Man, what did I miss?
Looks like Harry Potter just put the troll back in it's cage, took all my fun away too (KK did much better than I ever could have dreamed to)
Nice Work kk, you're getting your money's worth from your education, obviously.

Amazing how these guys lie. Aren't they concerned that someone will notice?

Like who?

Rory? TheKing of Apologists? Whoever thought there was no policy against photographing coffins of dead soldiers returning home?

Those who notice already knew. And those that don't never will.

I hope you're wrong, Dan S., but afraid you're right.

KK

Post more often, that was fun to watch

Oh where , Oh where has TK gone? The facts have scared him away. Maybe he will reappear as????? !Rory Blowhard Bellows! It is amazing that once facts appear the worms go back under the rocks. No more talking points until todays Rush "oxcicoten" Lumbaugh show.

Look at all the monkey humpers with nothing to say or add on top of KK.

KK you lay down a smoke screen to cover up the source of the issue. Hate for GW nothing more nothing less. Lets go piece by piece sometimes its easeir to get theough the smoke slowly.

"Blind Shiek , American Citizen?"

Did I ever say he was? Imagine this for a second people helping him where US citizens.

"Your lack of repsect for Constituionality is disturbing from a so called 'strict constructionist'"

I live in the real world not a made up one or a rationalized one. This country is as far from the costitution as it has ever been. I posed the question on another thread KK. If you are so opposed to the infingement of rights then I take it you support the over turning of laws that take second ammendment rights away from Convicted, suspected criminals? You are also all for anyone being able to carry a gun anywhere anytime. When you are I can smoke a pound of pot and pretend like you do that this constitution is applied as intended.

In all fairness maybe you just missed the point. Its about legal interpretation and maybe even more so about ethics. Maybe you are not doing what you accuse me of and are really not sucking off the blogs and liberal rags on this matter. Maybe you are a legal scholar. Here are all the possible sources. I imagine you have looked and read them all completely to mount your case. I imagine that the Sc has a hotline set up at your business just in case they need help. You are full of [Bleeeeep!] pal if you think for two seconds that you have the difinative answer on this issue. http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/guides/national_security.cfm

Its this simple. My case says Bush was right to do this. It was not illegal. I beleive my view will prevail at the end of the day as it has on almost every issue that pops up from the left in an attempt to undermine this admin. FISA Art II and case law will show GW acted within his right as CIC. the left will try to amend laws to stop this from happening again.

bush was not spying on suspected terrorists......he was spying on suspected opposition....... they spy on most activist groups......they sent homeland security to my house to inverview me for being a political activist..........

i hope bush rots in hell !!!!!!!!!!!!! are ya listening homeland security?????/ cuz ill tell ya the same thing when you come back to my house, you piece of **** punks......

Lupo, an article going around the internet from a paper back east relates how a student at Dartmouth
was interviewed by homeland security for requesting a copy of Mao's "Little Red Book" on an inter-library loan. He wanted it for a school paper he was writting. They came to his home too.

Maybe you guy's should stock up on tin foil along with doubling your meds?


They're coming to take me away,
Haha, they're coming to take me away,
Ho ho, hee hee, ha ha,
To the funny farm
Where Life is Beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those Nice Young Men
In their Clean White Coats
And they're coming to take me AWAY,
HA HAAAAA

You thought it was a joke,
and so you LAUGHED, YOU LAUGHED
When I had said that losing you
Would make me flip my lid,

RIGHT?

You know you laughed.
I HEARD you laugh, you laughed
And laughed and laughed
And then you left,
And now you know I'm Utterly Mad

It keeps piling up just like every issue before. KK.


Clinton Deputy A.G: "President had legal authority to OK taps

By John Schmidt, Published December 21, 2005

President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.

The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.

In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."

The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an "agent of a foreign power," which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.

But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

FISA contains a provision making it illegal to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." The term "electronic surveillance" is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication "sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person" (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by "intentionally targeting that United States person." The cryptic descriptions of the NSA program leave unclear whether it involves targeting of identified U.S. citizens. If the surveillance is based upon other kinds of evidence, it would fall outside what a FISA court could authorize and also outside the act's prohibition on electronic surveillance.

The administration has offered the further defense that FISA's reference to surveillance "authorized by statute" is satisfied by congressional passage of the post-Sept. 11 resolution giving the president authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent those responsible for Sept. 11 from carrying out further attacks. The administration argues that obtaining intelligence is a necessary and expected component of any military or other use of force to prevent enemy action.

