JUDGE: PRES. BUSH'S WIRETAP PROGRAM VIOLATES CONSTITUTION & MUST STOP
JUDGE: PRES. BUSH'S WIRETAP PROGRAM VIOLATES CONSTITUTION & MUST STOP
It?s a historic bout in the battle of the branches: the executive says it?s legal, but the judiciary says it?s not. It concerns the government?s domestic spying program ? the monitoring of Americans? phone calls and e-mail messages without warrants. Today, in a stunning rebuke to the Bush administration, a federal court ruled that the program is unconstitutional ? and must stop. In a decision, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, of the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division, struck down the NSA program, which she said violates the rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution. The judge?s 44-page memorandum and order also says the program violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) passed by Congress in 1978. Because of those things, the judge says the domestic spying program must stop. And then there?s this: in a stunning claim against the president, the judge writes that President Bush violated the Constitution, the decision saying, ?The President of the United States... has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders." The Justice Department says it will appeal.
Why does Judge Anna Diggs Taylor hate freedom so much? Is she a Taliban?
The Washington Post article this morning said that many people have criticized her ruling as being poorly reasoned and it's questionable that it will hold up on appeal. I haven't read her ruling, and I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if that's spin from the other side or if it really is a weak ruling that won't hold up on appeal. We'll see.
It can't be as poorly reasoned as Bush's argument: "It's legal but we can't tell you why".
I'm not saying it is. I certainly hope it holds up on appeal. It was the first good news I have seen in the press in a long long time.
Didn't they claim that the whole UK-to-LA-liquid-bomb scheme was uncovered because of the wiretapping of international calls?
And the tracing of money transfers and accounts. You can't win, spy and trace in order to stop the attacks and you are called a facist. But if an attack goes through, then the government isn't doing enough to stop the terrorists.
That poster is awesome.
Then you need to spend more time here:
http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/PhotoAlbum1.htmlWow. That's a fantastic site.
Why does Judge Anna Diggs Taylor hate freedom so much? Is she a Taliban?
Almost. She's a Democrat. But you're not supposed to be able to tell.
Almost. She's a Democrat. But you're not supposed to be able to tell.
Let's see....
Who wants to force their religious views on the entire nation, and make them law of the land, like the Taliban?
Who wants to force prayer in school, like the Taliban?
Who were against the ERA, wanting to keep women in their place as second-class citizens like the Taliban?
Who wants everybody in the country to tote around an AK47, like the Taliban?
Who would never stand for same-gender marriage, like the Taliban?
Who punishes you for opposing their agenda like the Taliban?
Who has a core following who are fundamentalist religious conservative extremists, like the Taliban?
Who doesn't care if their fellow countrymen live or die, like the Taliban?
Who bypasses diplmacy, in favor of violence, like the Taliban?
The repubicans, that's who!
Let's see....
The repubicans, that's who!
Are you done chanting slogans? Like the Taliban?
This judgement is so palpably political as to be totally embarassing. Watch what happens to it on appeal.
Didn't they claim that the whole UK-to-LA-liquid-bomb scheme was uncovered because of the wiretapping of international calls?
A little
dissent on the liquid bomb story.
hehe I like that site. I have never been entirely convinced of this particular plot. It smells fishy enough to use in a paella.
Are you done chanting slogans? Like the Taliban?
So, when you say the democrats are like the Taliban without saying a word to back it up, its okay, but when someone describes the ways the
republicans are like the Taliban in response to your seemingly baseless accusation, they're chanting slogans?
So, when you say the democrats are like the Taliban without saying a word to back it up, its okay, but when someone describes the ways the republicans are like the Taliban in response to your seemingly baseless accusation, they're chanting slogans?
Considering how the Republicans would probably (mis)treat her if she were to walk into the 'big tent', MaggieL is a fierce defender of the party.
Given a choice between their 'base' and the Log Cabin Republicans, it's not too hard to see which group will be thrown to the wolves.
Sometimes I wonder if she knows that the there is 1 amendment before the 2nd and 25 after it.
That being said, remember that, other than hunting, the reason for the 2nd amendment was the fear of too much government power, especially concentrated in one branch. Which is what the president is claiming Congress gave him with the simple authority to conduct a war, carte blanche overriding of the FISA laws and any checks on his power.
Are you done chanting slogans? Like the Taliban?
This judgement is so palpably political as to be totally embarassing. Watch what happens to it on appeal.
Nice. Respond to the form, and ignore the substance. I guess we know what that means.;)
Considering how the Republicans would probably (mis)treat her if she were to walk into the 'big tent', MaggieL is a fierce defender of the party.
Given a choice between their 'base' and the Log Cabin Republicans, it's not too hard to see which group will be thrown to the wolves.
Sometimes I wonder if she knows that the there is 1 amendment before the 2nd and 25 after it.
