NYT editorial: Judge "reasserted rule of law over lawless administration"

[DeepModem Mom]

Editorial
Ruling for the Law
Published: August 18, 2006

Ever since President Bush was forced to admit that he was spying on Americans’ telephone calls and e-mail without warrants, his lawyers have fought to keep challenges to the program out of the courts. Yesterday, that plan failed. A federal judge in Detroit declared the eavesdropping program to be illegal and unconstitutional. She also offered a scathing condemnation of what lies behind the wiretapping — Mr. Bush’s attempt to expand his powers to the point that he can place himself beyond the reach of Congress, judges or the Constitution.

“There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution,” wrote Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the United States District Court in Detroit. Her decision was based on a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

She said Mr. Bush violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act when he ordered the National Security Agency to spy without a warrant on international phone calls and e-mail by Americans and foreign residents of the United States. She noted that the surveillance law was passed to prohibit just this sort of presidential abuse of power and provided ample flexibility for gathering vital intelligence. She also said that the program violated the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as the rights of free speech and association granted by the First Amendment.

The ruling eviscerated the absurd notion on which the administration’s arguments have been based: that Congress authorized Mr. Bush to do whatever he thinks is necessary when it authorized the invasion of Afghanistan....

***

(The White House will appeal the decision.) But for now, with a careful, thoroughly grounded opinion, one judge in Michigan has done what 535 members of Congress have so abysmally failed to do. She has reasserted the rule of law over a lawless administration and shown why issues of this kind belong within the constitutional process created more than two centuries ago to handle them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/18/opinion/18fri1.html

[Tellurian]

1. Wonder how long this Judge will last?

You have Courage dear Lady-

You are a WAR Time Judge-
You deserve a Medal!

Thank You, Mam!

[RonHack]

12. An even more interesting question:

Will the White House manage to get this ruling overturned?

Granted, this Administration got slapped down for their handling of "enemy combatants" (by the Supremes, no less), but all they're planning is to re-write the rules of "civilized" combat.

What will they do about this, I wonder?

I doubt they'll acquiesce, or even obey. a

After all, they can do no wrong, right? :sarcasm:

Man, they'll never learn......

I just hope We The People will.

[billyskank]

30. Won't they just stonewall it?

Who will stop them?

[spanone]

41. They are calling her an 'activist' judge and a (oh!NO!) a liberal!

Do they think this will end with name calling? I M P E A C H M E N T.

[flyarm]

53. AND THE JUDGE THEY BASHED IN FLA WAS NOT A LIBERAL!

THIS IS WHAT FREEPERS DID TO THE "CONSERVATIVE " JUDGE IN PINELLAS FLORIDA OVER THE TERI SCHIAVO CASE!

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/wp-print.php?p=3778

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

August 17th, 2006
Judge Anna Diggs Taylor–please meet Judge George W. Greer
By: John Amato @ 5:53 PM - PDT
Judge Anna Diggs Taylor will receive some of the same kind of treatment that Circuit Court Judge George W. Greer in Pinellas County, Fla, did during the Terri Schiavo saga.

Greer has been described as a "compassionate conservative" and a deeply religious man — yet he has become the radical anti-abortion movement’s public enemy number one. He has been at the center of controversy for seven years now because the case involving Terri Schiavo happened to end up in his court. The New York Times ran a front-page piece on Greer the other day. This is a judge who has been forced to make some tough decisions. Throughout the ordeal, one never got the impression that his opinions were anything but carefully weighed and deliberated. He has always treated both sides with civility and respect. And although he must be frustrated over the Florida legislature’s constant grandstanding over this issue, Judge Greer has remained cool and calm on the bench.

Randall Terry, an anti-abortion activist who has a very dark past (Read WOC for background) said that judge Greer just wanted her dead. So I’m sure that’s what we’ll be hearing about Judge Taylor.



http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/08/17/judge-anna-diggs-taylor-please-meet-judge-george-w-greer/


THE CONSERVATIVE NEO CON TYPE ARE SOME DAMN EVIL SON OF A .....

FLY

[erknm]

60. Don't hang your hat on this one, ,

right or wrong, it will be overturned. Before I begin to receive the flames, understand that I believe the TSP is illegal. However, like the embarrassing decisions coming from the 9th district, this decision does not help support my position much, it is such a bad decision that it will likely be easily overturned. I would have preferred a more carefully considered evaluation of statute. In either case the administration would do one of two things:

Either they would ignore the decision and force the ACLU to try to put the president in jail, or

they would appeal.

