NSA's program unconstitutional per Fed. Dist. Judge

[Hackalicious]

People seem to forget that an American president could just as easily use terrorists like Eric Robert Rudolph, Ted Kaczynski, and Timothy McVeigh as justification to spy on white males, southerners, conservative Christians, anti-abortionists, ex-military members, or gun owners.

We still haven't caught whoever mailed anthrax to two Democratic senators and Tom Brokaw. Sounds like they had a grudge against Democrats and the liberal media. Maybe a corrupt, Machiavellian Democrat could use this terrorist profile as justification to secretly spy on his or her political opponents.

[peterwho]

Why not fix the original problem -> foreign policy that breeds individuals to want to run planes into buildings?

Do you really believe that foreign policy is the reason that two planes were crashed into the World Trade Center Towers, one into the Pentagon and one aiming for DC on Sept. 11?

Specifically, foreign policy that had been in-place for the few months that President Bush had been in office?

[Campbell]

Why not fix the original problem -> foreign policy that breeds individuals to want to run planes into buildings?

Do you really believe that foreign policy is the reason that two planes were crashed into the World Trade Center Towers, one into the Pentagon and one aiming for DC on Sept. 11?

Specifically, foreign policy that had been in-place for the few months that President Bush had been in office?

Foreign policy is exactly the reason that happened. Not that it was bad foreign policy, but obviously somebody disagreed with it. That doesn't mean we should change our foreign polcy if we feel it is the right one. The perception of America in the world is impacted greatly by our foreign policy, if it wasn't how would countries and groups formulate opinions about our country? I doubt the widespread hatred of America in the Middle East is the result of American tourists.

[sohotrightnow]

I doubt the widespread hatred of America in the Middle East is the result of American tourists.

I don't know man. There have been a few times while in Europe that I have been appalled by the boorish behavior of American frat dorks who think they can get away with anything. But you are right though, I don't think that element ventures to the ME often.

[BucLax13]

Why not fix the original problem -> foreign policy that breeds individuals to want to run planes into buildings?

Do you really believe that foreign policy is the reason that two planes were crashed into the World Trade Center Towers, one into the Pentagon and one aiming for DC on Sept. 11?

Specifically, foreign policy that had been in-place for the few months that President Bush had been in office?

hmm...remember that every president since Eisenhower has used our military to "enact" policy or change all over the world. It is not a bash on Bush thing, nor is it his policy specifically (more the continuation of crappy policy). I see the role that America is taking in the world to be similar to any previous colonial empire. I don't think it is our place to be playing world police, and using our tax dollars to set up businesses to make certain individuals rich. If they wanted America safer why not put all the military we have spread out through the world in our airports and on our borders? But remember that wouldn't work because then we would all feel safer now wouldn't it.

[Rob Graff]

This is a fascinating opinon blog by Joe Scarborough - who, although he says he voted for POTUS 2x and would do so again - advocates keeping POTUS out of the glare of press conferences to aid in the fight against terrorism


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6330851/

Here's a quote:

If George Bush has lost his ability to give a commanding presser, then stage manage him differently. Play to his strengths. Control Bush like Deaver controlled Reagan. Show him only in settings where he is in control.

It will provide comfort to our friends and let our enemies know that this President has what it takes to lead America’s War on Terror.

[Adam Gamradt]

Interesting read, though quite a statement about the current administration.

Image is everything.

Accountability be damned.

[Sonny]

Found on judicialwatch.org. Could you begin to imagine the howling coming from the left if the roles were reversed in this case?

U.S. District Judge Who Presided Over Government Wiretapping Case May Have Had Conflict of Interest

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and judicial abuse, announced today that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who last week ruled the government’s warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional, serves as a Secretary and Trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case (ACLU et. al v. National Security Agency). Judicial Watch discovered the potential conflict of interest after reviewing Judge Diggs Taylor’s financial disclosure statements.

According to her 2003 and 2004 financial disclosure statements, Judge Diggs Taylor served as Secretary and Trustee for the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan (CFSEM). She was reelected to this position in June 2005. The official CFSEM website states that the foundation made a “recent grant” of $45,000 over two years to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan, a plaintiff in the wiretapping case. Judge Diggs Taylor sided with the ACLU of Michigan in her recent decision.

According to the CFSEM website, “The Foundation’s trustees make all funding decisions at meetings held on a quarterly basis.”

“This potential conflict of interest merits serious investigation,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “If Judge Diggs Taylor failed to disclose this link to a plaintiff in a case before her court, it would certainly call into question her judgment.”

(Judge Diggs Taylor is also the presiding judge in another case where she may have a conflict of interest. The Arab Community Center for Social and Economic Services (ACCESS) is a defendant in another case now before Judge Diggs Taylor’s court [Case No. 06-10968 (Mich. E.D.)]. In 2003, the CFSEM donated $180,000 to ACCESS.)

