 PM PDT by Reactionary (The Barking of the Native Moonbat is the Sound of Moral Nitwittery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reactionary

Liberals think that the Constitution gives the power of decision in crises to the media.

Remember the NYT actually used that as a reason for revealing the info, that THEY thought it should be released, even if it's top secret.


3 posted on 08/27/2006 5:47:39 PM PDT by FairOpinion (Dem Foreign Policy: SURRENDER to our enemies. Real conservatives don't help Dems get elected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
In a nutshell, Judge Taylor claimed that under our Constitution, Hitchens’ right to never have his overseas telephone calls intercepted without a warrant trumps the right of Americans not to be blown to smithereens.

In one sentence, the author has summarized the entire argument. The End.

4 posted on 08/27/2006 5:59:00 PM PDT by Uncle Vlad (You cannot protect the peoples' civil liberties if you refuse to protect the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

So, are Hitchen's true colors showing? He's a big lib but has said the right things about being tough on the enemy. But where the rubber meets the road it seems that he's on their side.


5 posted on 08/27/2006 6:13:47 PM PDT by Eagles6 (Dig deeper, more ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

bump bump bump bump


6 posted on 08/27/2006 6:17:02 PM PDT by Skooz (Chastity prays for me, piety sings...Modesty hides my thighs in her wings...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Vlad
In a nutshell, Judge Taylor claimed that under our Constitution, Hitchens’ right to never have his overseas telephone calls intercepted without a warrant trumps the right of Americans not to be blown to smithereens.
The only caveat the Judge probably has thrown into that decision is that her ruling is null and void if their is a Democrat in the Office of the President at the time the phone taps are on-going.
7 posted on 08/27/2006 6:19:45 PM PDT by FlashBack (W)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
I hope that this biased and incompetent "decision" by this pathetic excuse for a federal "judge" does become an election issue. The more citizens who know more about this case, the more will vote for Republicans and against Democrats on the subject of national security and the war against the MAZIS (Muslims who act like Nazis).

See below for more on this case.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article: "Bad Judges Make Bad Law."

Please see my most recent new statement on running for Congress, here.

8 posted on 08/27/2006 6:33:04 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob (Have a look-see. Please get involved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Okay...the President MUST curry enough favor with the media to exterminate our enemies to the maximum extent that they will permit. The infallible Gorelick wall remains embedded into the Constitution. Only the President personally can collect intelligence from foreign terrorists, and then only when physically in the presence of the terrorist. George W. Bush has proved a miserable failure. He even failed to stop a speeding plane before it crashed into the World Trade Center despite one nanosecond notice a thousand miles away. The second-term campaign certainly has proven a fatal mistake for his reputation, his presidency, and perhaps his beloved nation.

In fact, last I checked, the Gorelick wall devolved the responsibility for protecting the United Stats from enemies upon the Governor of Texas during Democratic Administrations. So Bush failed miserably as Governor of Texas in preventing the Khobar Towers, Dar es Salaam, and USS Cole terrorist attacks with the Texas Rangers. History will remember him as a disgraceful Texas Governor anointed to the Presidency by a rogue Supreme Court despite losing the election by negative five hundred thirty-seven Florida votes to al-Gore. He ranks easily as the worst President in American history, taking that title from Warren Gamaliel Harding, Richard Milhous Nixon, and Herbert Hoover; the American people even consider him morally inferior to megalomaniac Nazi genocidal dictator Adolf Hitler.

I'm unfortunately beginning to believe it. But I know that Bush's record soon will fall to Her Eminence President-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi and Her Eminence vice-President-in-waiting Hillary Clinton.


9 posted on 08/27/2006 6:33:07 PM PDT by dufekin (The New York Times: an enemy espionage agency with a newsletter of enemy propaganda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dufekin

Seem that every cable network has its own 9-11 recap running now. Most of the real Al Queda action was during the Cliton administration. He and his band of idiots ignored a vast amount of intelligence. They wanted to make nice. Eight years of wishing the problem culminated less than nine months after Bubba left office. ALL of the fault got focused on the failures of the Bush White House.

Good intelligence that has produced real results has resulted in ZERO attacks here. Have the intelligence programs worked? Should an idiot liberal wacko judge dictate American safety? Security? NO.


10 posted on 08/27/2006 6:43:44 PM PDT by shankbear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Ah, but George W. Bush was never President before! Curbing Bush takes precedence over precedent. One might call it a super-precedent. Unless Senator Specter has already detected some other super-precedent, in which case curbing Bush would be above that also, an uber-super-precedent.
All these impeachable offenses will be proper again---as soon as a Democrat disgraces the White House again.


11 posted on 08/27/2006 6:47:27 PM PDT by Graymatter (Bacon akbar!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

I just finished reading "American Prometheus," a biography of J. Robert Oppenheimer. During WWII, illegal wiretapping and surveillance of the top people working on the atomic bomb was commonplace. Many had outright communist sympathies and were constantly watched and bugged. I seem to recall we had a Dem president in that era, too.


12 posted on 08/27/2006 6:47:57 PM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Why is this issue not already in a true court? Why is this carter whore not yet in chains in jail?


13 posted on 08/27/2006 7:06:11 PM PDT by TimesDomain (When a judge declares himself "MASTER", you become his "SLAVE")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlashBack
No kidding. It's amazing how the meaning of the Constitution changes for some people when administrations change.
14 posted on 08/27/2006 7:15:22 PM PDT by Uncle Vlad (You cannot protect the peoples' civil liberties if you refuse to protect the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: shankbear
Every one seems to think that it was less than nine months, some even state as Laura Ingram did the other day, nine months after Bush became President.

I have counted the days, He took office on the 20th of January, after a 56 day delay. The towers were hit on Sept 11th of the SAME year.

That is 11 days in Jan. Feb.[only 28 days] Mar. Apr. May. June July Aug.and 11 days in Sept.That is not nine months nor eight months. It is SEVEN [7] months and 22 days.

Have I figured it wrong. So many of us exaggerate and don't mean to. We just repeat what we hear or read.

Seven months and 22 days isn't very long when the President didn't even have his cabinet in place. I know the libs would say whats a few days but at that time IMO it made a great deal of difference.

Don't mean to be jumping at you just thought it would be nice if all of us would state 7 months and 22 days every time we hear ANY ONE state either 8 or 9 months.
15 posted on 08/27/2006 8:22:30 PM PDT by frannie (Be not afraid of tomorrow - God is already there!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: frannie

you are on the money. No offense taken. The backstabbing in CIA was going on and the Garelich problem was facing the intel people.


16 posted on 08/27/2006 8:33:38 PM PDT by shankbear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

Is it the same Hitchens ??


17 posted on 08/27/2006 11:12:22 PM PDT by Rumple4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Reactionary; All

And .. the other part of it is the dems loathing of President Bush [because he won the election - when the dems were "entitled" to it] and this is their ploy to try to usurp Bush's authority away from him and give it to the Senate - which gives Congress more power than the President .. which is exactly what the moon-bat dems want.


18 posted on 08/28/2006 6:56:56 AM PDT by The Final Harvest (Drive-By Media: Fake news, fake documents, fake polls)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Good idea. bttt


19 posted on 08/28/2006 11:34:34 AM PDT by 4woodenboats (The GOP was created by those opposed to Southern Democrat Plantation Slavery...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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