Former FISA Judges: Bush within the law / Leftist slaps Captiol Hill Police Officer / Tough Talk

(Jaundiced Caterwauling)


Blog For Free!


Archives
Home
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 August
2007 July
2007 June
2007 May
2007 April
2007 March
2007 February
2007 January
2006 December
2006 November
2006 October
2006 September
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 December
2005 November

My Links
Global Warming Causes Everything
A democrat that doesn't make the veins in my neck explode every time she opens her mouth.
Analog
Baen Books
Brainchild of a Conservative Anomaly
Lesson along the scenic route through purgatory
How Democrats can get away with this bullshit astounds even me!
BBC
Billings Gazette
Big Lizards
Brain Terminal
Colorado Public Radio
Clinton Iraq 1998
Chaos Manor
Democrats vs. Republicans on race issues
Drudge Report
Fox News
Jerry Doyle
Google News
Junk Science.com
Just Barking Mad
Little Green Footballs
The Montana Misanthrope
Montana Politics
Neal Boortz
NO PC Forums
Opinion Journal
Q and O Newsroom
Rabid Sanity
Random Nuclear Strikes
Reference Desk
Sirius
The American Thinker
Thoolou's Lair
VOA News
Victor Davis Hanson
World Tribune
Zombie Hall of Shame (not for the faint of heart)

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images


Sponsored
Blog



Former FISA Judges: Bush within the law / Leftist slaps Captiol Hill Police Officer / Tough Talk
03.30.06 (8:21 am)   [edit]
The "Ushering in a long dark night of fascism" crowd needs to take a look at this:

A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).
    T he five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.
    "If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. "I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute."
    T he judges, however, said Mr. Bush's choice to ignore established law regarding foreign intelligence gathering was made "at his own peril," because ultimately he will have to answer to Congress and the Supreme Court if the surveillance was found not to be in the best interests of national security.
    J udge Kornblum said before the 1978 FISA law, foreign surveillance was done by executive order and the law itself was altered by the orders of Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan.
    I t has been three months since President Bush said publicly that the NSA was listening to phone conversations between suspected terrorists abroad and domestically. The actions raised concerns from Congress and civil liberties groups about domestic spying, but the judges said that given new threats from terrorists and new communications technologies, the FISA law should be changed to give the president more latitude.
    S en. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican and committee chairman, called the hearing to get advice on his bill that would expand FISA to codify less stringent rules on wiretapping of domestic phone conversations with suspected foreign terrorists and include new technologies like the Internet and satellite communications.
    S en. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, said the Congress should pass new legislation to ease existing restrictions under FISA. 
    H owever, we should not rush to give the administration new powers it has not deigned to request, based on concerns it has not articulated," Mr. Leahy said.
    T he panel of judges unanimously agreed that the law should have been changed before now to deal with new threats from terrorists and new communications technologies, a point made by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat. 
    I t is confusing that if you take something off of a satellite it is legal, but if you take it off of a wiretap it's not, she said. We need to include new technology.

Nice try Russ....

Cynthia McKinney (D) Leftist, slaps a Capitol Hill Police Officer:

Here is the way it was reported to have happened.  Cynthia is entering one of the House office buildings.  It wasn't the building in which her office is located.  She was not wearing the lapel pin that identifies her as a member of congress.  She exercises her privilege of walking around the metal detectors.  The police officer doesn't recognize her and goes after her.  That's his job.  When he (chose one) (a) place his hand on her shoulder; or (b) grabbed her arm, she turned around and (a) hit, (b) punched (c) slapped him in his (a) face (b) chest with (a) her open hand (b) her fist (c) her cell phone.

How long before this becomes an impeachable offense, conducted by the Bush Administration's shock troops as further evidence of "the long dark night of fascism"?

Democrats get tough on National Security...4 1/2 years after
9/11:



Nanci Pelosi, unblinking, shiny and clad in a red, white and blue necklace of small balloons, said this:

Pelosi, D-Calif., said Democrats were providing a fresh strategy--"one that is strong and smart, which understands the challenges America faces in a post 9/11 world, and one that demonstrates that Democrats are the party of real national security."

I'm not going to laugh, I'm really not.......

Scenes I'd like to see:
GITMO Demands met.
 


posted by: (reply)
post date: 03.30.06 (2:38 pm)

Democrats can always say they're "for national security", but their world-view doesn't support the notion. They just can't fathom a situation where military force is needed, short of a (totally unrealistic) invasion of the US.

Even Bill Clinton called Al Queda a "legal" problem, not a military one.

Your Name:


Your Comment: