jabberwocky...you haven`t busted shit.....you`d need 10 straight days of intravenous fishoil for your i.q. to hit 70......
""The objection is that the Bush admin is violating the rules of fiso, not that the government doesn't have the right to wiretap. Seems to be a big point, but in your rhetoric, (and all of your assorted wanna be conservative talking head dissemimaters of hateful nonsense and bullshit) the point gets lost.""
back on point..this gets overturned...bank on it....but,i`m worried what the supreme court will do....particularly after granting terrorists geneva convention protections....but,after looking through " In re Sealed No. 02-001",i think that the surveillance without warrant issue may just stand...
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html
""This is the first appeal from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to the Court of Review since the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. ?? 1801-1862 (West 1991 and Supp. 2002), in 1978. This appeal is brought by the United States from a FISA court surveillance order which imposed certain restrictions on the government. Since the government is the only party to FISA proceedings, we have accepted briefs filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)1 and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) as amici curiae."
"Not surprisingly this case raises important questions of statutory interpretation, and constitutionality. After a careful review of the briefs filed by the government and amici, we conclude that FISA, as amended by the Patriot Act,2 supports the government’s position, and that the restrictions imposed by the FISA court are not required by FISA or the Constitution. We therefore remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. "
this was from the appelate court for the fisa court...and they determined that there are situations and conditions involving foreign targets communicating with u.s. based persons that do not have a requirement for obtaining warrants for such surveillance....
and kosar..my friend...i brought up the aclu/cair defendant thing because(aside fron the fact that i abhor them) the "judge" decided that these defendants had "standing"....
""The basic and most important requirement for standing is that you cannot bring a suit in court unless you can prove that you have suffered an actual injury, or an injury-in-fact. Second, you must be able to prove that your injury was caused by the defendant. Third, you must be able to prove that your injury is capable of being redressed by a court.""
they proved no injury.... there has been no injury...that`s why i continually ask is anyone has had their civil rights abridged....
i think that anyone with 2 i.q. points to rub together realizes that the individual rights of abhorrent scumbags like the aclu and cair do not supercede the good of society....
nobody can possibly believe that the framers intended that....
and jabberwocky,i know you suffer from severe bds..but,the president has a plenary duty (from his oath of office) to "preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the u.s.", which has been taken to mean to preserve, protect, and defend the u.s., whereas congress merely has the duty to support the constitution.....
in other words, his primary duty is to protect this country as its executive...their duty doesn't even come close in this regard....
i understand that there are some sticky separation of powers issues here.....that`s why i`m hoping that after the 6th circuit overturns this ridiculous decision,that hopefully,the supreme court dismisses this on "standing" grounds, so as not to have to deal with the sticky separation of powers issues........
jw...i now finally realize that hitting you in the head on a routine basis with a "clue by 4" is useless.....lol
i still believe, in my heart, that you guys don`t really believe what you`re saying here...that you understand that these people want you,your wives,your parents,sisters, brothers and children dead...and that you care more about whether our gov`t monitors the aclu`s or cair`s calls to and/or from terrorist states,bases or points of origin....than your lives,those of your families,our economy and the continued well being of the country...
i don`t believe it...
now j.w.,turn your t.v. back on.... you`re in luck...i think they`re still in 24/7 mode, talking heads crawling out of the woodwork, having a jonbenet orgy...
i`m sure that your boy gary condit is hoping that this crazy man cops to killing chandra levy,too.....
and btw...smurph..i`d like to have a beer with you myself....
.
""The objection is that the Bush admin is violating the rules of fiso, not that the government doesn't have the right to wiretap. Seems to be a big point, but in your rhetoric, (and all of your assorted wanna be conservative talking head dissemimaters of hateful nonsense and bullshit) the point gets lost.""
back on point..this gets overturned...bank on it....but,i`m worried what the supreme court will do....particularly after granting terrorists geneva convention protections....but,after looking through " In re Sealed No. 02-001",i think that the surveillance without warrant issue may just stand...
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html
""This is the first appeal from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to the Court of Review since the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. ?? 1801-1862 (West 1991 and Supp. 2002), in 1978. This appeal is brought by the United States from a FISA court surveillance order which imposed certain restrictions on the government. Since the government is the only party to FISA proceedings, we have accepted briefs filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)1 and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) as amici curiae."
"Not surprisingly this case raises important questions of statutory interpretation, and constitutionality. After a careful review of the briefs filed by the government and amici, we conclude that FISA, as amended by the Patriot Act,2 supports the government’s position, and that the restrictions imposed by the FISA court are not required by FISA or the Constitution. We therefore remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. "
this was from the appelate court for the fisa court...and they determined that there are situations and conditions involving foreign targets communicating with u.s. based persons that do not have a requirement for obtaining warrants for such surveillance....
and kosar..my friend...i brought up the aclu/cair defendant thing because(aside fron the fact that i abhor them) the "judge" decided that these defendants had "standing"....
""The basic and most important requirement for standing is that you cannot bring a suit in court unless you can prove that you have suffered an actual injury, or an injury-in-fact. Second, you must be able to prove that your injury was caused by the defendant. Third, you must be able to prove that your injury is capable of being redressed by a court.""
they proved no injury.... there has been no injury...that`s why i continually ask is anyone has had their civil rights abridged....
i think that anyone with 2 i.q. points to rub together realizes that the individual rights of abhorrent scumbags like the aclu and cair do not supercede the good of society....
nobody can possibly believe that the framers intended that....
and jabberwocky,i know you suffer from severe bds..but,the president has a plenary duty (from his oath of office) to "preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the u.s.", which has been taken to mean to preserve, protect, and defend the u.s., whereas congress merely has the duty to support the constitution.....
in other words, his primary duty is to protect this country as its executive...their duty doesn't even come close in this regard....
i understand that there are some sticky separation of powers issues here.....that`s why i`m hoping that after the 6th circuit overturns this ridiculous decision,that hopefully,the supreme court dismisses this on "standing" grounds, so as not to have to deal with the sticky separation of powers issues........
jw...i now finally realize that hitting you in the head on a routine basis with a "clue by 4" is useless.....lol
i still believe, in my heart, that you guys don`t really believe what you`re saying here...that you understand that these people want you,your wives,your parents,sisters, brothers and children dead...and that you care more about whether our gov`t monitors the aclu`s or cair`s calls to and/or from terrorist states,bases or points of origin....than your lives,those of your families,our economy and the continued well being of the country...
i don`t believe it...
now j.w.,turn your t.v. back on.... you`re in luck...i think they`re still in 24/7 mode, talking heads crawling out of the woodwork, having a jonbenet orgy...
i`m sure that your boy gary condit is hoping that this crazy man cops to killing chandra levy,too.....
and btw...smurph..i`d like to have a beer with you myself....
.
Last edited:
