Bush vs the Constitution.

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a pretty unpersuasive opinion. It spends most of its time vaguely developing fourth amendment arguments and much less time considering how the surveillance program relates to FISA. I predict reversal in this opinion's future.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read a good write up of this opinion earlier today.

It's similar to yours, but they point out that since the arguments are based on CONSTITUTIONAL law, not the FISA crap, that there's a better chance of this being held up in court. In the end, there is no legal argument for acts which are Unconstitutional, until they try to change that too. They can try to spin it in Public Opinion and the press, but the Court hasn't bought it. They deal with the Law and Constitution. And as of today, this program is Illegal. Bye bye, illegal wiretapping, till the appeals process.

every time a goddamn scoundral opens his mouth, it's to claim that what he did was "Legal" Then the courts say they're not, and of course, the scoundrals say it is - cause they're lawyers and it's their job to talk.

But all the talk doesn't change the fact that warrantless wiretapping of US citizens is against the principles of the Constitution, and virtually everythng this President does is a violation of Constitutional law, from his illegal signing statements to his unjust wars.

There will be a reckoning, yes there will...

The Constitution is more important then what GWB thinks.

RB

[bisonbison]

The sad thing is, the Coulter article is better than the Limbaugh article. She's a sociopath, but she's still more coherent than Rush.

Exsubmariner, if you read and agree with the spirit of those arguments, you're an idiot of great purity. Cherish yourself and never remove yourself from the idiot box you came in, lest you lose value.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
The Coulter article is better than the Limbaugh article. She's a sociopath, but she's still more coherent than Rush

[/ QUOTE ]I understand that the Limbaugh "article" is actually a transcript, only slightly edited, of the man's on-air monologue. Coulter sits down and writes her piece.

I don't know if she actually sits down, I'm just speculating.

Quoting Coulter, from ExSub's link: [ QUOTE ]
"This terrorist plot — like all other terrorist plots — was stopped by ethnic profiling. Without the ethnic profiling going on outside of airports, no security procedure currently permissible inside airports would have prevented a terrorist attack that would have left thousands dead."

[/ QUOTE ]Coulter seems fixated on "ethnic profiling", which she apparently suggests is the ultimate weapon against terror. (Notice the hyperbolic "all other plots".) What the British achieved in the recent scare, they achieved primarily through intelligence and not through "ethnic profiling" as such.

Of course British intelligence snooped within the Muslim communities first and foremost - but that's like the policeman watching more intently a bunch of people who have threatened the store owner.

IMO, ethnic profiling means moving pro-actively against certain ethnic groups and then sorting the guilty out. The British did not target Muslim passengers specifically but all passengers. It was the intelligence that was pointed towards their communities and other places that brought results, just as British intelligence was focused on Ireland and other places when they were dealing with the IRA. (Notice too that Coulter is, as usual, cavalier with her terminology: This would NOT be ethnic profiling, but religious profiling. Muslim extremists come in many nationalities and ethnic groups.)

Mickey Brausch

[kickabuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Coulter article is better than the Limbaugh article. She's a sociopath, but she's still more coherent than Rush

[/ QUOTE ]I understand that the Limbaugh "article" is actually a transcript, only slightly edited, of the man's on-air monologue. Coulter sits down and writes her piece.

I don't know if she actually sits down, I'm just speculating.

Quoting Coulter, from ExSub's link: [ QUOTE ]
"This terrorist plot — like all other terrorist plots — was stopped by ethnic profiling. Without the ethnic profiling going on outside of airports, no security procedure currently permissible inside airports would have prevented a terrorist attack that would have left thousands dead."

[/ QUOTE ]Coulter seems fixated on "ethnic profiling", which she apparently suggests is the ultimate weapon against terror. (Notice the hyperbolic "all other plots".) What the British achieved in the recent scare, they achieved primarily through intelligence and not through "ethnic profiling" as such.

Of course British intelligence snooped within the Muslim communities first and foremost - but that's like the policeman watching more intently a bunch of people who have threatened the store owner.

IMO, ethnic profiling means moving pro-actively against certain ethnic groups and then sorting the guilty out. The British did not target Muslim passengers specifically but all passengers. It was the intelligence that was pointed towards their communities and other places that brought results, just as British intelligence was focused on Ireland and other places when they were dealing with the IRA. (Notice too that Coulter is, as usual, cavalier with her terminology: This would NOT be ethnic profiling, but religious profiling. Muslim extremists come in many nationalities and ethnic groups.)

Mickey Brausch

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all suicide bombers in the present day are of Middle Eastern descent. So in this case religious profiling is akin to ethnic profiling.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Coulter is, as usual, cavalier with her terminology: This would NOT be ethnic profiling, but religious profiling. Muslim extremists come in many nationalities and ethnic groups.)

[/ QUOTE ] Correct me if I'm wrong, but all suicide bombers in the present day are of Middle Eastern descent. So in this case religious profiling is akin to ethnic profiling.

[/ QUOTE ] We are not looking simply for your run-of-the-mill Palestinian or Iraqi suicide bombers. We are looking for would be suicidal-hijackers of airplanes. Look at the 9/11 list of perpetrators.

Muslims countries include Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sudan, Morocco, Libya and others. I would also place Turkey among them, since the Turks insist they are Europeans...

Those countries are NOT of the Middle East.

And may I throw in the number one suspicious group, IMHO, as far as terrorist acts in Britain are concerned? It's actually British citizens.

Mickey Brausch

[BluffTHIS!]

One of the following two statments is true, so you legal experts tell us which one:

1) A district court judge's ruling only has validity to future actions within that district unless confirmed by a higher court (NSA can continue to conduct warrantless wiretaps in other juridictions while it appeals for this one or just not conduct them in Michigan and not appeal and continue on in other jurisdictions);

2) A district court judge's ruling has validity as to the entire nation and the NSA is effectively stopped from conducting any such action in the entire country unless it appeals and gets a reversal.

[iron81]

Bluff,

A district court does have the authority to grant injunctions against the entire Federal government, so this Detroit judge in theory has the authority to halt the program. But in this case, the order was put on hold pending appeal. I didn't hear whether the judge himself did this or the appellate court did it for him, but for cases like this that are obviously going to be decided by the appellate courts, issuing a "stay" is standard.

[BluffTHIS!]

My question was as whether that injunction can apply to areas outside its immediate jurisdiction or not.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
My question was as whether that injunction can apply to areas outside its immediate jurisdiction or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

In theory, yes. The judge is a federal judge, so that judge's jurisdiction is the whole country. The confusion here is that no other judge in the country has to give any weight to what this Detroit judge said, so if a similar case were being argued in Virginia, that judge could just as well rule the program was legal and the appellate process would have to sort it out. The Supreme Court is the only court that sets precedent for the entire country and the appellate courts beneath the SC set binding precedent as well, but only for their regions.

[BluffTHIS!]

Then logically that interpretation, which I understand to be correct as well, should mean that if the NSA should choose to comply within that jurisdiction and not appeal, but continue on with the program in other jurisdictions, then acts committed in those other jurisdictions would not furnish anyone with standing to assert non-compliance before that district court.