F.U. right wingers. NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional

[Arrian]

*raises eyebrow*

[DanS]

And?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I don't understand the basis for the 1st amendment claim.

Isn't it SOP for the plaintiffs to claim it violates everything under the sun?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by DanS
And?

Nothing?

-Arrian

[RoboCon]

Hello there! I see you are discussing Judicial tyranny. Perhaps I can be of assistance.

Yet another liberal homo-loving judge writing love sonnets to the Muslim world it abhors the racial profiling of. What good is liberty if you are too dead to use it? And what more of that freedom, to answer for, for us it? Kerry?

Terror-apologists may always be as vivid as their hallucinations, not to make rain, of course, but just to freak everybody out. The chances of another attack like 9-11 are probably 80-90% in the coming weeks. I'll wait for you whiny liberals to deny it.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Isn't it SOP for the plaintiffs to claim it violates everything under the sun?

Good point. As I understand it, the administration is accepting the negative inferences by not providing much detail to the judge. The ACLU can claim that the administration is doing all sorts of stuff that they aren't doing, and the judge will agree.

I understand why the administration would do this and can't fault their judgment (not knowing the details myself), but they are going to be hammered in the press until they reveal the operational details to the supremes and the supremes say it's OK.

[Blaupanzer]

Supremes would just as soon not rule on this. The compromise is to put the NSA program under the FAISA court, where secrets can be discussed among those in the know. This program only came to public attention because the Bushies are so arrogant. If they'd stuck with the FAISA process, none of us would even know they do it.

Now Congress has reraised the "no civilian can tell another civilian anything marked secret (or higher) without going to jail" law that Clinton vetoed way back when. Under this law, if passed, all those that revealed this program would "go straight to jail, do not pass Go." Currently, the feds have to prove actual damage to national security in order to jail whistleblowers and corresponding reporters.

Random, warrantless searches are against the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Suppression of speech is against the First Amendment. This program was shown to do both these things to at least one Federal judge.

[NeOmega]

Don't pay attention to this, the big news is they caught a Pakistani woman with two suitcases that a dog detected at least explosive traces on:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5261456.stm

[Dinner]

Lord Avalon, while I resepect you for actually reading and knowing our constitution I can't believe you are bothering to respond to a person like Geronimo who's post consisted of "Derrrrrr, I don't know what is in the constitution so I will say stupid **** and pretend I am smart".

Since we are responding to such ignorant people let me just say that Geronimo needs to go back to grade school because he obviously either didn't take or failed his civics class.

[Japher]

tells us how you really feel

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS

Nothing.

Assuming the Congress isn't a totally partisan piece of **** then they would impeach any president who knownly and willfully violated the constitution. This president has, however, our current Congress is filled with partisan pieces of dog crap who wouldn't know their duty if it bit them in the ass.

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Lord Avalon, while I resepect you for actually reading and knowing our constitution I can't believe you are bothering to respond to a person like Geronimo who's post consisted of "Derrrrrr, I don't know what is in the constitution so I will say stupid **** and pretend I am smart".

Well, it's a distraction from work.

Since we are responding to such ignorant people let me just say that Geronimo needs to go back to grade school because he obviously either didn't take or failed his civics class.

One could charitably call it a "teaching moment."

Of course some teaching moments require application of the Giant Clue Bat.

Repeatedly.

[Dinner]

I agree. You should be beaten senseless with it. Maybe then you'd understand the fourth amendment without someone explaining it to you.

[Blaupanzer]

Nothing in Geronimo's question is out of line with the current disinformation campaign conducted by the party in power. You all know that the Constitution does not address wire-tapping or the interception of wireless or satellite communications. These things did not exist at the writing. So we extrapolate from what is there to the current situation. The Bushies have chosen a different extrapolation path and know full well that no one in Washington has the balls to challenge them on this.

So patiently answering questions like those posed by Geronimo is much wiser than calling him names because he wants us to do his homework. Behave, stay true to the course, recruit when you can. This is what the good guys must do in an age of righteous tyranny.

[Dinner]

Hmm, ok. It does seem an aweful lot like the inane "Topic X is not directly mentioned in the constitution" dispite the fact that topic X was part of English common law and widely practiced at all times in the history of English speaking people in North America. Namely, it sounds like people being deliberately obtuse because they know that if the actual facts were discused then they would have no case.