From CNN:
A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government’s warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency’s program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly taping conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.
The government argued that the program is well within the president’s authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.
The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule.
I’ll be interested to see more of the ruling, if only to find out what publicly-revealed information Taylor used to reach her decision.
Meantime, here’s Judge Diggs Taylor’s biography. For what it’s worth, she was married to Michigan Democratic Representative (1955-1980) Charles C Diggs, Jr. (divorced 1971) and S Martin Taylor (active in both the Coleman Young and Jimmy Carter campaigns) and was named to a Michigan federal court in 1979.
From the bio:
An attorney and judge, Anna Diggs Taylor was the first African-American woman appointed to a federal judgeship in Michigan and later became the first African-American woman to be named chief federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan. Taylor has used her positions to advance civil rights throughout the United States.
*****
update: Here’s more, from Jurist:
In her opinion Thursday, Diggs wrote:
Defendants assert that they cannot defend this case without the exposure of state secrets. This court disagrees. The Bush Administration has repeatedly told the general public that there is a valid basis in law for the [Terrorist Surveillance Program].9 Further, Defendants have contended that the President has the authority under the AUMF and the Constitution to authorize the continued use of the TSP. Defendants have supported these arguments without revealing or relying on any classified information. Indeed, the court has reviewed the classified information and is of the opinion that this information is not necessary to any viable defense to the TSP. Defendants have presented support for the argument that “it . . is well-established that the President may exercise his statutory and constitutional authority to gather intelligence information about foreign enemies."10 Defendants cite to various sources to support this position. Consequently, the court finds Defendants’ argument that they cannot defend this case without the use of classified information to be disingenuous and without merit.
Diggs went on to hold that the domestic spying program violates the First and Fourth Amendments of the US Constitution, Separation of Powers principles, the Administrative Procedures Act and statutory law.
If this program, from what is known publicly about it, can be said to violate the Fourth Amendment, there are certainly a number of other security procedures that should be held unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. See Eugene Volokh here on this point; also, commenter Ace notes that the “Fourth Circuit, Ninth Circuit, Third Circuit, Fifth Circuit, and the Second Circuit all have held 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.
Which is one of the reasons why I think this ruling will be overturned on appeal.
Even still, it’s amazing that we’ve reached the nuance point where only by revealing secrets can we show that the secrets in question should not be revealed, lest they damage programs meant to protect us from attacks, which only work while details of how they work remain secret.
Perhaps we can just tie stones to the NSA program, put it in a lake, and see if it floats. If it does, it is clearly unconstitutional and should be hanged. If it drowns from the weight of its own revealed legality, everyone will know for certain that it wasn’t, in fact, unconstitutional. Which, helluva lot of good that does us, sure.
But it’s the thought that counts.
****
update 2: Eugene Volokh:
[…] I think (as Orin’s post suggested), the real foundation of this decision is FISA. If Congress prohibited this sort of eavesdropping via FISA, and didn’t carve out an exception under the AUMF, then the program is indeed illegal (since I don’t think the President’s inherent power argument much works here, even as to violations of a statute). If FISA doesn’t apply, though, then the program is permissible, because there’s no First or Fourth Amendment violation here.
See also, “NSA Eavesdropping Opinion and the Fourth Amendment,” and “NSA Eavesropping Opinion and the First Amendment”
****
update 3: Nice roundup by Flopping Aces, which includes a list of those plots thought or known to be foiled by the program. Meanwhile, AJ Strata explains how this ruling is designed to reinstitute the law enforcement paradigm for fighting the GWOT.
The one that worked so well in the Clinton years.
WE LOVE YOU 9/10/01! Or, CALGON, TAKE US AWAAAAAAAYYYYY!
****
update 4: I’ve received a couple emails noting that Glenn Greenwald seems to have willfully misread this post. To which I reply, of course. That’s what Greenwald does.
When he’s not busy building a stable of imaginary supporters, that is.
Sorry, but Greenwald has no credibility left. For those of you who are interested, the post is here. I haven’t read it, so I have nothing to say in response.
