Is this guy feingold insane? I think the more accurate thing to do is to try every democrat in congress for treason.
Posted by: james allegro at March 12, 2006 01:50 PM
God, enough about this already. Let's just allow an investigation so we can get this over with. Honestly, if it's legal, the White House should have no problem with it.
Posted by: Georgia Frawg at March 12, 2006 02:07 PM
If it's illegal, the democrats need to prove it.
Also if it were illegal, Bush would not have advised any members of congress what he was doing, while he was doing it.
Simply put it was legal and Bush had the authority and obligation to do it. Democrats need to find another scandal, this one is over like all the rest.
Isn't there something else the democrats need to do? Like an agenda or something. Why is the public letting the democrats draw a salary for hating bush and very little else.
Posted by: dl at March 12, 2006 03:19 PM
Remember that Feingold wanted to block renewal of the Patriot Act
Posted by:
tele64 at March 12, 2006 03:31 PM
Just another democrat doing what they do best in a time of war, aid and abett the enemies. More and more day after day and much more to come I'm afraid until the government gets serious and starts prosecuting these traitors.
Posted by:
Chicagoray at March 12, 2006 03:32 PM
Just another democrat doing what they do best in a time of war, aid and abett the enemies. More and more day after day and much more to come I'm afraid until the government gets serious and starts prosecuting these traitors.
Posted by:
chicagoray at March 12, 2006 03:34 PM
Georgia,
Oh, we're all ready for an investigation...it is the Democrats who don't actually want one.
We love this...the more NSA is in the news, the better...
Posted by: Mark Noonan at March 12, 2006 03:44 PM
There is no need for an investigation. The courts have held this out as being legal, the war resolutions specifically states by any means necesssary, and a President has the constitutional authority. In fact, an attorney for two Islamists tried to have their charges thrown out on this on Friday, and their attorney failed. 70% of the public support this. Its Feingold that should be censured
Posted by: Tina at March 12, 2006 04:34 PM
Also if it were illegal, Bush would not have advised any members of congress what he was doing, while he was doing it.
He told, what, five members of Congress, "This is what I'm doing, and you can't stop it or eventalk about it." Stop lying and claiming this is "advising members of Congress," please. That is, if you can give up the Republican love of lying.
Posted by: SeesThroughIt at March 12, 2006 04:38 PM
Tina,
You say the courts have held this out as being legal. I wasn't aware of this. What courts?
Posted by: longz at March 12, 2006 05:10 PM
...What courts? Oh, just the Supreme Court.
Posted by: Porter Jervis at March 12, 2006 05:29 PM
Several Federal courts, including the Supreme Court. Just recently, a New York judge rejected an attorney's defense claim to throw out charges of two Islamists cauught up in a sting.
Posted by: Tina at March 12, 2006 05:36 PM
Porter,
The Supreme Court? Really? What case?
Posted by: longz at March 12, 2006 05:54 PM
He told, what, five members of Congress, "This is what I'm doing, and you can't stop it or eventalk about it." Stop lying and claiming this is "advising members of Congress," please. That is, if you can give up the Republican love of lying.
I love this, just quote something you make up, and credit someone as having said it.
I am reneging on my pledge to stop giving you stupid moonbat trolls nicknames. Henceforth, "SeesThroughIt" will be known as "SeesThruShit." It's a fitting name for an unfit human, and I use the term "human" loosely.
What a bunch of dork trolls we have here at B4B...
Posted by: keefer at March 12, 2006 06:33 PM
Sees
The fewer people in Congress know about it, the likelier it is to stay covert, and therefore useful.
The Democrats, through their idiotic, infantile HateBushButHaveNothingElse agenda have REMOVED a useful tool from our intel services armory - do you think any AQ call their friends in the US any more?
It was INCOMING calls, we were tracking OVERSEAS phone lines, and it's been held to be PERFECTLY LEGAL. When will you clowns start to get it? after the next 9/11? The American public aren't concerned, knowing as they do that listening in to terrorists as they phone their friends is a GOOD NOT A BAD THING.
Posted by: Martin Hague at March 12, 2006 07:35 PM
Hey, Chicagoray, I just bookmarked your blog; you must be a lonely soul out there in Chicagoland. Almost every time Rush gets a call from there, it's another lemming parrot moonbat spewing talking points ad nauseum. And Chicago is an awesome city, from what I've seen and heard. I saw--well, my wife was watching it--Chicago on one of those TLC shows about people buying homes. They looked at some really neat condos with some great features and views. Pretty pricey, but that's life in the big city.
