| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/23 |
| 2006/8/17-23 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:44051 Activity:kinda low |
8/17 District Judge strikes down NSA eavesdropping program:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/17/domesticspying.lawsuit
Order (and subsequent Notice of Appeal) can be found as:
/csua/tmp/NSA_Order.pdf
/csua/tmp/NSA_Appeal.pdf
\_ Ok, the clock's ticking...how long will it be until a prominent
Republican advocates killing judges again?
\_ Ok, it's been more than 24 hours. Who has said that?
\_ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26236-2005Apr4.html
As with Falwell's statements supporting the 9/11 terrorists,
there is weasel room, but it's clear where these people stand
if you take off you really listen to them. I'm guessing the
same tool who ends up responding to this post saying that
he's "not really justifying the murder of judges" will be one
of the tools who claimed that Falwell was not siding with
the terrorists after 9/11. People like you will end up
destroying this country if you are not stopped or don't
change.
\_ Ann Coulter, who else?
http://tinyurl.com/k3uwu
\_ She is an entertainer, not a prominent Republican.
Try naming a prominent Republican. It's been several
days now and the total is zero, of course.
\_ She is prominent in the sense that she stands out
because she is blonde, thin, and female, which is much
different than your typical fat, bald, ugly middle-aged
guys who make up the majority of the Republican
gene pool. -Michael Moore
\_ Michael Moore is a Republican? Go figure... I never
knew that.
\_ Mihael Moore isn't bald. But Rush Limbaugh is.
\_ Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer, too. I'm
still waiting to see a prominent Republican
who called for death for this judge. it's
been several days now.
\_ you're mincing words. Ann Coulter is
both prominent and Republican. Which of
those words do you disagree with? -tom
\_ This is a sophomoric argument unworthy
of a Berkeley graduate. Any freshman
English major could tell you that words
formed into a phrase mean more than the
individual words apart. I'm not
mincing words, but you are trolling.
Go turn your degree back in at Sproul
or University Hall immediately.
\_ You are dismissing the fact that
the placement of aggressive
talking heads like Coulter and
Limbaugh on national media (billed
as commentators, not entertainers)
is part of a very intentional
conservative/Republican strategy.
-tom
\_ Who says they are commentators and
who placed them? Someone planted
RL at a small radio station almost
20 years ago planning for his take
over of conservative talk radio
today? I don't know how AC
describes herself but if you had
ever listened to the RL show you'd
know his byline is "here to educate
and entertain you", not "comment on
political stuff".
\_ Placing? No one "placed" either
of them. Now you're just being
ridiculous and conspiratorial.
\_ Read "Don't Think of an
Elephant." -tom
\_ He shoots! He misses!
You're a troll and a
conspiracy theory lunatic.
\_ tom's a lot of things, but
he's not a troll. big tip:
trolls don't sign their
names. better hunting
next time.
\_ signing doesn't save
one from being a troll
but ill just go with
conspiracy theory
lunatic since you're
ok with that.
\_ You know, it really
doesn't lend any
credibility to your
claims when you're
the one coming
off as a ranting
irrational lunatic.
irrational poster.
\_ If facts are
irrational then
so be it.
\_ Darn Al Qaeda activist judges who hate America?
\_ No judge (or judges) can stand in the way of the NSA defending
this country.
\_ Cuz that whole constitution thing is "quaint"
\_ What happened to the left's "living document" theory of the
Constitution? Or does that only apply when inventing new
rights or limiting others that the left likes?
\_ Welcome to a non-binary world, where we can have a
"living document" that changes to accommodate progress
while continuing to protect the citizenry from its rulers.
\_ All things in this world are limited, even the constitution.
\_ why do you hate america?
\_ America! FUCK YEAH!!! -T.E.A.M. America World Police
\_ what about executive privilege?
\_ Nah, that shit is unlimited. -George Fucking Bush
\_ Who will defend us from the defenders?
\_ Second Amendment, Defender of the Rest (seriously).
\_ You have to trust someone in order to live in society.
\_ Certainly, but that can still be a trust based on
supervision and accountability.
\_ I find your lack of faith ... disturbing -- Darth
Cheney
\_ Wrong Darth: link:csua.org/u/gpc
\_ Why does this Judge hate freedom?