Click here to read Judge Diggs Taylor’s financial disclosure statements.
Click here to read the CFSEM’s list of recent grants. (See page 3.)

LINK:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_5862.shtml

[sohotrightnow]

Found on judicialwatch.org. Could you begin to imagine the howling coming from the left if the roles were reversed in this case?

No, because Republicans have morals and they would never get themselves into such a mess.

[OAKS]

It's funny how many 'activist judges' are actually Republican. The same, if not more than the Democratic side.

I speak from the very underrepresented and maligned minority of the 'moderates,' or the 'drunks.'

[Adam Gamradt]

Sonny,

So you are saying that judges are not allowed to serve on any non profit foundations? Or will you provide us a list of unacceptable orginizations? You're saying that any judge who donates money to judicialwatch.org, directly or indirectly, can no longer adjudicate a case involving said orginization? If anything, I'd imagine Judge Taylor was very aware of the potential scrutiny, and took an even more critical look at the reasoning behind her decision.

If Scalia can go hunting with Dick, and maintain his open mind, then this doesn't bother me in the least. I also can't believe I used open mind and Scalia in the same sentence just now.

judicialwatch.org's mission statement begins with a non-sequitur.

"a conservative, non-partisan, educational foundation"

These guys basically file lawsuits against Democrats, abusing the system they proclaim to monitor for "the highest ethical and moral standards".

Give me a break. There's even a Hillary Watch button on the website, that declares they'll be watching her financial matters. Why no Delay Watch? Why no mention of Abramoff or Duke Cunningham?

judicialwatch.org is a joke. You don't trust the logic of a federal judge, essentially a public servant, because she served on a non profit foundation that gave money to the ACLU, but you blindly believe in the moral integrity of a group of Neo-Cons who've made a mockery of the constitution.

By the way, the ACLU is way closer to non-partisan than the jokers that run judicialwatch.org. Looks like the guys running that site are making some good salaries though. On 9 million in revenue, many of them paying themselves 200k.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/20 ... losure.pdf

Yea, the federal judge is the one in it for the money.

[sohotrightnow]

They actually have called Delay and Abramoff to task for their behavior...however, they certainly are not non-partisan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch

[Sonny]

Don't put words in my mouth please Adam. And don't shoot the messenger. Just reporting what I read elsewhere in Internet/Blog land.

I never said that judges couldn't or shouldn't serve on non-profit corporate boards. But I do think that judges should recuse themselves for cases that appear in their court where they are involved on a personal level. And I think judges & lawyers on both sides of the political spectrum would agree with that. That's law school 101.

IMHO, the rest of your post is typical liberal debate tactics 101. Don't discuss the facts of the case (i.e. whether or not the judge has a conflict of interest in this particular case) And then move the goalposts (i.e. kill/discredit the messenger that raise the issue/facts).

It is tiresome.

[sohotrightnow]

IMHO, the rest of your post is typical liberal debate tactics 101. Don't discuss the facts of the case (i.e. whether or not the judge has a conflict of interest in this particular case) And then move the goalposts (i.e. kill/discredit the messenger that raise the issue/facts).

I think it's safe to say that both conservatives and liberals alike fall prey to this sort of behavior.

[laxfan25]

I think the Judicial Watch item is more of a swiftboating than a serious conflict of interest.
The Cheney co-presidency has used the fear of terror and the need for national security to advance his agenda of consolidating more power in the Presidency - to the point where they can do virtually anything in monitoring all citizens, without supervision. To argue against this policy means you are soft on terrorism, don't recognize the nature of the threat, and are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. How weird was it the other day when the POTUS said that those who disagree with his Iraq policy are just as American and patriotic as he? First time I've heard those words from anyone in the administration, and it would be nice for the VP to admit the same.
The information that the gov't is already collecting is breathtaking, and the ability to do data-mining on all of it is well within their capabilities. Phone records, internet usage, web searches, airline information - I assume the gov't is already using all of this data, whether it is approved or not. Not being a terrorist (or having a Muslim-sounding name) I don't have anything to fear from this, and if this information was going to be used strictly to ferret out bombers in the US - great. But oversight is critical, and the POTENTIAL to use this information for other use is what is really troubling. Perhaps its my longer view on things that makes me a little more skeptical of the government - to see how this potential can be turned into reality, I suggest that you Google or Wikipedia COINTELPRO to see what can happen and who can be targeted when government surveillance gets out of control. Have any of you heard of it before?
Another irony I see in the current hysteria is that the government is concerned about monitoring the activities of people that wish to commit violence against the citizens of the US. Since firearms are certainly capable of inflicting violence, why hasn't the Bush administration advocated a national weapons registry and taken control of gun sales at gun shows - wouldn't we want to know where arms are stashed in the US?
The "right to bear arms" is one civil liberty that I'm willing to negotiate on.
Somehow I don't think that strategy would resonate with the "base".