But even if the NSA activity is "electronic surveillance" and the Sept. 11 resolution is not "statutory authorization" within the meaning of FISA, the act still cannot, in the words of the 2002 Court of Review decision, "encroach upon the president's constitutional power."

FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation. What was needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case-by-case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment.

Should we be afraid of this inherent presidential power? Of course. If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense. The danger is that surveillance will not be used solely for that narrow and extraordinary purpose.

But we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11. I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again.

----------

John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States. He is now a partner in the Chicago-based law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw."

KK,

Been missing your thoughtful posts.

It's too bad TK has been descending to Rory's level of discourse lately. Don't expect him to learn anything from this thrashing you're giving him, however. He deflects, he dodges, he calls people Liberals like that actually serves some purpose, he posts citations that don't really support his claims . . . it goes on. It's made me wonder if he really does have the mental hardware you gave him credit for. One of the members suggested renaming TK King Troll, and I think it fits. He posts some interesting topics to bait reactions that he then jumps all over with increasingly assinine counter-attacks. I've decided that, in the spirit of the holiday season, he just isn't worth the time, even if the original topic was interesting.

Got the Spey rods at the ready for when this water recedes?

Merry Christmas!

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

TK = Gollum
Keyboard = My precious

Quit blowing smoke then KK and cite the case law and the all the sources that will be used in court to convict GW. I provided a link above that will make it easy for you. Lets see your case. Show us how you know more about the law than the AG, Many lawers and above the former assistant AG under Clinton.

One would think that with your open and shut case that you would be waving the impeachment banner like a friggin maniac.

Lets see the meat of your case KK. You keep referenceing more to come but it never comes.

"Your assumptions regarding Delay, et al, while far from being over and settled, show you have decided in your mind that Delay, Rove , Ambramoff etc are all settled. Unfortunately for that point of view, none of those cases have even gone to court, and all the incidents you refer to are currently under investigation"

More smoke, shape shifting etc. You and those that follow you around had convicted these people . It turns out that you where premature and lacking all the facts. I will not put percentages on your factual hit rate because its safer to let you believe you are the expert.

For someone that gets down and rolls in the mud your indignant nature is laughable. Go sell it somewhere else I ain't buying.

Old hag. It certainly does and people not living in double wides with real fancy diplomas and real world expertise disagree with you, the fish counter and the landscaper. The devil is in the details between ArtII, FISA and the patriot act which you clearly have not read any of them and are certainly not capable of weighing the popints off law in commopan and conflict. So STFU and come up with your own points of discussion for a change and quit the monkey humping.

concerning frequently cited United States v. Sinclair, commonly referred to as the Keith Decision, in 1972.

Judge Keith found that then-President Richard Nixon and then Attorney General John Mitchell could not engage in warrantless wiretap surveillance of three individuals suspected of conspiring to destroy government property because the surveillance was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The decision was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit and unanimously upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

When are you going to show me how it is legal for a president to SPY on US CITIZENS without a WARRANT?? without giving me a biased opinion editorial piece that is suggesting W should be let off the hook.

TK,
are you on the payroll of a right-wing "think tank"? The word is that people can make money sitting at the keyboard all day, "participating" on boards, spinning the radical right talking points they are fed. If you're not getting paid to do this, you should be. No one should have to endure the humiliation you endure for free.

KK,

I am waiting for your case quit dodging. Spell it out , line it out piece by piece. Citing 1500 FOI cases does nothing you have not done to date which is imply and spin to bash GW. FOI cases in and of themselves are menaingless quit playing ames.

Playing to a partisan crowd is different than being in hostile territory.Notice after each and everyone of your post there is an avg. of 3 monkey humps saying nothing. I could find a web site where everyone agreed with me and pat myslef on the back like you do . Go to a right wing dominated website and postt your I hate Bush slander pieces and lets see how you fair.

I roll in the mud for fun. I can enjoy juvenile humor like Howard Sterns with out a care of what the neighbors think. You take yourself too seriously and care too much about what others think. The eastside is a great palce for you. Safety in numbers.

This whole thread has been pretty much people posting facts to show that you are emphatically wrong, your argument is inarticulate and unfounded. KK has over and over proven you wrong.

Balls in your court wee-todd, time for you to submit another editorial that has no foundation in truth but is merely another ploy by the right to support the CIC although he has certainly not upheld the constitution.