Though long-time protein wisdom supporter Ima Nadjef writes, “Trust me. It’s, like, total bullshit.”
Yes. The right to commit mass murder and only then to be sought for punishment must be protected.
F’ing putz.
Proper response of the executive (paraphrasing President Jackson in re Chief Justice Marshall):
Judge Diggs Taylor has made her decision; let her enforce it now if she can.
Chimpy ain’t got the stones to just come right out and tell a sitting federal judge to stuff it like Jackson did. He’ll leave that to the 6th Circuit.
Which will overturn, I have seen it.
SB: corps
de jure
My biggest mistake was not waiting for you pathetic infidels to finish your suicide pacts. Ah well to paraphrase a saying…”Die and learn.”
Glenn Greenwald must be beside himselves with joy.
Not sure if it matters, but if the Judge boots Taylor and marries Brian Cox, (the former Miami Dolphin) she’ll be Judge Anna Diggs Cox.
only by revealing secrets can we show the the secrets in question should not be revealed, lest they damage programs meant to protect us from attacks, which only work while details of how they work remain secret.
Nice try. Actually, the judge wrote that classified information was not required to defend the wiretap program. As in, it is no longer classified. Nowhere does she require the admin to reveal any secrets or even imply that any would need to be revealed, even hypothetically.
The “state secrets” defense is a trump card that, when properly invoked, requires a court to ditch the whole question of what the right answer is, because it would reveal important secrets to get there. The judge wrote that no such danger existed because everything we need is already in the open. No secrets are being aired as a result of this opinion.
I like the drowning test idea, Jeff, but I think we need to try it on the judge. Or on Andy Sullivan.
tw: Next. “Andy, you’re next.”
I think it’s entirely likely that every part dealing with substantive law will be overturned except for the sep-of-powers section, which surprised no one. It was 99% likely that the program would be halted (especially following Hamdan) if the plaintiffs could make it through the procedural hoops of standing and state secrets.
It is justice that is suposed to be blind, not the cops.
To demand privacy on a public act is cockypop.
There is no constitutional right for any one judge to declare any law unconstitutional, only an implied right.
Time to demand a correction in this judicial overreach.
When I saw that the judge had two last names, I knew the fix was in.
Woo hoo! Rule of law!
Who gets the first death threat?
Oh, Andrew Sullivan does.
Was this related to the Studs Terkel suit that had been tossed?
If it is, why would he think anyone in the NSA gives a rat’s ass what he talks about on the phone? Hell, I didn’t even know old boy was still alive.
Glenn Greenwald must be beside himselves with joy.
Mod up.
Which concern is, of course, more important than national security in a time of war.
I think the government believes that to properly defend the program, they’ll be forced to reveal things about the program they don’t want to reveal.
Sure, they can and have defended it in the court of public opinion. But this suit is a pretense suit so that the ACLU can find out what exactly the NSA was doing, which they’d then publicize. And that would make the program worthless.
Could be I’m reading the excerpts of the decision wrong—I haven’t looked at it very thoroughly—but what I’m getting is that the judge is saying the what the govt believes needs to be kept classified is not a barrier to defending the case, meaning that should they wish to defend the case, they either have to do so without revealing what they don’t wish to reveal (which they could believe is essentially to winning a defense case), or else they can reveal the classified info, which is what the ACLU is after, anyway.
Jesus, Mary & Joseph! We have attorneys determining the legality of military targets while they beat feet. Let’s just give these lefty shysters the Order of Allah and be done with it.
There is an appropriate Shakespeare quote,”Kill all the lawyers”. But, it would be wrong.
mojo, I’d love to see GWD tell the Court to get stuffed, in fact arrest the idiot judge for Sedition. It would, however, launch the moonbats into an impeachment frenzy.
The Volokh Conspiracy has a good legal analysis
http://volokh.com/
Wow, she even kept the poor bastards name. That must have been a nasy divorce settlement.
