Thanks, ACLU
The ACLU is trying with all its might to stop programs that help to prevent threats like the British airlines confronted last week, and it's won at least a temporary victory thanks to a federal district judge in Detroit.
See here and here and here for analysis from when this case broke -- and note that the judge has apparently ignored the precedents with which she disagrees politically.
The ACLU had better savor its victory now, because it's far from clear that this ruling will stand when more sober, seasoned jurists have heard the case.
As always, Investors Business Daily hits the nail on the head.
See here and here and here for analysis from when this case broke -- and note that the judge has apparently ignored the precedents with which she disagrees politically.
The ACLU had better savor its victory now, because it's far from clear that this ruling will stand when more sober, seasoned jurists have heard the case.
As always, Investors Business Daily hits the nail on the head.
posted by LadybugUSA at 3:03 PM
6 Comments:
That there might be disagreement amongst the judiciary should go without saying. That's why, for example, there's not just one Supreme Court Justice. The Hamden decision wasn't unanimous and but for one knucklehead it would have gone the other way. You and eddy-boy believe the decision proper only because it went your way. But in reality, it didn't go your way, because the public interest is best served by not getting blowed up. These decisions hamper the actions of those working to protect us, and those with BDS simply interfere. I won't accuse you, Fredrick, of suffering from that malady just yet, but eddy's got it bad! Thus, for him, winning the real fight is not as important as messing with Bush.
Judge Diggs Taylor, in addition to having been on the job over 20 years, is described by the liberal Detroit Free Press as a "...liberal with Democratic roots..." She once was married to the late Charles Diggs, Jr., Democrat congressman from Detroit who was convicted, censured by Congress and sentenced to prison for mail fraud and filing false payroll forms (he gave staffers pay raises, then required them to kick back part of the raises). She has banned nativity scenes from municipal properties in two Dearborn and Birmingham, MI. When the University of Michigan was sued for using race as part of its admissions criteria, she tried to take the case away from the judge to whom it had been assigned and give it to another judge, while her husband was a member of the UM Board of Trustees. (Another member of her court strongly criticized her for attempting to intervene.) Diggs Taylor was appointed to her post, after working for Jimmy Carter's presidential election, by Carter.
Even the leftist Detroit Free Press noted: ...if Taylor harpoons the spying program, experts said, the decision likely would be overturned by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals."
What standing did the plaintiffs have here? The suit Terkel had attempted to file was booted out for lack of standing.
What changed with the present suit?
The decision is improper because there is no Constitutional protections for the enemy. They don't have the right to conduct their terrrorist business in privacy. There's no precedent for forcing the commander in chief to beg for warrants to spy on the enemy. Why do you want to inter all Muslims when Bush just wants to investigate those suspected of having ties to the headchoppers? Why don't you drop the charade and just admit that you oppose these strategies because success will make Bush look good? Your concerns are hollow because they have no basis in reality.
Hmm... inter all Muslims. Sounds like something FDR would have done.
C'mon Fred. How do you REALLY feel?
This issue is what is debated, that FISA does not require warrants in times of war. I continue to hear Constitutional professors on radio shows like Hugh Hewitt and others describe how the president ISN'T breaking any law or infringing on Constitutional rights. Just today Prager had such a person on and another well versed in FISA law due to his government/military job spoke of section 13 allowing Bush's actions. (He didn't get specific and the guest began to comment when work prevented my listening). Bush's detractors constantly and predictably paint all of his actions in the worst possible manner. They accuse and suggest wrongdoing when none exists only to pump themselves up. I don't believe that anything Bush has been doing is done without intense consideration and discussion with all of his advisors from every sphere. I don't believe there is any evidence to suggest that his motivations for doing so are any less than for the absolute good of the country. While much of your scolding carries worthy points, none of us can live by your vision if we're dead. It's not my comfort I wish to protect in all this, but my life and the lives of my fellow Americans.
I don't recall anyone but Democrats wanting to take away guns. (I'm sure there must be some Repub so no need to list the very few). With this trouble, it's more likely that George would pass them out.
You damn well better believe it's political. The Dems have no other means of regaining power other than to squawk about the actions of this president. They use this era, when he has to act in a manner that is unique to the situation, a situation that FISA and other laws aren't really set up to handle, and they revel in the chance to accuse him of wrongdoing while caught in the imprecise dynamic of dealing with an unprecedented foe.
I will state that I don't believe you are insincere in your position and your feelings about the situation. But I believe your position and feelings are based on the insincere blather from Bush opponents. Bush isn't concerned with imposing on innocent citizens or even innocent foreigners. He's concerned with preventing attacks that are difficult to predict. He's trying to be proactive with a goe that seeks to come up with a new way to kill people.
As far as rights and law and the Constitution, war changes things. Martial law, if declared, infringes on rights big time. Yet, it is not prohibited. So to say Bush is breaking a law and to do so without considering the war we absolutely MUST win is NOT dealing with reality. And no one has been forthcoming with evidence to suggest that Bush is acting out of evil or selfish intentions. Sure he could fail. Don't support those who are trying to make that happen.
Post a Comment
<< Home