That being said, remember that, other than hunting, the reason for the 2nd amendment was the fear of too much government power, especially concentrated in one branch. Which is what the president is claiming Congress gave him with the simple authority to conduct a war, carte blanche overriding of the FISA laws and any checks on his power.
Once past the selfishness, Maggie's a liberal. Oh, no - I did not say that.
I'd say the facism slogans are more like a liberal Rush Limbaugh. Totally wrong? No, but simplified past the point of usefullness or any real content.
NeoCons are the most like the Taliban.
That's far to general a use of the term NeoCon. We're not all mini-Bushes any more than all Germans were mini-Hitlers. There are plenty of rational voices, we just get drowned out.
A rational NeoCon? One that believes in the full use of the Contitution and Bill of Rights?
You really belive on exists?
NO illegal search and seasure under ANY circumstances?
Yeah, right.
Again, you're inappropriately using the term NeoCon. Now I'm not a purist NeoCon, I favor low US foriegn intervention, low immigration, private health care, and a much smaller government. A 'Bushie' would call for much bigger government and more US foriegn intervention.
I'd say the facism slogans are more like a liberal Rush Limbaugh. Totally wrong? No, but simplified past the point of usefullness or any real content.
The Left has never had an aggressive, obnoxious, go-for-the-emotional-regardless-of-the-facts asshole like Rush. Even Al Frankin doesn't match up to Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and the like. Isn't it nice to see something familiar from your opponent? :p
I just saw an editorial on Fox to the effect of 'not exactly legal but very necessary'? Huh? So a 72 hour free pass and eventual judicial review is an invitation to terrorism? There is even a bill to extend the 72 hours to 7 days. That's still not enough. F**k them.
The Left has never had an aggressive, obnoxious, go-for-the-emotional-regardless-of-the-facts asshole like Rush.
No, they don't have one. They have legions of them.
Care to name any liberal who spews hatred like the conservatives I listed?
Therein lies the gross difference of opinion that makes your question unanswerable ... had you stopped at 'any liberal who spews hatred' there are 1,000 answers.
Care to name any liberal who spews hatred like the conservatives I listed?
You said "aggressive, obnoxious, go-for-the-emotional-regardless-of-the-facts asshole". I can tell you who comes to mind first, but you won't like it. :-)
So you would equate
Newt Gingrich recommended that Clinton Democrats be portrayed as "the enemy of normal Americans."
with
Jesse Jackson explicitly likened the proposals of the new majority to Nazism and apartheid -- "If this were Germany, we would call it fascism. If this were South Africa, we would call it racism"
Hmmm. Seems like Gingrich is attacking a group of people, where Jackson is attacking behavior.
This
right-wing talk host Michael Savage in July, and rightly so, when he told a gay caller to "get AIDS and die, you pig."
is comparable to
The liberal Nina Totenberg..."I think he ought to be worried about what's going on in the Good Lord's mind," she said of Senator Jesse Helms in 1995, "because if there is retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will."
No even close.
The president "is not the orator that Hitler was," acknowledges leftist commentator Dave Lindorff at Counterpunch.org. "But comparisons of the Bush administration's fearmongering tactics to those practiced so successfully and with such terrible results by Hitler and Goebbels . . . are not at all out of line."
Again, criticism of ideas and behavior, not an attack on a person.
Of course this complaint can be taken too far. Ed Gillespie, the Republican Party's chairman, has been accusing Democrats of engaging in "political hate speech" when they call Bush a "liar" or a "miserable failure."
Waaaahhhh - remember what the republicans called Clinton.
Your third reference contained a bunch of anonymous quotes. They're really not attributable to a liberal. Karl Rove could easily have made those comments.
USA Today's Julianne Malveaux, whose leftist sympathies makes Karl Marx look like a right-wing kook, spat out this crudity about Justice Clarence Thomas, a fellow black: "I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease."
That's racist, and it sounds like Limbaugh, et al.
Try
this, it seems pretty even-handed.
This phone tapping for no reason may be a good idea. It shouldn't be long before the government goes house to house, searching for firearms that might be used by terrorists.;)
Hmmm. Seems like Gingrich is attacking a group of people, where Jackson is attacking behavior.
Do you think Jackson's famous "Hymietown" quote was attacking "behavior"?
The current hatred-spewing comment from the left comes from
Andrew Young, who in defending WalMart, said
...they ran the 'mom and pop' stores out of my neighborhood, ... But you see, those are the people who have been overcharging us selling us stale bread and bad meat and wilted vegetables. And they sold out and moved to Florida. I think they've ripped off our communities enough. First it was Jews, then it was Koreans and now it's Arabs; very few black people own these stores.
The diplomatic Mr. Young was Ambassador to the UN.