Sorry for going off-topic, but I needed a respite from all these little Churchills...
Posted by: keefer at March 12, 2006 09:11 PM
He told, what, five members of Congress, "This is what I'm doing, and you can't stop it or eventalk about it."
Source please (it's the darndest thing, people ask for sources when they doubt what you say).
"That is, if you can give up the Republican love of lying."
"Love of lying" is a problem that can affect someone regardless of their political beliefs. In fact, this might shatter your worldview, but democrats do, and HAVE lied. E.g. Bill "Blowjob" Clinton.
Posted by: anphanax at March 12, 2006 09:44 PM
Oh, and when I say "little Churchills," I mean Ward, not Winston...
Posted by: keefer at March 12, 2006 10:02 PM
Keefer: that's why it's called the People's Socialist City-State of Chicago!
Posted by: Macker at March 12, 2006 10:04 PM
Longz, well, there are quite a few, one case in 1972 United States v. Smith. I won't do your research for you though, find them yourself. This, as you libs like to call it, is settled law.
After reading through several of the cases, I am puzzled as to why the libs are beating this poor dead horse. It’s pretty plain that the activities they are busting a hemorrhoid over are quite legal and have been for decades.
Posted by: Porter Jervis at March 12, 2006 10:13 PM
Didn't know that, Macker, although I know that Chicago is quite a liberal town.
Is there anyone out there from Wisconsin who understands why Feingold is such a prig? Maybe it's the beer.
Oh, Russie Feingold, lay off that Reingold...
Posted by: keefer at March 12, 2006 10:33 PM
I used to live there! I guess that personal experience with that town sours me on it. I still love DA BEARS though. :)
Posted by: Macker at March 12, 2006 11:33 PM
...there are quite a few, one case in 1972 United States v. Smith...
---Porter Jervis
I just searched the Cornell Lawschool database of Supreme Court Cases, and no such case exists. If Cornell is wrong on this (which I doubt), prove it and link your source. The closest thing I could find was United States v. United States District Court. It involves Domestic to Domestic tapping, but it is the closest situation that I could find.
Posted by: Georgia Frawg at March 13, 2006 12:20 AM
Also if it were illegal, Bush would not have advised any members of congress what he was doing, while he was doing it.
He told, what, five members of Congress, "This is what I'm doing, and you can't stop it or eventalk about it." Stop lying and claiming this is "advising members of Congress," please. That is, if you can give up the Republican love of lying.
Posted by: SeesThroughIt at March 12, 2006 04:38 PM
It is what it is See's candy, You can't have it one way or the other! Either he was advising congress(5,50,100) or he wasn't! Your hatred blinds you oh so completely!!!
Posted by: bearmanUSMC at March 13, 2006 01:13 AM
Porter,
Interesting way to argue - "It's all settled law, but I'm not going to tell you about it."
Unfortunately for you, the case you are probably referring to held that "The Fourth Amendment (which shields private speech from unreasonable surveillance) requires prior judicial approval for the type of domestic security surveillance involved in this case." 407 U.S. 297 at 314.
If it's such settled law, then this should be a slam dunk, Porter. What's the matter?
Posted by: longz at March 13, 2006 08:07 AM
GOOGLE TROUG AND HAMDI, ALL LOWER COURTS AND SUPRME COURT HAVE ALWAYS RECOGNIZED ARTII Constitution. FISA IS ON SHAKY GROUND, UNCONSTITUTIONAL WHEN INTERFERING WITH PRESIDENTIAL POWER AS I STATED ABOVE ARTII
CONGRESS CANT TAKE THIS POWER FROM BUSH, BETRAYING THEIR OATH
SINCE WHEN ARE PRESIDENTS REQUIRED TO GET WARRANTS DURING WAR TIME? LIBERALS WANT TROOPS TO FIGHT TERRORISTS WITH ONE HAND..THEY COMPLAIN BUSH ISN'T KEEPING US SAFE, YET THEY TRY TYING HIS HANDS FROM USING GOVT TOOLS TO FIGHT TERRORISTS. WILL LIBERALS EVER JOIN IN OPPOSING TERRORISTS? I DOUBT IT!!!!
PEPPER EM UP WITH A HANDFULL OF (PRAISE ALLAH)
THEY UTTER WORDS OF TERRORISTS
LIBERALS ARE A THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, HOMELAND SECURITY SHOULD PUT THEM ON OUR TERRORIST WATCH LIST
Posted by: WMG at March 13, 2006 08:13 AM
Tina,
The judge in the case you're talking about kept his decision secret, so there's no way to know how the warrantless search issue came into play.