Sure she orders it stopped….But the reality is who knows when it will be stopped. Never I say. That what SECRETS are for. When will the libs learn their quest is futile.
Jeff,
Defendants assert that they cannot defend this case without the exposure of state secrets. This court disagrees.
From here it seems you’re saying the judge reasons that they can argue the case effectively without the need for exposing state secrets.
I read it a little differently. I think she only says that any state secrets that they are even claiming they need for an effective defense have already been exposed (without pointing any fingers, of course – different case!)
Doesn;t entirely solve the ambiguity, but I don’t think she’s going out on that limb of expressly ruling on the basis of what she admittedly doesn’t know.
Congratulations on being so quick to dig into the judge’s background–your ad hom reflexes are second to none.
Re: the ruling itself, it boils down to a pretty simple issue. Do you believe the founders meant to put the president above the law?
If you think they had a monarchy in my mind, and that Hamilton was only joking in Federalist 69 you’ll be disappointed by the ruling.
If on the other hand, you believe in everything you’ve been told, read and learned about the system of American Government since Grade 1 you’ll be happy with the ruling.
Only if you are currently entering Grade 3.
I love sock puppets…
Looks like we’ve decided to use the Constitution as a suicide pact in a time of war. But, then, you have to believe there is a war . . . and . . . and . . . DAMN NUANCES!!!
I say, let the executive branch run the war the way it deems appropriate.
Then, if folks don’t like the way it’s being run, they can vote for the opposition party in the next Presidential election.
Digg’s ruling will be fodder for the “impeach Bush” crowd. This faction knows that a coup d’etat (impeachment) is the only way they’ll ever see power this decade, so why wait for the next election?
Because patience is for adults.
-Steve
1. Yes, of course, no one ever points out that this judge or that was a Reagan or Bush appointee when they don’t like a decision. And if this decision is reversed, no one will look at the political backgrounds of the judges involved.
2. Actually, if we were going to dig on Diggs, we would point out that she was caught trying to reassign a landmark affirmative action case outside the blind draw when the judge hearing the case went public with a blistering opinion objecting to what he termed “the highly irregular” effort of the chief judge.
Moe said:
“Only if you are currently entering Grade 3.”
Sadly I think you’re right Moe–most eight year olds know more about civics than the easily frightened adults we see today who are in such a hurry to cast off the wisdom of their fathers.
You all know that when the president is convicted after being impeached the vice president takes over right? Nobody wants to impeach ‘ol chimpy, because then Cheney would take over… which is the only person who comes to mind worse then Bush. So… how would impeachment put the democrats in power?
Steve, having a rudimentary understanding of what you’re talking about is for adults.
Also, the ruling clearly states that the judge did look over the “classified” evidence, and determined that what the government was claiming as a state secret was not necessary to mount a defense of their.. uhmmm… “extralegal” warrantless wiretapping program.
Well, let’s see: if Cheney were to become president before November 2008, and he puts up a weak front during the presidential campaign because, as you said, nobody wants the “is the only person who comes to mind worse then Bush” to be re-elected, no matter what the fuck he promises, then the other guy would win. Last time I checked, the other guy is usually a Democrat, and they would have the executive branch back.
You seriously need to, you know, think these things through, Andy.
Bush could be impeached if he was to ignore Taylor’s ruling and allow the program to continue. But he wouldn’t really do that, would he?
I checked my consitution again and it STILL does not make the presidency inferior to the judicial.
Like I said back when the Supremes ordered Nixon to release the Oval Office tapes. Nixon should have replied “Just as soon as you release the tapes of your deliberations.”
Huh. How about that! And here I was wallowing in my rethuglican, knuckle-dragging ignorance thinking a judge’s position was, y’know, to rule on the law.
Silly me.
Is your copy “living” and “breathing”, Walt?
I can barely read mine what with all the “penumbras” and “emanations”.
Andy, the fact that the court did review classified information and still came to its ruling is in part what is so objectionable about the ruling.
