YASNY

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 10:05 AM) I think we all got a little spoiled when Mac looked like a stud against Boston and Texas. Brandon is still VERY young, and this year more than ever is going to be huge learning experience for him. There are going to be some bumps in the road, but Brandon should be fine. I just hope the 1st time he gives up 4 runs in an inning and a third, Soxtalk doesnt want his head.... With BMac stepping into a pennant race, facing and beating lineups like Boston and Texas, I think he showed he has what it takes. I certainly, don't think he's 'fragile'.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 11:56 AM) Turns out my opinions are now part of the overwhelming majority of American's opinions in this war. Just saying. Still, it's only an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions...

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 11:54 AM) And would be yours if your son died in this meaningless war. Again, you are spouting nothing but opinions. And as for the death of a son, you might not want to be so quick to throw that out so cavalierly. Just saying.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 11:50 AM) Not a good enough reason to go to war. That's your opinion.

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 11:21 AM) Yeah, those Downing Street memos and the German BND really supported our WMD claims. Saddam's defiance supported our WMD claims.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 11:25 AM) We need to remember that "slam dunk" was only specifically used to refer to re: Secret Case, and there has yet to be any serious inquiry into the NSA issue, even if Byron York is correct in seeing preceident here. Your characterization of this 2002 meeting as being two sides laid out for judicial review remains unsubstantiated with what was in thet NR piece. I follow the legal argument presented, but I certainly would like to see it scritinized in specific regard to the NSA program. Even John Yoo has previously noted that constitutional violations of privacy should only be undertaken in the face of imminent terrorist threats. I don't know if 4+ years at constant threat level "yellow" - smackdab in the middle of the scale can be seen as a continued imminent terror threat. As such, doesn't there need to be a sliding range of NSA authority to coincide with threat levels that are not "red" or even "orange"? And as far as GWB or anybody following the laws on the books in establishing the program. If it was launched in some capacity before 9/11 (still speculative at this stage, yes), then those laws would not yet have been on the books. Yes, I agree with you second paragraph. It is unsubstantiated with what was written within that piece. Thanks for pointing that out. Perhaps, just maybe, 4+ years at a constant 'yellow' threat level has been a result of the decision made by the 'Court of Review', as opposed to an occasional upward fluctuation. FISA, and therefore the right to petition the 'Court of Review' was enacted in 1978. I don't see how that in the least bit speculative. Now Jim, I ask you. Will you concede that Bush did not act illegally since he followed the laws and proper procedures spelled out by those laws which were passed in 1978?

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 11:15 AM) Because our other intel was so 'dead on'. Ours, and everybody else's.

No. I'm not hiding anything behind my back. You have nothing to worry about. Or, maybe "Come into my parlor, said the spider to the fly." is more appropriate. Suuuuuuuure! We were supposed to believe them.

No, Jim, I wouldn't 'concede' the illegal origins of the program. In fact, GWB, had nothing to do with the origins of the program. He simply followed the laws on the books to do his best to protect the American people. This issue came to a head in 2002, not pre-9/11/2001. The proper avenues were followed as written into law, and it was decided by the judicial branch that the administrative branch was not acting beyond the scope of it's authority and the law written by the legislative branch was upheld. Slam Dunk.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 10:46 AM) A law is enforceable if it stands, unless/until a court decides otherwise - you are correct there. But, I think it is also true that any law or action in direct contravention of the Constitution is also illegal, even if it stands prior to a court challenge. Obviously, others don't see this Constitutional conflict. Some do, some don't. For those of us who do, this is clearly illegal. Yet again, I would really like to see this whole mess go before SCOTUS. They rejected review of one particular aspect, or one angle if you will, on the issue. But the real picture would become more clear if someone could bring a case on behalf of the subjects of these searches (surveillance). That would be the true test. Until that happens, this is the law of the land. Therefore, the administration did nothing illegal.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 10:38 AM) When warrants are allowed, or warrant-necessary issues are agreed upon outside a judicial body, even if this is according to a legislated law... it is unconstitutional, and therefore, illegal. I REALLY would like SCOTUS to look into this in some way, though I am not sure how it would be brought to court. By definition, my most recent post, it's not illegal. The SCOTUS decided the issue wasn't worthy of review. This is a case of all aspects of checks and balances being brought into the mix, and the law stands. If the law stands, it's not illegal.

