Author: has written 1136 posts for this blog.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

16 Responses

  1. Heliologue
    Heliologue August 17, 2006 at 1:29 pm |

    Why does Judge Taylor hate America?

  2. Josh
    Josh August 17, 2006 at 2:11 pm |

    I hate that fucking terrorist-friendly First Amendment.

  3. ole blue
    ole blue August 17, 2006 at 2:28 pm |

    Out of the abyss of fear, ignorance and conformity comes a voice of sanity.

  4. belledame222
    belledame222 August 17, 2006 at 2:32 pm |


  5. piny
    piny August 17, 2006 at 2:36 pm |

    Ha! Okay, that was totally what I thought, too.

  6. Sophist
    Sophist August 17, 2006 at 8:20 pm |

    Damn activist Presidents!

  7. whimsy
    whimsy August 17, 2006 at 9:59 pm |

    My mother works there! — although not under Judge Taylor, although she knows her. I’ll have to let her know about this the next time we talk.

  8. Defenseman Emeritus
    Defenseman Emeritus August 18, 2006 at 10:44 am |

    In this case, the President has acted, undisputedly, as FISA forbids.

    While I’m sure many, if not all, writers and commenters here agree with the legal decision, the pull quote above is patently false. It most certainly is not undisputed that the President has acted as FISA forbids. The mere fact that Taylor’s decision is being appealed disproves that statement.

    For my part, I don’t know if the NSA wiretapping program violates FISA or not. But it’s not too bright to call that assertion “undisputed,” particularly when consensus across reaction that I’ve read seems to be that her judgment will be overturned on appeal.

  9. Defenseman Emeritus
    Defenseman Emeritus August 18, 2006 at 11:52 am |

    FISA requires warrants for communications that take place entirely within the United States.

    FISA 1801 (f) (3):

    “Electronic surveillance” means—the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States;

    Because the NSA program is targeting communications with suspected terrorists outside the US, FISA does not apply to those calls.

    I agree that the President would have gone ahead with the program regardless, as the administration is also justifying it as another use of force pursuant to Congress’ resolution authorizing the use of force in the wake of 9/11.

    BTW, people that support the NSA program are not necessarily “warbloggers.”

  10. Defenseman Emeritus
    Defenseman Emeritus August 18, 2006 at 1:33 pm |

    Nothing you quoted refutes my argument. al Qaeda does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Just because it doesn’t fly with you doesn’t mean it doesn’t fly.

    Your snippy tone indicates that you don’t welcome ideas that from your own, so I don’t think I’ll be back. Enjoy your echo chamber.

  11. Medicine Man
    Medicine Man August 18, 2006 at 3:27 pm |

    Where did DE go? Oh well… just another person with a completely intractible opinion on the subject who will go to any length to avoid having his preconceptions challenged. How ordinary.

  12. Christopher
    Christopher August 18, 2006 at 5:16 pm |

    Not that I’m a legal expert or anything, but doesn’t saying, “Al Qaeda has no expectation of privacy” sort of assume the thing to be determined by the wiretapping?

    I mean, isn’t that sort of saying they have no expectation of privacy because they’re criminals, which we’ll prove by wire-tapping them?

  13. raging red
    raging red August 18, 2006 at 5:37 pm |

    Yes, Christopher, that’s basically the wingnuts’ whole argument in a nutshell — “the evil liberals don’t want the government to be able to listen in on Al Qaeda’s phone calls!” As if we can tell who is or is not an Al Qaeda member just by looking at them. Oh wait — they do think that.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.