\_ Because some things are worth fighting for. -William Wallace
\_ You mean LIKE FREEDOM?!?! -Mel Gibson #1 fan
\_ You mean like FREEDOM?!? -Mel Gibson #1 fan
\_ It doesn't matter. They're going to keep doing it no matter what
any court says. All hail King George! |
| 5/23 |
|
| www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/17/domesticspying.lawsuit -> www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/17/domesticspying.lawsuit/ Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the Bush Administration disagreed with the ruling and has appealed. "We believe that the program is lawful," he said in Washington. The administration secretly instituted the program after the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington. It gives the National Security Administration authorization to secretly conduct wiretaps without a court order. In a statement from the White House, Press Secretary Tony Fox said, "The program is carefully administered and targets only international phone calls coming into or out of the United States where one of the parties on the call is a suspected al Qaeda or affiliated terrorist. "The whole point is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks before they can be carried out," the statement said. In a 44-page memorandum and order, US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor struck down the NSA program, which she said violates the rights to free speech and privacy. Read the complete ruling -- PDF) The defendants "are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program in any way, including, but not limited to, conducting warrantless wiretaps of telephone and Internet communications, in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Title III," she wrote. She declared that the program "violates the separation of powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III." Her ruling went on to say that "the president of the United States ... has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders." In its statement announcing the appeal, the Justice Department rejected the judge's reasoning. "In the ongoing conflict with al Qaeda and its allies, the president has the primary duty under the Constitution to protect the American people," the Justice Department said. "The Constitution gives the president the full authority necessary to carry out that solemn duty, and we believe the program is lawful and protects civil liberties." The lawsuit, filed January 17 by civil rights organizations, lawyers, journalists and educators, "challenges the constitutionality of a secret government program to intercept vast quantities of the international telephone and Internet communications of innocent Americans without court approval." The complaint was filed in US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, based in Detroit. Plaintiffs included branches of the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Washington and Detroit branches of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Greenpeace. The judge in the case, Taylor, 75, was appointed by President Carter and has been on the Eastern District of Michigan bench since 1979. She is one of the first African-American women to sit on a federal court. Program under scrutiny Electronic surveillance programs run by the NSA have been under fire since December, when The New York Times disclosed that the government was listening in -- without obtaining a court order -- on international phone calls involving people suspected of having ties to terrorists. Some legal scholars said the program is an illegal and unwarranted intrusion on Americans' privacy. The Bush administration defended it as a necessary tool in the battle against terrorism. Opinion polls suggest the US public has been divided on the NSA program. on May 16-17 found that 50 percent of the respondents believe the program was "wrong," while 44 percent believe it was "right." The poll's margin of error was plus or minus 45 percent. The plaintiffs alleged their communications with parties outside the country were being monitored by the NSA's wiretapping program. The complaint said the NSA's surveillance disrupts "the ability of the plaintiffs to talk with sources, locate witnesses, conduct scholarship and engage in advocacy." On May 26, instead of responding to arguments attacking the legality of the NSA's eavesdropping program, the government filed for dismissal of the case. It cited the "US military and state secrets privilege" and argued the government would not be able to defend the domestic spying program without disclosing classified information. ACLU official calls ruling 'landmark victory' "Today's ruling is a landmark victory against the abuse of power that has become the hallmark of the Bush administration," said Anthony D Romero, the ACLU's executive director. "Government spying on innocent Americans without any kind of warrant and without congressional approval runs counter to the very foundations of our democracy. We hope that Congress follows the lead of the court and demands that the president adhere to the rule of law." Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, called the ruling "a strong rebuke of this administration's illegal wiretapping program. "The president must return to the Constitution and follow the statutes passed by Congress," he said in a statement. "We all want our government to monitor suspected terrorists, but there is no reason for it to break the law to do so." Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, said, "This has become another unfortunate example of how White House misdirection, arrogance and mismanagement have needlessly complicated our goal of protecting the American people. "By following the Constitution and our laws, we can protect both our security and our American values," said Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, said he backs the government's appeal of the ruling. "Terrorists are the real threat to our constitutional and democratic freedoms, not the law enforcement and intelligence tools used to keep America safe," Frist said in a statement. "We need to strengthen, not weaken, our ability to foil terrorist plots before they can do us harm. I encourage swift appeal by the government and quick reversal of this unfortunate decision." Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the White House agreed to submit the program to the FISA court for review. Specter, R-Pennsylvania, and the White House said they would support legislation that would consolidate about 30 lawsuits filed against the government, transferring them to the FISA court so there would be a single forum in which to litigate them. But the legislation has not passed through the Judiciary Committee, let alone the Senate, and it may never be approved, as Democrats have raised objections to a number of its key components. Specter was in India and not immediately available for comment on the ruling. CNN's Bill Mears and Andrea Koppel contributed to this report. |