The judge was provided classified information ex parte, and then reviewed it alone during an en camera inspection. After reviewing the information, she stated she was “convinced that [the information should remain classified] ‘because a reasonable danger exists that disclosing the information in court proceedings would harm national security interests or would impair national defense capabilities, disclose intelligence gathering methods or capabilities, or disrupt diplomatic relations with foreign governments.’”
The judge took it upon herself to decide that the classified information was “not necessary to any viable defense.” How can the government dispute that decision, or have it reviewed or further litigated, without revealing the classified information itself so as to demonstrate that the judge is wrong? That is one of the points I think Jeff was making.
Oh, and the plaintiffs who claimed they are being harmed by the program? Two are lawyers who “frequently engage in international conversations with INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE ALLEGED CONNECTIONS WITH TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS” and a journalist who has international communications with some WHO ARE SUSPECTED OF HELPING THE INSURGENTS IN IRAQ.”
Yeah. Better to stick your fingers in your ears during those conversations.
I tried to catch it and check, but the little rascal ran behind my desk.
I always kind of thought that the founders mighta thought it the President’s job, and the Congress’ as well to protect American lives above most things, but perhaps your side feels differently. You keep going with that meme, it’s worked well in the past right?
Remember the mantra: It’s not a war we’re in, it’s a police action, and only a small one at that.
What a precious little troll! Can we keep it, JG?
Yep, the decision was a fait accompli once these yahoos were accorded standing to bring the suit.
The outcome was to be expected.
I’m dying to see this go to the SCOTUS, where it can be dealt with once and for all, or at least be sent back to Congress.
But the reality is that the judge is black so obviously it’s a bad decision.
Please you are a pathetic bunch of Rovian whores.
If we get hit by a terrorist attack because of this ruling, then it will have been the wrong ruling.
/sticking my neck out.
Turing = french,…no, I’m not worthy of that one…
Of course it does. Idiot.
Oh god, a(nother) progressive invoking constitutional principle with archaic prose.
Next it’ll be old Ben himself extrapolating abortion priviledges from the Magna Carta for the Bill of Rights.
tw: Somewhere between lunacy and wholesale revisionism.
Here’s a novel thought. Maybe if we didn’t allow immigration from Islamic countries, we’d have significantly fewer terrorist candidates in our borders. Novel idea, right? Saudi Arabia has a large body of vitriolically, anti-American proto-jihadists. Gee, if we end their visa privileges, maybe they will be just rattling their sabres in their desert paradise instead of making us worry about a bomb vest going off in a Sbarros.
When will you people learn. Does it mean so much to y’all to give the Muslims the benefit of the doubt that y’all would rather risk another 9-11 while increasing state power tremendously, than simply keep the constitutional status quo and deport all Muslim non-citizens?
For all of the “Islamofascist” garbage and shaky comparisons to World War II, no one has made the obvious parallel that we didn’t allow Germans and Japanese to come to our country during the war, but we’re allowing potential enemy combatants to come here.
Ken sez:
Fuck you, Ken. I’m Rumsfeld’s bitch.
tw: He brought me this far.
“Next it’ll be old Ben himself extrapolating abortion priviledges from the Magna Carta for the Bill of Rights.”
Man you guys rock at writing stand-up. Bet the Evil-Doers would just roll over and quit if they caught a glimpse at the sophistication and sharpness of the humor on this thread.
kutgw.
I love how we’ve now defined ad hominem down to include quoting and linking an authorized online biography of the judge in question.
Listen, I can’t help it if some of you find the statement of facts damaging to the credibility of a legal ruling.
But I was unfamiliar with Judge Diggs Taylor, so I looked her up and posted the info. I don’t recall editorializing on her biography.
I did, however, editorialize on her ruling, which I’m not alone in thinking was quite strained. Angler fairly sums up my position above.
Also, the ruling clearly states that the judge did look over the “classified†evidence, and determined that what the government was claiming as a state secret was not necessary to mount a defense of their.. uhmmm… “extralegal†warrantless wiretapping program.