As you can see with poor Porter's struggles, there are no Supreme Court cases that rule the way you're saying.
And the declarations by Congress you mentioned? The war powers the Constitution gives the president consist of the power to direct the military. That's only if Congress makes a declaration of war. The two declarations you mentioned were short of a full declaration of war.
What's more, the only provision for abridging the Bill of Rights is that Congress has the ability to restrict habeas corpus in a limited emergency.
So why would you think that when Congress made resolutions that were less than declarations of war, that the President then assumes more authority than a declaration of war can give him?
Posted by: longz at March 13, 2006 09:01 AM
If they hate our freedoms, they should be glad we're getting rid of them.
Posted by: reichstagfire at March 13, 2006 09:38 AM
Is this guy feingold insane? I think the more accurate thing to do is to try every democrat in congress for treason.
God, enough about this already. Let's just allow an investigation so we can get this over with. Honestly, if it's legal, the White House should have no problem with it.
If it's illegal, the democrats need to prove it.
Also if it were illegal, Bush would not have advised any members of congress what he was doing, while he was doing it.
Simply put it was legal and Bush had the authority and obligation to do it. Democrats need to find another scandal, this one is over like all the rest.
Isn't there something else the democrats need to do? Like an agenda or something. Why is the public letting the democrats draw a salary for hating bush and very little else.
Remember that Feingold wanted to block renewal of the Patriot Act
Just another democrat doing what they do best in a time of war, aid and abett the enemies. More and more day after day and much more to come I'm afraid until the government gets serious and starts prosecuting these traitors.
Just another democrat doing what they do best in a time of war, aid and abett the enemies. More and more day after day and much more to come I'm afraid until the government gets serious and starts prosecuting these traitors.
Georgia,
Oh, we're all ready for an investigation...it is the Democrats who don't actually want one.
We love this...the more NSA is in the news, the better...
There is no need for an investigation. The courts have held this out as being legal, the war resolutions specifically states by any means necesssary, and a President has the constitutional authority. In fact, an attorney for two Islamists tried to have their charges thrown out on this on Friday, and their attorney failed. 70% of the public support this. Its Feingold that should be censured
Also if it were illegal, Bush would not have advised any members of congress what he was doing, while he was doing it.
He told, what, five members of Congress, "This is what I'm doing, and you can't stop it or eventalk about it." Stop lying and claiming this is "advising members of Congress," please. That is, if you can give up the Republican love of lying.
Tina,
You say the courts have held this out as being legal. I wasn't aware of this. What courts?
...What courts? Oh, just the Supreme Court.
Several Federal courts, including the Supreme Court. Just recently, a New York judge rejected an attorney's defense claim to throw out charges of two Islamists cauught up in a sting.
Porter,
The Supreme Court? Really? What case?
He told, what, five members of Congress, "This is what I'm doing, and you can't stop it or eventalk about it." Stop lying and claiming this is "advising members of Congress," please. That is, if you can give up the Republican love of lying.
I love this, just quote something you make up, and credit someone as having said it.
I am reneging on my pledge to stop giving you stupid moonbat trolls nicknames. Henceforth, "SeesThroughIt" will be known as "SeesThruShit." It's a fitting name for an unfit human, and I use the term "human" loosely.
What a bunch of dork trolls we have here at B4B...
Sees
The fewer people in Congress know about it, the likelier it is to stay covert, and therefore useful.
The Democrats, through their idiotic, infantile HateBushButHaveNothingElse agenda have REMOVED a useful tool from our intel services armory - do you think any AQ call their friends in the US any more?
It was INCOMING calls, we were tracking OVERSEAS phone lines, and it's been held to be PERFECTLY LEGAL. When will you clowns start to get it? after the next 9/11? The American public aren't concerned, knowing as they do that listening in to terrorists as they phone their friends is a GOOD NOT A BAD THING.
Hey, Chicagoray, I just bookmarked your blog; you must be a lonely soul out there in Chicagoland. Almost every time Rush gets a call from there, it's another lemming parrot moonbat spewing talking points ad nauseum. And Chicago is an awesome city, from what I've seen and heard. I saw--well, my wife was watching it--Chicago on one of those TLC shows about people buying homes. They looked at some really neat condos with some great features and views. Pretty pricey, but that's life in the big city.