This decision makes the second option the easy choice.

Part of this is the venue. The 6th district has consistently placed issues related to security over those of civil liberties. However, beyond that, the decision itself is also very poorly reasoned. Even the phrase that the original author chose to include indicates that Judge Taylor found her reasoning more in the popular press than in statute:

"There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution" indicates a complete lack of reasoning. It plainly states that she has presumed to both understand the attitude of the administration and feels empowered and authorized to act on it. Neither of these presumptions are relevant to this case. Her decision reads more like a newspaper editorial than a legal decision.

She states elsewhere that "The TSP program is clearly and obviously a violation of the (FISA)" Neither of these assertions is true. One of the reasons this is so difficult a case is that it is not clear, and it is not obvious. FISA allows off-ramps to get around a court warrant.

She never forced the plaintiffs to demonstrate damages. Essentially she forced the administration to prove that the TSP was legal, which is obviously not going to stand to appeal. She never forced the various authors, reporters, etc. on whose behalf the ACLU brought the complaint, to demonstrate (prove) that they were harmed. I cannot figure if this is what the ACLU wanted, or if they would have preferred a more bullet-proof decision.

As I said, I have looked at this, (although my field is more along the lines of law and econ), and I believe that the TSP is a violation of FISA. I think what the administration is doing more than listening to selected international calls from/to parties in the US (which is not a violation of FISA). I believe that they are randomly listening using an algorithm to identify the calls they will record. FISA did not presume that such technology existed and as such this is likely a violation. However, it is not so difficult to imagine an amendment to FISA to recognize the new technology in play here.

FH

[Toots]

68. FISA allows off-ramps to get around a court warrant.

No it does not.. It allows for time delays of as much as fifteen days before obtaining a warrant but in every single case a warrant is needed. The Constitution is quite explicit in this matter. Your objections sound more like desperate hope than reasoned thought. Most judges give an explanation for their rulings in "layman's terms". The reasons for her ruling was based on her interpretation of the Law and that is exactly what judges are supposed to do. The Constitution is ambiguous in many areas but in this particular area there is little ambiguity.

[erknm]

69. It will sound like a flame, but

First read the beginning of my post again, I do think the program is illegal. Had you paid any attention to that statement, you would have not wasted time with the "desparate hope" comment.

Not only is it possible to legally not require a warrant under FISA, it is possible even for a second observation.

As for judges offering their decisions in layman's terms, I must be standing in the wrong court. It is not only not the responsibility of a judge to provide a decision that can be communicated to the masses with no interpretation, it is also far too much work.

You are correct, there are judges who offer decisions that can be easily included in a 30 second news story, but they are normally judges who want their decisions included in a 30 second news story. Taylor's decision was written for reporters.

As I have already said, I believe the administration is acting illegally here, but I do not think Taylor's decision has helped this cause.

Frankly I do not even think we need to discuss FISA here, just the fact that the plaintiff in this case was not required to show damages could be enough to rule.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. So... Where The %^&# Were The Congressional Democrats?

Bush's actions have been the most unabashed attack on the Constitution by a President in the history of our country. He claimed the right to be absolute, unchecked dictator of the US. The site of Gonzales telling the Senate that the President would be happy to hear their suggestions - i.e., that Congresses laws were only suggestions, and not binding on the President - was the most disturbing thing that I've ever seen in our government.

So WHERE ARE THE CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS ON THIS, other than Feingold, Conyers, and a handful of others? Instead of doing what they're supposed to do - fighting the would-be dictator tooth and nail - they run like terrified puppies whenever anyone mentions censure, impeachment, or any of the other instruments at their disposal.

I am appalled. Truly appalled.

I thank the Creator that we still have a functioning Judiciary. I hope that We The People will wisely use ourr voting power to restore functionality to the Executive and Legislative branches - they are utterly broken.

[DeepModem Mom]

4. Very good question! nt

[TankLV]

57. A very good question indeed.

I've been wondering for over 6 years at least now...

[EFerrari]

5. They were letting him hang himself. Which might be a good idea

if he didn't take out a good number of American citizens and their resources while he was at it.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Back When I Was A Kid...

... it was called "fiddling while Rome burned", or "sitting on your ass while lobbyists showered you with cash, and hoping that someone else dealt with it".

Did you realize that we're talking about the fundamental underpinnings of our country here, not some bundle of pork tacked onto a bill?