Um, yeah, except nobody appointed this judge in charge of conducting a war.
Actually, the judge wrote that classified information was not required to defend the wiretap program. As in, it is no longer classified
Let’s slow this down for the obviously mentally incapacitated liberals:
The existence of the program is no longer a secret.
THE METHODS and OPERATIONS are classfied.
Isn’t it funny how you “smart” liberals always need to define things in the most simplistic (and false) terms?
I don’t think judge diggs ruling is binding in other district courts. It does ,however, seem interesting that detroit has a very large muslim population. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Do you believe the founders meant to put the president above the law?
If you think they had a monarchy in my mind, and that Hamilton was only joking in Federalist 69 you’ll be disappointed by the ruling.
If on the other hand, you believe in everything you’ve been told, read and learned about the system of American Government since Grade 1 you’ll be happy with the ruling.
Really?
Can you then explain why The Fourth Circuit, Ninth Circuit, Third Circuit, Fifth Circuit, and the Second Circuit all have held that:
Just curious?
Take a stab there chief, please do.
Isn’t you the one frightened, that your overseas calls to swarthy men in lumpy vests might be monitored?
If I were you(and thank God I’m not, BDS isn’t pretty), I would worry more about the video cameras popping up everywhere.
What kind of racist assumes that just because she’s an idiot, she must be black?
oops, that should be:
Isn’t it you that is frightened…
TW:basic
yeah, yeah…
Isn’t you?
Behold, the power of One.
Separation of powers? Ehhh, not so much.
I wonder if she knows how LBJ broke the Klan?
Jeff, thanks for the note.
For those interested the cases are:
-Fifth Circuit in United States v. [Cassius] Clay, 430 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1970).
-Third Circuit in United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974)
-Ninth Circuit in United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871 (9th Cir. 1977)
-Fourth Circuit in United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980).
-Second Circuit in United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (1984)
Ken brought up Judge Taylor’s ethnicity.The shame is that she seems to identify herself more as her ethnicity than as an American,This is about as binding as the towns,who having elected a MSW to the city council ,suddenly start placing signs at the city limit proclaiming”nuclear free zone”.
Ken says: “But the reality is that the judge is black so obviously it’s a bad decision.” Meant to be a sarcastic put down to someone somewhere, I guess.
Here is where I found out that the judge was African American: Precisely when Ken said, “But the reality is that the judge is black so obviously it’s a bad decision.”
I worked my way back up to the top of the thread to see what I’d missed in comments that would have tipped me off. Nothing, as it turns out.
I read the post by Jeff again, this time including the Judge’s bio that he pasted in. Hadn’t read that part the first time through, because I just assumed it was a “canned” bio presentation, and I really didn’t and don’t care very much about a judge except for what they say and how they rule in cases. Sometimes I look at the bottom of a bio for academic ties, because I went to U of Chicago law and remain interested in that stuff.
I’ll pay more attention to the race of judges now, though, since Ken seems to think it’s an important determinant of competence to issue good rulings. Who’d have thunk it, Clarence Thomas notwithstanding?
Note to Ken: please explain yourself. I’m confused.
/hurts alpuccino under general principles
Not that I know anything about judges but I’ve “heard rumors” of judges prejudices showing more and more in court decisions. This seems to be an example/
Alas, the celebration at GiGi’s seems to be a bit subdued, from the comments:
Is that you, Andy?
Ken,
You are, in the words of my late father, “a total dickhead.”
The association of black and Judge Diggs came up WITH YOUR POST.
In any event, this one will go all the way to SCOTUS and then the background of the justices will be put in play by the screedy left who now tell us not to do so.
And, Ken, please chime in at that time with your opinion of Clarence Thomas, you race-baiting fuckwad.
Far from over, in any event.
If the existence of FISA provides a process by which a President can seek the approval of another democratically-accountable body to expand current legislation to get the powers the Executive branch needs, I figure the FISA grounds for the current ruling will hold up all the way to SCOTUS. (TW: Fine). The First and Fourth Amendment arguments seem a tad absolutist in a world of sobriety checkpoints and the like. We’ll see.
