quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers SOURCE Wow... Just... Holy Shit. I have no words that truly express my deep concern for where our nation is headed. The Supreme Court and the Supreme Court alone should say what is and what isn't constitutional when it comes to surveillance in our own country. A court that meets the concerns of the Bush Administration? That's scary. Down with Bush. Down with his whole bullshit administration. It's going to take YEARS for a democratic administration (Hopes for '08 ) to undo the shit that he's done to our country. ^ I bet that is just enough for the government to snoop in my computer.

LOL!!!!!

dude, your like 30 years behind the curve.

in fact, youve got all backwards with this story.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers The Supreme Court and the Supreme Court alone should say what is and what isn't constitutional when it comes to surveillance in our own country.

yeah, that is so profoundly wrong i'm surprised you are an American.

it's the Congress that decides what is Constitutional.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers I bet that is just enough for the government to snoop in my computer.

wtf does that have to do with Bush's domestic surveilence program?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo yeah, that is so profoundly wrong i'm surprised you are an American. it's the Congress that decides what is Constitutional.

The Supreme Court has EVERYTHING to do with the constitution. Not the interpretation of the document itself, but the decision that was made by the supreme court, is guided by the constitution.

ACLU v. NSA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_wa...nce_controversy

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/index.html

quote:

The state secrets privilege, outlined by the Supreme Court in a 1953 case (UNITED STATES v. REYNOLDS), permits the government to derail a lawsuit that might otherwise lead to the disclosure of military secrets.

http://news.com.com/AT38T+sued+over..._3-6033501.html

The supreme court's rulings over the years have settled issues that have been in open to the interpretation of lower courts in the past.

I don't know where the hell you've been, buddy.

quote:

wtf does that have to do with Bush's domestic surveilence program?

It was an exaggeration, get a clue.

___________________
"You won a new refrigerator, great! Where you gonna put it?" - Tony Danza

Here's another one, fucknut.

HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD

If there was a special court that met the concerns of the bush administration in regard to TORTURING FOR INTERROGATION, there wouldn't be a case like this...

___________________
"You won a new refrigerator, great! Where you gonna put it?" - Tony Danza

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers I don't know where the hell you've been, buddy.

wow your one of those people that can never admit they are wrong aren't you?

do you still stand by this statement?

quote:

The Supreme Court and the Supreme Court alone should say what is and what isn't constitutional when it comes to surveillance in our own country.

if you do stand by it consider yourself a fascist.

wat do the lower courts have to say about Constituionality? according to your logic, nothing. the SCOTUS is the final word but i'll be damned if they are the only word, that includes the other two branches of Government. which, BTW, those branches retain the ability to change the Constitution altogether.

Congress enacted the Foriegn Intelligence Survelence Act in 1978 not the Supreme Court.

the two examples you gave do not challange FISA's Constitutionality. they challenge the Executive's interpretation of FISA. well, one does Hamdan has nothing to do with this.

you have Bush Derangement Syndrome. it's very infectcious if you're not intellectually honest.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers Here's another one, fucknut. HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD If there was a special court that met the concerns of the bush administration in regard to TORTURING FOR INTERROGATION, there wouldn't be a case like this...

this has bee threaded before. it sure as hell doen't belong here.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers It was an exaggeration, get a clue.

oh right, right. i didn't see the smiley.

...and you still have interpreted the article all bass-ackwards

Last edited by Q5echo on Jan-18-2007 at 02:41

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo you have Bush Derangement Syndrome. it's very infectcious if you're not intellectually honest.

You don't get it, do you? This has nothing to do with bush. It has to do with his administration (Which includes him, NO WAY!) using another court to enable them to easily obtain information without proper warrant. I'd say the same exact thing if it was a democratic administration. Allowing for "Speed and agility" in warranting surveillance means less and less information and EVIDENCE is needed.

What is wrong with you?

___________________
"You won a new refrigerator, great! Where you gonna put it?" - Tony Danza

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers What is wrong with you?

your entire premise of this thread.

what has happened (and is explicitely explained in the article you posted) is that Bush has RELENQUISHED his authority of the Terrorist Surveilence Progam oversight back to the FISA courts, ok? since 9/11/2001 he has reviewed his oversight authority every 45 days with a vote of the Senate Intel Committee. now that the Donkey party has the majority in Congress he does not feel he has the support to renew it every 45 days. for the last two years the Justice Dept. has been working with FISA to speed up the efficiency to which warrants are dissminated by the court. prior to 9/11 Bush contended that FISA was too antiquated to deal with multiple fast moving intel so with select bi-partisaned Congressional authorization evrey 45 days he let the DOJ and other agencies manage oversight of the TSP.

this court [FISA] has had the authority you were complaining about for almost 30 years now.

now if you want to debate the Constitutionality of his authority thats all fine and well and MisterOpus has a real long thread about it around here somewhere.

Last edited by Q5echo on Jan-18-2007 at 03:58

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers I'd say the same exact thing if it was a democratic administration.

I was just hoping everyone would remember this little gem while bagging on the new boss, same as the old boss.

quote:

Moreover, the Clinton administration is -- as the ACLU's Laura Murphy recently told the National Law Journal -- "the most wire-tap-friendly administration in history."

SOURCE

that was 2002, now it's Bush, next term: Obama?

Last edited by Rhuckus on Jan-18-2007 at 11:30

quote:

Originally posted by Rhuckus I was just hoping everyone would remember this little gem while bagging on the new boss, same as the old boss. SOURCE that was 2002, now it's Bush, next term: Obama?

your source is another forum?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King i listen to trance becuase it is beautifully composed like a classical piece of music.... but with beats in it...

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I hardly if ever acknowledge sarcasm from a person I dont know because I ran into serious problems on an undisclosed buying website before.