"I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other." - Ben Franklin

[EFerrari]

8. Yes, and less abstracted, the kids that will die in Iraq tonight

because the Constitution has been subverted.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. But The DLCers Will Get Re-Elected

So it will be worth it, no?

(I give up. This has all become too fucking crazy. What ever happened to decency, to doing the right thing?)

[EFerrari]

11. We are doing the right thing from grassroots up. Not as sexy

but more solid in the long run. Hang in. :)

[babylonsister]

15. I love you for your common sense, friend!

:hug:

[EFerrari]

18. Enough to go 'round.

:hug:

[MrCoffee]

38. Lipstick on a pig, my friend

"Letting him hang himself" my ass. They were doing NOTHING. Ain't one of 'em worth a steaming turd on this issue.

[Voltaire99]

Indeed, Manny. There are many ways to serve fascism.

One way is to tread softly in fear of losing Security Mom votes.

[TahitiNut]

21. As an independent liberal, I ask that constantly.

I'm appalled at my government - the "best that money can buy" and the death of justice, equity, and democracy.

[vkobaya]

25. Sheeze, Even the Republicans

should see that Bush is a traitor, despot, tyrant, etc. I'm
deeply disappointed in every one in Congress, not just the
Democrats but should be more Republicans who have the good
sense to oppose someone as vile, evil, hateful and destructive
as Bush. In the past, we had such men of both parties whose
loyalty was to the nation and their oath of office rather than
to the party and the almighty buck donated to their campaign
funds by the damn, damn, greedy, criminal corporations. We
often note this is the worst occupant of the Oval Office ever,
but it's far worse than that. This is also the worst, most
craven, most mendacious Congress ever, and that includes
Republicans who should be better, more loyal, courageous,
honest and have the integrity of leaders. None are leaders,
none deserve to serve in our Congress, none deserve the honors
that accompany their offices. No character, no spine, no
integrity anywhere like those are despised or forgotten,
laughable values last seen Cervantes [i]Don Quixote[/i].

[Sherman A1]

32. Agreed

A very good question and a very sad commentary on all, but the very few who stood up and asked why are we doing this? Our support should be to those who, supported the Constitution not those who ran for cover!

[kath]

59. They're very, very busy keeping their powder dry, as always.

It's very, very wrong to criticize the congressional Democrats, don'cha know? The powder MUST be kept dry. It would be SO inappropriate for them (except for Feingold, Conyers, etc.) to speak ill of Our Fearless Leader and his party. It's just so unseemly for there to be an "opposition pary" in times of war.

[EFerrari]

3. How clever of the NYTs to now condemn the government they

made sure stayed in power.

I am so not confused on this point.

[orwell]

26. Bingo...

...it's called cut and run.

The NY Times held on to this story which would have likely torpedoed Bushco's 2004 campaign.

[EFerrari]

27. And they never reported Ohio. They said there was no story there,

they said they would report any story there and they still haven't reported that Ohio is a great big Republican sinkhole.

The New York Times is a piece of crap.

[glitch]

56. Fear of Collaboration Trials, perhaps? nt

[young_at_heart]

6. Gonzales's rationale....the Intelligence agencies like the program

I heard him say this on our nightly news.

[Atman]

10. But the judge was just an old, black, woman. What does she know?

Give me the opinion of a wealthy octogenerian White man any day! They know the freakin' law, man!

[IndyJones]

28. I want to kiss that woman! Finally, someone is stepping up.

[kentuck]

13. She must have blown them away when...

she said the "national security issue" was not relevant to the issue at hand. If the powers are not in the Constitution, you don't have them, Mr President...

[pinto]

14. Regardless of what comes of the Admin's appeal, this is a great

decision. Goes to the heart of the matter with a clear rebuke to their outrageous and illegal claims.

I love Judge Taylor's slap at their assertion of "inherent presidential powers" - since the executive was created by the Constitution, the only "inherent" power in play here is the Constitution -it doesn't work the other way around.

[EFerrari]

19. Torquemada looked almost ill on camera when he went to do spin control.

He looked as if someone had just punched him in the stomach.

[rodeodance]

23. they were not expecting this decision today.

[EFerrari]

24. They don't seem to be very good at expecting anything.

[wordpix2]

64. does anyone have the video of this & Bush's reaction?