The current hatred-spewing comment from the right comes from
George Allen, who at a recent campaign appearance, pointed to an Indian-looking gentleman who was filming him, working for the opposition, and said
This fellow here over here with the yellow shirt, Macaca, or whatever his name is. He's with my opponent. He's following us around everywhere. And it's just great. We're going to places all over Virginia, and he's having it on film and it's great to have you here and you show it to your opponent because he's never been there and probably will never come. [...] Let's give a welcome to Macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia outside of the beltway.
The "Macaca" reference was ill-defended once it was traced back to Allen's mother's roots, where the term is a deep ethnic slur. Personally I feel the "Welcome to America" comment is just as damning spoken to anyone brown.
Mr. Allen is a sitting Senator of the US and, prior to the comment, thought to be a possible candidate for the Presidency 2008.
Where did you get the idea that the wiretapping program was indescriminant?? It targeted ONLY calls that met a specific criteria 1)One of the callers must be known to have ties with or be in collusion with Al-Queda operatives, and 2) One of the callers must be outside of the U.S. That's it. The image that people seem to have of the White House listening to you chat with grandma is uninformed bullshit.
Where did you get the idea that the wiretapping program was indescriminant?? It targeted ONLY calls that met a specific criteria
According to....? The affidavit? The judge?
The image that people seem to have of the White House listening to you chat with grandma is uninformed bullshit.
I don't think that is what concerns people. The concern is that when a behavior is tolerated, it is encouraged both to continue and to escalate...
I don't care WHO it targeted if it wasn't signed off as legal by a judge.
I know I've said this before, but I'll say it again...
What makes a connection to Al-Qaieda?
If I buy a carpet from a middle-eastern rug salesman who's brother's best friend once prayed at the same mosque as a guy who once prayed at a different mosque that Bin Laden's cousin once prayed at... is that a valid connection? Could they then listen to my international call to my girlfriend who lives in the US?
Probably. You have to think as if your calls can be listened to, because if not the authorities local to you, every authority through which the call is routed is capable and has an interest in listening in.
The good news is that they have no interest in your chatter, in fact your chatter is terrible noise to them, because you're likely to talk about anything, which means your conversation is more likely to contain triggering keywords and phrases, without actually being useful.
Actually the chatter is probably downright painful, as I lose all male dignity while talking to her and force myself to act cute cause she knows I'm not like that and finds it hilarious.
Do you think Jackson's famous "Hymietown" quote was attacking "behavior"?
That sure was hate speech, IMHO. So on the Democrat side, there's Jesse Jackson. On the repubican side, ther's Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Savage, Liddy, et al, some of whom have been around for decades.
triggering keywords and phrases
Things like: being critical of the US government, for instance. We should probably avoid saying anything bad about the US government, because they might be listening, and if they hear something they don't like, we know they can make us vanish, with no explanation provided to anybody, and ship us overseas to be tortured, etc.
So . . . that isn't likely to chill free speech or participative democracy?
Not really. People who are that paranoid don't vote, because they're sure it'll get them on a list.
Every time I talk with my mom in Arizona, I make sure to throw in a few statements for the NSA... Wouldn't want them to get bored.:flipbird:
that paranoid
But, which part of what I said isn't actually happening?
Other than the specific content of the calls, which we don't know.
It's an article of faith that these methods are being used responsibly.
Almost all of what you said isn't happening. But if it's helpful to consider, you make a similar leap of faith just driving down the highway. The chances that you'll be shot by local cops in a case of mistaken identity is much greater than being tied into international terror because you said you hate Bush on a international phone call.
My friends are still all present and accounted-for.
If you remove the clearly speculative phone-call aspect of it, which parts of what I said aren't happening?
I can't prove a negative. Which parts of what you said ARE happening?
Just define what you meant by "almost all" . . .
Almost all of what you said isn't happening. But if it's helpful to consider, you make a similar leap of faith just driving down the highway. The chances that you'll be shot by local cops in a case of mistaken identity is much greater than being tied into international terror because you said you hate Bush on a international phone call.
My friends are still all present and accounted-for.
Do you happen to be friends with former ambassador Wilson? This administration penalizes dissent or opposition. That's why I don't trust unsupervised phone survailance. You may not disappear, but Zey Haff Vays uff making you pay.
Well my guess is that only one of the things you mentioned is happening.
That sure was hate speech, IMHO. So on the Democrat side, there's Jesse Jackson. On the repubican side, ther's Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Savage, Liddy, et al, some of whom have been around for decades.
That wasn't exhaustive, it was a counterexample intended to show you're cherrypicking...not hard to do on either side.
This is a general, speculative point. We know that when "terror suspects" are involved, it is considered a case where the due process of law goes out the window, and we feel that is justified for the greater good.
My line of thought is: how flexible is the definition of "terror" . . .