JIm must be writing a book.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 10:32 AM) Certainly, the administration is not entirely at fault here. I do think the warrantless searches are illegal, and the administration is the main actor. But, there are complicated things under the hood here, as we are discussing - this is not a tangent, but all part of one issue. Agencies like NSA and FBI are, and should be, bulldogs. They should be relentless in trying to get the info they need. It is the place of the courts to pull the other direction, for equally good reasons. Such is the nature of the adversarial model of law. When a law is passed by the legislative branch, signed by a president (Carter, in this case as FISA was enacted in '78) and reviewed by the judicial branch, it is not illegal.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 10:27 AM) I know they are involved. I said that. I am saying, and have said multiple times now, that the problem is the presence of non-judicial personnel in the decision making process for warrants. That makes it a non-judicial body, and more specifically, a joint body. Those joint bodies, especially when one of the bodies is the requestor for the warrant, should nto be in a position to make those decisions. Actually, that is another tangent. This discussion started when I said the current administration was not acting illegally. However, I see your point.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 10:25 AM) Maybe. Sometimes that is true. But SCOTUS also sometimes avoids big fights that they don't want to get dirty with. Example: despite all of the laws passed at various level on gun control, and despite all the federal court challenges, SCOTUS has avoided the issue (despite its Constitutional importance) entirely since the mid-19th century. Let's not get off on a gun control tangent.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 10:21 AM) But it it outside the judicial branch of government. Do you not see the danger in that? You are allowing the agencies that want the warrants to be part of deciding if they are acceptable or not. To me, that clearly violates the stated purpose of the need for warrants in the first place. If the FBI can request a warrant AND be part of granting said warrant, than why involve anyone else at all? You may as well let them do as they please. It's NOT outside the judicial branch when you have judges hearing the arguments and making the decision. Is the SCOTUS going to weaken their own branch of the government if they believed the process was outside the judicial branch? Your arguments make no sense. The judicial branch is inherently involved in this situation.

Oh. One more point. The SCOTUS decided not to hear any challanges to this law. That tells me that they consider this to be constitutional and not a worthy challenge.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 10:17 AM) They aren't, in this case. The FISA court, which is a real court, can make those decisions. A joint committee should not, even if some judges are present. The heart of the issue here is that this is putting the wolf in the hen house. The executive and legislative branches should have no say in the final decision on judicial warrants in any case. They don't have any say, beyond agruing their case. That is the purpose of the Court of Review. Keyword in the phrase 'Court of Review' being Court.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 10:15 AM) Three judges plus a whole slew of other people from various Congressional and Executive bodies and agencies is not a court - it is a joint committee. They want to meet? Fine, they could probably do some good things. But they can't adjudicate warrants or case work, as far as I see it. In a courtroom, you have one side presenting a case. You have another side arguing opposing viewpoints. Those are the 'other people'. And then, in this case, you have 3 jugdes deciding the matter. Sounds like a court to me.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 10:13 AM) I am pretty sure that the legislative body cannot pass laws taking Constitutionally granted authorities away from other branches of government. In my view, by creating this Court of Review to supplant judicial process, they have done just that. A judicial process has been replaced by a joint committee of sorts. While that joint committee could certainly exist and provide insight, it should not be allowed to clear warrants. How can the judicial process be supplanted when judges are making the decisions?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 10:05 AM) The "Court of Review", as constituted and described in the article, has 3 judges on it, but also a whole slew of other folks. Its not a court at all. What does that mean? Three judges is not enough to constitute a court?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 10:04 AM) um... do you read any of my posts? I don't blame Bush for everything. But I sure as heck blame him and the Administration AND CONGRESS for this whole mess. It avoids due process. It essentially clears warrants, a judicial function. This should not occur outside FISA or some other purely judicial body. If the mechanism for calling this Court of Review was legislated when FISA was enacted, how can you blame the administration for using laws passed by the legistative branch that allows the judicial branch to rule ... keeping in mind that the administration was not the administartion in office when it was enacted?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 09:58 AM) Does anyone other than me see a Constitutional problem in this "Court of Review"? Essentially, Congress and the Administration have created their own kangaroo court. It flies in the face of the checks and balances between the divisions of the federal government. Not only does this not make me feel better about things - it scares me even more. Judicial review has been supplanted by a Congressional/Executive joint body. This is even more clearly unconstitutional than the spying itself. First of all, it wasn't 'the Administration" as we know it. This Court of Review provision was put in place when FISA was enacted, with the foresight that circumstances would change and issues or disagreements might need to be addressed. Also, this "Court of Review" is made up of members of the judicial branch.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 09:35 AM) A serious question, YAS. You were one of the people who were on record as being as incensed as anybody over the original allegations when they broke. You reasonably decided you would wait for some more facts before passing final judgement. You seem to have concluded that the spying was not illegal, so what specific facts emeregd to bring you to that conclusion? Are you satisfued that any power for the Executive to do this derives from the September 18 AUMF, even when there has been a strong bipartisan voice from Congress stating that no such authorization was implied? Or have you become fairly convinced that this is within the power of the Executive during wartime - even to the degree that existing FISA mechanisms be ignored (not fixed or legally challenged, simply ignored)? Are you comfortable with the Atty General's calm admission that the White House defense of the NSA program is an "evolving defense", rather than an established one they feel they have any secure legal footing with? These are sincere questions, not an attempt to start a fight. Your outrage at the alleged domestic spying has been sufficiently addressed to the point where you believe "NOTHING ILLEGAL" was done. What substantive evidence for the program's legality has made you so confident? DeWine, Snowe, et al, have done such a good job making sure the legally of the program was never really scrutinized yet you seem to still have been able to conclude no illegality on the part of the administration or NSA. What have you seen that I have not? Here's your answer, Jim. The solid legal basis for the administration’s surveillance program.

What is hilariously funny about this while censure thing is that the President DID NOTHING ILLEGAL!