[MannyGoldstein]

20. The Appeal Will Go Nowhere

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like five members of SCOTUS went far out of their way in Hamdam v. Rumsfeld to say that Bush's arguments here were utter crap.

[orleans]

16. K&R n/t

[Voltaire99]

17. Proof again: our only hope against Bushism is the bench.

Obviously as the past six years show, we can't count on timid corporate mediocrities in Congress.

Nor, for long, can we on the remnants of an aging liberal bench. When they're gone, then what?

[rodeodance]

22. 'in a time of war' This is what Gonzals kept saying over and over during

his brief press conf. today.

[Justice Is Comin]

29. America only stumbles and bruises in it's journey of democracy

it has never, and will never, acquiesece or capitulate until the wrong doers are destroyed and the bedrocks of our revered constitution restored.

bush you are starting to feel the weight of that crushing pendulum coming back. :patriot:

[BlooInBloo]

31. Biggest question: Will the ruling survive appeal?

There are less sympathetic ears in the judiciary, ya know...

[intaglio]

33. OK so I'm a Brit and therefore ignorant ...

I've been looking both here and at Huffpo, where the nutz went crazy about this. Now what I see are the US wingnuts and others justifying the presidential (abuse of) powers by saying "it's a WAR". I thought only Congress could declare a state of war to exist. The mobilisation and war powers that the Pres has as an executive only last until Congress has the opportunity to confirm or deny these powers.

So how is it a war?

Iraq 2 was not a war; as I recall it was, supposedly, a police action to enforce the will of the international community as expressed at the UN. You cannot have a war against a noun (terror, drugs). You cannot have a War against an undefined community (terrorists, terrorism) unless you evenhandedly go for all those communities - ie the Kurds, the Basques, the Shining Path, the 'real' IRA etc

So I repeat how is it that some say "It's a War"?

[emmadoggy]

63. I could kiss you.

"Iraq 2 was not a war; as I recall it was, supposedly, a police action to enforce the will of the international community as expressed at the UN. You cannot have a war against a noun (terror, drugs). You cannot have a War against an undefined community (terrorists, terrorism) unless you evenhandedly go for all those communities - ie the Kurds, the Basques, the Shining Path, the 'real' IRA etc"

This is exactly what a huge portion of our population seems to have forgotten. I haven't. Many/most here at DU haven't. The whole notion of the "war on terror" being a REAL war is like nails on a chalkboard to me. It's a war on a social/criminal problem. Whenever administrations have created these so-called "wars" - like the "war on drugs", the "war on poverty", etc. it is simply a label to put on a particular social ill that will have a more front and center focus with new laws/enforcement/social programs. The war on terror is the same thing. It's an international crime problem. "Terror" is not a country or military entity that we can just go into battle with and defeat. It's criminal behavior that requires undercover intelligence, apprehension, and prosecution to combat - along with security measures (preferably that don't trample all over our civil liberties!).

And as for the Iraq "war" you are correct about that as well. It was not a declared war by Congress. This administration has churned out so many "reasons" and "purposes" for the "war" that most people don't even remember anymore what it was "supposed" to be about. This administration has done one thing (and one thing only), really well - and that is to completely obfuscate this issue to the point that some people believe everything they say, hook, line, and sinker and another huge chunk simply don't know what to think, but are too lazy to try and sort it all out so just go with the flow of it. There are so many people in this country who just cannot seem to wrap their brains around the idea that a President of the United States and his administration could actually be a pack of lying, evil, criminal bastards who are systematically dismantling our constitution and the fabric of our democracy. It is beyond comprehension to them.

Some are waking up, but it is taking painfully too long.

Thank you so much for your insight. Sorry for my rant, but it is just so refreshing to see someone spell it out so clearly and so perfectly as you did. It just makes me want to scream, "YES! YES! YES!! THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU!!!"

And Welcome to DU!!!
:hi:

:toast:

[mkb]

34. Spying Can Cause Harm To Anyone

     President Bush is doing MORE than trying to simply
disobey Congress, he is trying to establish a surveillance
regime that will collect information on people unfriendly to
his power structure.
     It must be stated clearly that anyone who disagrees or
opposes this administration could have information collected
regarding their various activities and used to discriminate or
harm such people.
     People that pay attention and struggle for justice know
that secrecy is usually a greater evil than good, and must be
have careful and thorough democratic oversight.  So the
explanation must be expanded to demonstrate the danger
presented to EVERYONE in our society that might come under the
negative scrutiny of those wielding power through secrecy. 
This is a bit of good news that should spur us on to
continuing the careful and cautious pursuit of justice.