Sorry for going off-topic, but I needed a respite from all these little Churchills...
He told, what, five members of Congress, "This is what I'm doing, and you can't stop it or eventalk about it."
Source please (it's the darndest thing, people ask for sources when they doubt what you say).
"That is, if you can give up the Republican love of lying."
"Love of lying" is a problem that can affect someone regardless of their political beliefs. In fact, this might shatter your worldview, but democrats do, and HAVE lied. E.g. Bill "Blowjob" Clinton.
Oh, and when I say "little Churchills," I mean Ward, not Winston...
Keefer: that's why it's called the People's Socialist City-State of Chicago!
Longz, well, there are quite a few, one case in 1972 United States v. Smith. I won't do your research for you though, find them yourself. This, as you libs like to call it, is settled law.
After reading through several of the cases, I am puzzled as to why the libs are beating this poor dead horse. It’s pretty plain that the activities they are busting a hemorrhoid over are quite legal and have been for decades.
Didn't know that, Macker, although I know that Chicago is quite a liberal town.
Is there anyone out there from Wisconsin who understands why Feingold is such a prig? Maybe it's the beer.
Oh, Russie Feingold, lay off that Reingold...
I used to live there! I guess that personal experience with that town sours me on it. I still love DA BEARS though. :)
...there are quite a few, one case in 1972 United States v. Smith...
---Porter Jervis
I just searched the Cornell Lawschool database of Supreme Court Cases, and no such case exists. If Cornell is wrong on this (which I doubt), prove it and link your source. The closest thing I could find was United States v. United States District Court. It involves Domestic to Domestic tapping, but it is the closest situation that I could find.
Also if it were illegal, Bush would not have advised any members of congress what he was doing, while he was doing it.
He told, what, five members of Congress, "This is what I'm doing, and you can't stop it or eventalk about it." Stop lying and claiming this is "advising members of Congress," please. That is, if you can give up the Republican love of lying.
Posted by: SeesThroughIt at March 12, 2006 04:38 PM
It is what it is See's candy, You can't have it one way or the other! Either he was advising congress(5,50,100) or he wasn't! Your hatred blinds you oh so completely!!!
Porter,
Interesting way to argue - "It's all settled law, but I'm not going to tell you about it."
Unfortunately for you, the case you are probably referring to held that "The Fourth Amendment (which shields private speech from unreasonable surveillance) requires prior judicial approval for the type of domestic security surveillance involved in this case." 407 U.S. 297 at 314.
If it's such settled law, then this should be a slam dunk, Porter. What's the matter?
GOOGLE TROUG AND HAMDI, ALL LOWER COURTS AND SUPRME COURT HAVE ALWAYS RECOGNIZED ARTII Constitution. FISA IS ON SHAKY GROUND, UNCONSTITUTIONAL WHEN INTERFERING WITH PRESIDENTIAL POWER AS I STATED ABOVE ARTII
CONGRESS CANT TAKE THIS POWER FROM BUSH, BETRAYING THEIR OATH
SINCE WHEN ARE PRESIDENTS REQUIRED TO GET WARRANTS DURING WAR TIME? LIBERALS WANT TROOPS TO FIGHT TERRORISTS WITH ONE HAND..THEY COMPLAIN BUSH ISN'T KEEPING US SAFE, YET THEY TRY TYING HIS HANDS FROM USING GOVT TOOLS TO FIGHT TERRORISTS. WILL LIBERALS EVER JOIN IN OPPOSING TERRORISTS? I DOUBT IT!!!!
PEPPER EM UP WITH A HANDFULL OF (PRAISE ALLAH)
THEY UTTER WORDS OF TERRORISTS
LIBERALS ARE A THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, HOMELAND SECURITY SHOULD PUT THEM ON OUR TERRORIST WATCH LIST
Tina,
The judge in the case you're talking about kept his decision secret, so there's no way to know how the warrantless search issue came into play.
As you can see with poor Porter's struggles, there are no Supreme Court cases that rule the way you're saying.
And the declarations by Congress you mentioned? The war powers the Constitution gives the president consist of the power to direct the military. That's only if Congress makes a declaration of war. The two declarations you mentioned were short of a full declaration of war.
What's more, the only provision for abridging the Bill of Rights is that Congress has the ability to restrict habeas corpus in a limited emergency.
So why would you think that when Congress made resolutions that were less than declarations of war, that the President then assumes more authority than a declaration of war can give him?
If they hate our freedoms, they should be glad we're getting rid of them.