I guess what’s wearying to me is this: The Bush II Administration was preceded by the most wiretap-happy bunch in American history (before some of you rush to defend him, consult the ACLU archives). Clinton’s U.S. Attorneys and Solicitors General regularly made arguments for really breathtaking increases in Executive investigative powers. 8 months into the new Administration’s term 9-11 happens, and they’re pilloried for not having done more. It’s hard to imagine any political entity having ultimate responsibility for the safety of the U.S. population not pushing limits at least as far as had the prior Administration (again, without the, er, clarifying effects of 9-11).
It almost makes me want to see all responsibility ceded to the folks doing the complaining, to get a good look at how (or, frankly, whether) they’d do anything differently. Of course, there is always the possibility that doing the same thing would still be perceived differently by those shaping the narrative. Like I said, almost.
Hello Ace:
When you say:
I assume you’re quoting US v. Duggan. If so, Why the Power Linian subterfuge of leaving out the words “Prior to the enactment of FISA” that start the graph?
It’s quite important, because (Fourth issues aside) this is the very law the President stands accused of breaking.
Just curious.
Better question, Simple: why does that phrase matter? Does Congress, as a coequal branch of government, possess the power to restrict (by any means) the executive’s own inherent powers?
words “Prior to the enactment of FISA†that start the graph?
Ugh.
Um, guess what else was enacted prior to FISA?
The Constitution.
It’s quite important, because (Fourth issues aside)
Which means today’s ruling is garbage.
this is the very law the President stands accused of breaking.
Yawn.
If so, Why the Power Linian subterfuge
You have no credibility with statements like this.
We’re back to:
The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.26 It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.
The Founding Fathers certainly did NOT think:
“I always kind of thought that the founders mighta thought it the President’s job, and the Congress’ as well to protect American lives above most things, but perhaps your side feels differently.”
American lives would have been protected by remaining slaves to Great Britain, and allowing the unchecked Executive power (i.e., the King) to run things the way he wanted to, without being constrained by silly things like the Bill of Rights or a judicial branch. Americans decided it was better to be free rather than enslaved to Executive power (i.e., whatever the dimwitted President and his strange circle of sycophants think is best for us). All that being said, if you can explain, exactly, why the government can’t operate within the bounds of the law to catch terrorists, then your arguments might have more force. But they are pretty much just bare assertions.
We need to restock this lake. I keep getting nothing but minnows on my hook, not even worth the trouble of taking ‘em off and throwing ‘em back.
Because this is a war you fucking moron.
this is the very law the President stands accused of breaking.
By the way, if you note in today’s that:
Well, of course Judge Taylor is silent on the border search exception (Orin Kerr)
Curious, huh?
All that being said, if you can explain, exactly, why the government can’t operate within the bounds of the law to catch terrorists, then your arguments might have more force. But they are pretty much just bare assertions.
Actually, your assertions the government isn’t acting with in the law are, well, bare assertions.
Hint: you, nor the plantiffs today have no evidence of this.
Americans decided it was better to be free rather than enslaved to Executive power
I love such pompous language on a topic of which you know nothing.
“Because this is a war you fucking moron.”
Wow, brilliant argument. You’re really smart. Does the war also suspend general rules of intelligent debate and civil discourse? Maybe your time at vocational college didn’t teach you that the Constitution and laws of the land aren’t suspended in time of “war” (even assuming that the Congressional declaration constituted a “war.”). My point–which you obviously missed in your dimwitted stupor–was that courts sanction eavesdropping every day of the week and there has been no showing that the administration couldn’t accomplish the same objectives using a lawful process. Cheers to you, inarticulate one.
“I love such pompous language on a topic of which you know nothing. “
Well, let’s see, I have a degree in an American history and a law degree from a major university. Oh, and 15 years experience practicing law at a major law firm. And I’m a descendant of about a dozen revolutionaries.
What are your qualifications, exactly?