[DallasNE]

35. It Is About Time

Gonzales claim is not that Congress authorized these lawless acts with the Afghanistan resolution since a congressional act cannot suspend the 1st and 4th Amendments. Rather, Gonzales is claiming inherit rights under Article II trumps the "peacetime" protections granted under the 1st and 4th Amendments when activated by Congress. In other words Gonzales is going after the Judge's statement that we have no King in America by showing that Article II indeed makes the President a King when Congress activates Article II with an authorization to use force. It defies common sense, but since when has anything made common sense with the Bush administration.

Since this Judge wrapped this ruling around the Hamdin decision the odds should be quite high that it would prevail by a 5-4 decision in the Supreme Court.

Lastly, her comments on the power of the President should lay to rest the use of signing statements and all of the other gimmicks created by Bush to alter the laws and enforcement by extra-legal means as she was very clear in stating that the President may propose legislation but that once Congress has passed a law the President has two choices; veto or enforce.

[brg5001]

36. Another LIBBBERALL activist judge trying to change our traditions

One of our most sacred American traditions is under attack! Ever since we entered a permanent state of WAR with (FILL IN THE BLANK), our government has made an ever-increasing share of the budget "top secret" and therfore beyond even the most superficial scrutiny. Extra double-secret documents, meetings and surveilance activities have proliferated like horseflies on elephant sh*t. Why? Because we're at war with (FILL IN THE BLANK).

How dare this namby-pamby, LIBBERALLLLL appeaser Jimmy Carter appointee rule against a noble constitutional scholar such as Texas real estate lawyer (and Attorney General) Alberto Gonzales? He's in the 100-degree club, for crying out loud. Yes, he's one of the brown people, but he's got a realistic Texas accident and he knows that if you stamp any surveillance policy with a name like al-Quaeda, it's got to be good.

Don't the LIBBERALLLS understand that we're trying to fight a war on (FILL IN THE BLANK)? That's why we can't trust judges to issue warrants. One of the judges could be Anna Diggs Taylor and she might say "No." Think about it! Like Dick Cheney said, the "Democrat" party loves al-Quaeda, so their judges will tell al-Quaeda members like Saddam Hussein, Ned Lamont and other suspects ahead 'a time that we're tracking them. That's why we need the leadership of Frat Boy King Shrub. He's looked into their souls. He knows their heart. And he'll do whatever is necessary to prevent the next outbreak of Snakes on a Plane!

[beckstcw]

37. Not trying to be obnoxious here

"Ever since President Bush was forced to admit that he was spying on Americans’ telephone calls and e-mail without warrants"

That's a bit misleading. I mean, it's not like they were just randomly listening in on people. There were simply times where, say, a suspected terrorist was recieving a call from Pakistan or somewhere and there wasn't time for a warrant.

And, yeah, the NYT is crap.

[brg5001]

39. The Constitution says otherwise

The NYT isn't the issue. The Constitution doesn't give the President the right to assert that he's not spying on us. It requires oversight. I thought conservatives believed in LAW and ORDER.

[ProfessorGAC]

40. Do Some Research.

You said, "There were simply times where, say, a suspected terrorist was recieving a call from Pakistan or somewhere and there wasn't time for a warrant." Wrong! They were randomly doing it, and they could do it, under FISA IMMEDIATELY(!!!!) and then go to the court AFTER THE FACT to get the warrant. There is no such thing as "not enough time".

Enjoy your brief stay. Then go eduacate yourself as to the real facts. Limbaugh's not on right now. You'll have time.
The Professor

[brg5001]

42. Exactly, ProfessorGAC. FISA court will backdate warrants!

Ouch! In the middle of shooting the messenger, this Glen Beck-inspired reactionary needed to check his facts. If indeed the FISA law needs to be revised, and the administration makes a good case for revising it, we have this wacky little thang called a Congress that once practiced institutional oversight. The Bush apologists need to look into it.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

44. Why are you so sure that they are ONLY spying on terrorists? Because

Gonzo and Chucklenuts say so? Puhleeze - those guys would lie their asses off in a confessional. I wouldn't believe a word those guys said even if their tongues came notarized.

This is the same play book that Nixon and Hoover used - they are watching any body and every one who might upset their little apple cart of power. Since no one can verify who or what they are watching then I would take the most prudent course of action and expect them to lie, cheat, screw the system and generally trash this country. In today's world if a repug says it then it is a big, fat lie. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice....