| www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26236-2005Apr4.html All RSS Feeds Senator Links Violence to 'Political' Decisions 'Unaccountable' Judiciary Raises Ire By Charles Babington Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, April 5, 2005; John Cornyn said yesterday that recent examples of courthouse violence may be linked to public anger over judges who make politically charged decisions without being held accountable. Judges who make "raw political or ideological decisions" are concern, said Sen. Friday's Question: It was not until the early 20th century that the Senate enacted rules allowing members to end filibusters and unlimited debate. How many votes were required to invoke cloture when the Senate first adopted the rule in 1917? Sign Up Now "It causes a lot of people, including me, great distress to see judges use the authority that they have been given to make raw political or ideological decisions," he said. Sometimes, he said, "the Supreme Court has taken on this role as a policymaker rather than an enforcer of political decisions made by elected representatives of the people." Cornyn continued: "I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence. Certainly without any justification, but a concern that I have." Cornyn, who spoke in a nearly empty chamber, did not specify cases of violence against judges. Two fatal episodes made headlines this year, although authorities said the motives appeared to be personal, not political. In Chicago, a man fatally shot the husband and mother of a federal judge who had ruled against him in a medical malpractice suit. And in Atlanta last month, a man broke away from a deputy and fatally shot four people, including the judge presiding over his rape trial. Liberal activists criticized Cornyn's remarks, and compared them to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's comments last week following the death of a brain-damaged Florida woman, Terri Schiavo. Ralph G Neas, president of People for the American Way, said last night that Cornyn, "like Tom DeLay, should know better. These kinds of statements are irresponsible and could be seen by some as justifying inexcusable conduct against our courts." The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee called the senator's remarks "an astounding account of the recent spate of violence against judges, suggesting that the crimes could be attributed to the fact that judges are 'unaccountable' to the public." Cornyn spokesman Don Stewart declined to speculate on what instances of violence the senator had in mind. "He was talking about things that have come up and concerned him," Stewart said. In his speech, Cornyn criticized the Supreme Court's 5 to 4 decision on March 1 that said it is unconstitutional to execute people who were under 18 when they committed their crimes. "In so holding," Cornyn said, "the US Supreme Court said: We are no longer going to leave this in the hands of jurors. We are no longer going to leave this up to the elected representatives of the people of the respective states." In a recent New York Times article, John Kane, a senior judge in the US District Court for Colorado, wrote: "Since 1970, 10 state and federal judges have been murdered, seven of them in job-related incidents. Those who threaten judges are almost always disturbed individuals seeking revenge. Of the three federal judges killed in the last quarter-century, all were killed by men disgruntled with their treatment from the federal judicial system." |
| tinyurl.com/k3uwu -> www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/01/27/ann-coulter-we-need-som_n_14588.html Supreme Court Universal Press Syndicate columnist Ann Coulter "joked" during a Thursday speech that liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens should be poisoned. "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," Coulter said at Philander Smith College in Little Rock, Ark. She made other "off-color" jokes about liberal Supreme Court justices that made the audience "squeal," according to an article today in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. abusive US Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 7 > section 115 threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder, a United States official, a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official whose killing would be a crime under such section,... abusive In the same appearance she said that the crack cocaine problem had "pretty much gone away." Well in your house Ann, it certainly seems to have been replaced by something else. The emaciation, the eyes that never quite focus on anything and the deathly pallid complexion all scream "meth head." abusive Let the knee-jerk bashing by the Kool-Aid drinkers on the left begin! And please, in keeping with Huffy policy, do not forget to include at least one of the following in your rants: 1 All conservatives who disagree with you are "Bushbot Nazis". Derisive use of the term "neocon" for every post leaning to the right of Ginsberg. abusive I saw Ann Coulter speak when she came to my college and it was truly hilarious. Once you see her speak in person, you realize how much of a joke she really is. Its debatable, but I think she actually has a brain and just chooses not to use it, so that is why all she can do is regurgitate bigoted rhetoric that she heard at her Klan meetings. She says liberals hate America, but the only way that would be true is if we lived in her America. And, while her comments are outrageous, I think the really remarkable statement concerned crack. But, then, if someone thinks we're winning in Iraq and the economy is getting stronger, believeing we've won the drug war can't be that difficult a trick. abusive Can anyone explain why people like Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson are given airtime and/or print recognition? If this had been a more liberal/progressive personality saying these things there would be national outrage. abusive I'm sure Margeret Cho and Janeane Garofalo had something very clever to say on the matter but who was paying attention? Posted by: crackers on January 27, 2006 at 03:52pm but but but but but baaaaaa! abusive Let the knee-jerk bashing by the Kool-Aid drinkers on the left begin! And please, in keeping with Huffy policy, do not forget to include at least one of the following in your rants: 1 All conservatives who disagree with you are "Bushbot Nazis". Derisive use of the term "neocon" for every post leaning to the right of Ginsberg. Posted by: spamjelly on January 27, 2006 at 03:59pm but but but but but BAAAAA! |