I think Honest Abe and FDR would quibble a bit with the weave on that blanket.
Ah–there it is…your BDS is showing. And it’s not even windy today.
Well, let’s see, I have a degree in an American history and a law degree from a major university. Oh, and 15 years experience practicing law at a major law firm. And I’m a descendant of about a dozen revolutionaries.
What are your qualifications, exactly?
Sorry, I don’t believe this.
Your over the top statements lacking in substance, fact, and law are evidence of this.
Oh come on – having a law degree doesn’t always mean something when supporting your argument. You suspended “civil discourse” when you referred to the Bush administration as “the dimwitted President and his strange circle of sycophants.” Don’t cop to Greenwald’s level on that score, and quit trying to play the morally and intellectually superior lawyer.
And lest I forget…
A. We probably all are.
B. So?
Well, let’s see, I have a degree in an American history and a law degree from a major university. Oh, and 15 years experience practicing law at a major law firm. And I’m a descendant of about a dozen revolutionaries
And I’m taller than you.
So there.
TW: simple.
I don’t like it, I love it!
Let’s see, and Jeff went to law school where, again?
I know it sucks that Bush can’t even break 50% approval in frickin Mississippi, and now the courts are proclaiming him to be a law-breaking war criminal, but please try to keep it together and don’t go down to the mall with an assault rifle, my wingnut friends.
And you went to which grammar school again?
Where?
Only in your deranged little brain, dude.
Well, strange little person, I’m sorry that you don’t “believe” in me! It would be a little strange for me to make up a persona as a boring litigator from an old fashioned family, but if it makes you feel better to think I’m delusional, feel free. (What more could I do to convince you I’m real other than wasting time posting here? Res ipsa loquitor!)
As for “substance, law, fact” etc…let’s start with the Bill of Rights, amplified by the Federalist papers and throw in a dash of FISA, which was, as I’m sure you know, passed in response to just the same sort of executive over-reaching as is currently fashionable. It’s pretty simply, really. Executive power can, of course, be limited by Congress and is always limited by the Constitution. (which, when Clinton was President, was a mantra of a certain subset foaming at the mouth over the President’s perjury) And the Constitution is what the courts say it is. Period. People who want dictatorship never like that part.
So, again, what exactly makes you the expert on any of these subjects since you declared that I dont know what I’m talking about? Hello? Is anyone there?
I know it sucks that Bush can’t even break 50% approval in frickin Mississippi
On topic?
No.
True?
No.
and now the courts are proclaiming him to be a law-breaking war criminal
Which courts again?
He’s still the President. Just tears at ya, huh? Remember–you guys nominated John Kerry. To be President. Of the United States. Just tears at ya, huh?
</blockquote>now the courts are proclaiming him to be a law-breaking war criminal<blockquote>
Missed that part of the opinion. Oh–you mean all the Hezbollah et al chants have the force of law…well then…THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING.
And the Constitution is what the courts say it is. Period. People who want dictatorship never like that part.
Just think, with your “law degree” you’re too dumb to see the incongruity here.
Stunning, I know.
…let’s start with the Bill of Rights,
Um, stupid, you better consult with all those circuits on this matter.
amplified by the Federalist papers
Ok
ATTN: Jackson
Your diligence has earned you a special message from the masters of the internets!
Message forthcoming:
“HINT: The winner of the argument is not usually the one who acts the most bemused and condescending.”
We hope this message is helpful to you! Good luck!
It would be a little strange for me to make up a persona as a boring litigator from an old fashioned family
I guess you never heard of GiGi…
There it is again. Check back with me on January 20, 2009…noonish EST.
Maybe the fever will have passed by then.
Oh come on – having a law degree doesn’t always mean something when supporting your argument. You suspended “civil discourse†when you referred to the Bush administration as “the dimwitted President and his strange circle of sycophants.†Don’t cop to Greenwald’s level on that score, and quit trying to play the morally and intellectually superior lawyer.