Don't ever, ever trust a repug.

It is nice that you have such confidence in their statements.

"There were simply times where, say, a suspected terrorist was recieving a call from Pakistan or somewhere and there wasn't time for a warrant."

I've got a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in purchasing.

[jsamuel]

45. either you are grossly uninformed or you are in denial

[ProfessorGAC]

46. I Choose "A"

Gets all information from talk radio. Denial would require initial understanding. Methinks no such event has yet occurred.
The Professor

[jsamuel]

50. yes, that does appear to be the circumstance

[Lance_Boyle]

47. There were 3 days for a *retroactive* warrant

under existing FISA law.

[beckstcw]

48. Oh

If retroactive warrants were available anyways, then my argument is nullified.

Thanks for informing me guys.

[brg5001]

49. You're welcome! And welcome to DU

Beyond the issue of retroactive warrants, though, is the question of TRUSTING the administration's assertions vs. the Constitution's requirements that probable cause be demonstrated to an independent court. Whatever happened to Reagan's call to "Trust But Verify"? This is an administration that has repeatedly demagogued the issue of surveilance and vilified its opponents as being against all spying. The question is whether we will have warrantless wiretaps, not whether we will have wiretaps. Again, if the law needs to be revised, then make the case and take it to Congress. Hell, the Repubs are in CHARGE of the Congress.

If you are seriously interested in progressive politics, then you're where I was about 2-1/2 years ago. I'm an ex-conservative who finally recognized that I was surrounded by reactionary jerks, and I didn't like what I had become. Learn the facts first, or ask, and keep an open mind...

[jsamuel]

51. no problem, welcome to DU

You are making the effort.

[ProfessorGAC]

52. Then Perhpas Your Research Was Done Right Here At DU

It can be an informative place.
The Professor

[yodermon]

55. hey beckstcw, welcome..

the biggest thing that gets me here is that the admin. is claiming that they don't need to get warrants, ever for thier "terrorist surveillance program".

Well, that's just great, but if warrants are NOT required, what's to prevent a corrupt president, (let's call her "hillary" just to pick a name) from wiretapping her political opponents in secret? There's no independent check or balance on her activities. THAT's my big problem. That's why we have a 4th amendment, a FISA court, and separation powers. Shrubco is disregarding all 3.

Now, all you have is his word that he's not violating your rights. Some may trust him on this, but there will not always be a president in office whom you trust.

:hi:

[newyawker99]

54. Hi beckstcw!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[wordpix2]

66. how do YOU know Bushco isn't randomly listening in? He didn't go to FISA

court so only Bushco knows who they are listening in on. They could be tapping Congressional Democrats' phones or anyone's phones, email and websites. There's already ample evidence they illegally tapped/spied on antiwar and environmental groups.

To Bushco, peace activists=those who aid terrorists.

[spanone]

43. The best line from this editorial is:

~snip~ one judge in Michigan has done what 535 members of Congress have so abysmally failed to do. ~snip~

[AntiFascist]

58. Isn't Cheney trying to classify anti-war Democrats as terrorists?

With this thinking, the administration should then be able to wiretap certain Democrats' phone lines who may be discussing an anti-war agenda, with the excuse that this is in the interests of national security. Bush's assertion that "We are at War!" would give him license to commit a Watergate-like crime that Nixon would be proud of, since he is above the law.

In Bushworld we are a not a Nation of Laws, we are a warmongering globalist corporatocracy where "We the People" no longer matter.

[wordpix2]

65. yes, now peace activists including Lamont voters are "aiding terrorists"

[AnnInLa]

61. All thru school, I was taught that the Executive Branch

was the branch that enforced the laws that the Legislative Branch passed and that the Judicial Branch interpreted. So, the bush's executive branch is going to enforce any opinions against them, even if by the Supremes? Hide and watch it not happen.

[professor_grove]

62. the mobsters on the Supreme Court

will overturn her. The Bush crime enterprise is covered, no worries.

[wordpix2]

67. question is, can we get enough Dems in Congress in '06 to have an impact

so the Supremes won't have the only say. Congress has the authority to impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors so it could overrule a Supreme Court ruling, maybe. Any Constitutional scholars out there who can weigh in?

[professor_grove]

70. don´t expect much

even if Dems gain control, they confirmed bigots Roberts and Alito without any kind of resistance, didn´t they?