I agree–having a law degree doesn’t mean much of anything, except insofar as someone says I don’t know anything about the laws, Constitution and a court ruling. I just wanted to make it clear that I’m not just pulling arguments out of …thin air.
As for my comments about the President and his circle, they were strong partisan comments, but they weren’t the same as calling someone a “fucking moron.” Now THAT’s not civil discourse….
…
…
…
*Snicker*
…
…
*Unruly snort*
…
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! GNYAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! GWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!
Hahaha… *Wipes tear from eye* whoah… hey, buddy, you’re alright. I’ll buy you a drink next time you’re in town.
Turing Word: “george” as in, “George Washington would probably have an amusing reaction to that comment as well.”
I just wanted to make it clear that I’m not just pulling arguments out of …thin air.
Let’s be clear:
You’re not making “arguments.”
You are simply tying grandiose comments in a condescending manner.
You’re likely a grad student somewhere….
Translation: “… uh… well… you see, my comments… they weren’t uncivil, they were LOOK HE SAID A NAUGHTY WORD”
You are in the wrong place if you think that’s what happens here, Jackson. You’ve stumbled into a jumble of lawyers, soldiers, diplomats, business people, academics, and on and on…who don’t share your fevered notions that an NSA surveillance program targeting terrorists is a bigger danger than, say, terrorists.
And as for Bush and dictatorship–nice canard–runs a little low on facts.
You know, if I had a nickel for every student claiming a law degree to lend credence to their opinions…
*Shakes head*
Every time I see one of them, I think of Prosecutor Winston Payne (Small image link) of Phoenix Wright fame.
Ohhhh, look at the big man, not pulling arguments out of thin air. Look, jackass, we read PROTEIN WISDOM, okay? Do you think we’re interested in some kind of well-reasoned, fact-based argument? Of course not!!!11!! Facts and reasoning are for liberal pussies. That’s why the war in Iraq is going so great!!
My copy of the Constitution must be dead. There was nothing in it about the president being voted off the island.
Except that every four years electoral college business.
So it looks like the President can have a 100% unfavorable opinion and it matters as much as my opinion of John Kerry. Which, coincidentally, is 100% unfavorable but equally non-binding.
Is logic taught anymore?
*shrug* I’m sure lawyers didn’t always exist, and back when they weren’t around, there were still intelligent people who knew what the law said (and didn’t say). I’m sure intelligent people who don’t have a law degree are still around, and they’ve probably studied the law enough to know more than the rudimentary facts and have their own opinions about it. So while having a law degree is appreciated, waving it around as your badge of honor doesn’t matter in certain circumstances. Here, for instance.
I don’t know – you don’t strike me as being dimwitted, obviously, and it would be uncivil of me to call you as such.
Let’s be clear:
You’re not making “arguments.â€Â
You are simply tying grandiose comments in a condescending manner.
You’re likely a grad student somewhere….
And the “arguments” of the other wackos at this little corner of the “Internets” aren’t very interesting, so I will move on.
Ah, to be a “grad student somewhere…” Sigh. That was 15 years and 25 pounds ago. If only….
Fortunately for your side, there are more articulate people advocating your cause. Unfortunately for you, they are losing, in the real courts and in the court of public opinion. Good luck to you all.
We’re on the verge here os something being so laden with irony that it could form a black hole.
Seth, get me a beer, bitch.
Looks like Greenwald’s latest attempt to smear me has sent over a few of his condescending sycophants who’ve been duped by his characterizations of me and my commmenters.
I have no desire to re-litigate the NSA question. You can see my arguments here.
The ACLU found a former civil liberties attorney and Carter appointee to rule in their favor. The ruling will almost certainly be overturned.
I do, however, find it telling that people visiting this site for the first time seem to believe they have a feel for the place and for the commenters, and that they believe that people here haven’t done their homework.
Note that I said I find it telling. Do I find it surprising? Sadly, No!
And I’m a descendant of about a dozen revolutionaries
I admit, I was a bit skeptical of your “arguments,” but this “fact” put you over the top!!