Also: given a power such as this, how likely is it that it will be abused? If so, how long before it is abused? And in that case, will it be too late for us to be able to determine the difference, the veil of secrecy having been established by our current actions?
Spex, a special prosecutor was appointed to specifically to look into your theory, and it didn't even turn up any blowjobs. Never mind that Amb. Wilson is still with us, and untortured (he looked really good in that Armani at the Correspondents Dinner).
My opinion is that as long as people are alert to, and concerned about, violations of civil liberty, those violations are much less likely to occur. The real threat comes from the corners where we aren't pointing our flashlights.
We don't even know what's in those corners. Our best bet is to be educated, active, thinking, concerned people and then hope for the best.
Where does knocking someone as "paranoid" factor into that proactive plan?
EDIT :::answers own question::: The determination between real an imagined threats helps us respond where response is actually warranted... Weeding out the loonies helps to prevent others from being dis-credited?
If your dog barks at people he doesn't know, he is good as a watch dog.
If your dog barks at everything, he is useless as a watch dog.
The brightest flashlight also casts the harshest shadow and blinds your night vision.
I got a million of these
Spex, a special prosecutor was appointed to specifically to look into your theory, and it didn't even turn up any blowjobs.
Isn't Scooter Libby facing charges? He probably worked alone in the same way Liddy and North did.;)
Never mind that Amb. Wilson is still with us, and untortured (he looked really good in that Armani at the Correspondents Dinner).
I said as much. He wasn't disappeared, but he certainly was punished.
The FISA court was created because these powers were being misused. And Nixon was positively squeamish about using presidential power, compared to Bush.
Yeah, but Libby's charge is like Clinton's: perjury in a trial with a not-guilty verdict. Of course, in Clinton's case, it was more like let's ask him questions until we find something he lies about and then charge him w/ perjury. But anyway, it's a smaller deal than the original charge.
And Nixon was positively squeamish about using presidential power, compared to Bush.
That statement is another one of those "beleving your own hyperbole" deals. I don't recall any particular sqeamishness on Nixon's part. And there was only one "Woodstein" in those days, rather than the vast legions of wannabees we have today...
I don't recall any particular sqeamishness on Nixon's part.
I didn't say there was.
I didn't say there was.
And Nixon was positively squeamish about using presidential power...
Hypnotized by one's own hyperbole, as I said.
Creative editing, there.
You're just so freaking anxious to get your jollies and confirm your Good Liberal cred by slamming Bush that truth and perspective have become unimportant.
The fact is that three decades later, Bush is operating in a completely different environment: everything he does is under an intense level of hostile scrutiny, and it stands up extremely well compared to what Tricky Dick got away with without even thinking about it much (up to the point he was impeached, anyway) mostly because nobody was looking, or knew how to. Today every journo student learns about Woodstein at his prof's knee, and throughoiut his career longs to earn
his Pulitzer breaking the Big Story that topples the Evil and Mighty.
I remeber the Nixon administration quite well, and nobody cheered louder than I did when he went down. But your comparison is either hysterical or woefully uninformed.
Today every journo student learns about Woodstein at his prof's knee, and throughoiut his career longs to earn his Pulitzer breaking the Big Story that topples the Evil and Mighty.
I'd call that a good thing. :D
I'd call that a good thing.
It is, as long as they're not so hypnotized by it that it leads them
away from the truth.
In Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" you may recall the description of the Man with the Muck-rake, the man who could look no way but downward, with the muck-rake in his hand; who was offered a celestial crown for his muck-rake, but who would neither look up nor regard the crown he was offered, but continued to rake to himself the filth of the floor.
In "Pilgrim's Progress" the Man with the Muckrake is set forth as the example of him whose vision is fixed on carnal instead of on spiritual things. Yet he also typifies the man who in this life consistently refuses to see aught that is lofty, and fixes his eyes with solemn intentness only on that which is vile and debasing. Now, it is very necessary that we should not flinch from seeing what is vile and debasing. There is filth on the floor, and it must be scraped up with the muck-rake; and there are times and places where this service is the most needed of all the services that can be performed. But the man who never does anything else, who never thinks or speaks or writes, save of his feats with the muck-rake, speedily becomes, not a help to society, not an incitement to good, but one of the most potent forces for evil.
There are, in the body politic, economic and social, many and grave evils, and there is urgent necessity for the sternest war upon them. There should be relentless exposure of and attack upon every evil man whether politician or business man, every evil practice, whether in politics, in business, or in social life. I hail as a benefactor every writer or speaker, every man who, on the platform, or in book, magazine, or newspaper, with merciless severity makes such attack, provided always that he in his turn remembers that the attack is of use only if it is absolutely truthful... The men with the muck-rakes are often indispensable to the well-being of society; but only if they know when to stop raking the muck, and to look upward to the celestial crown above them, to the crown of worthy endeavor.
The fact is that three decades later, Bush is operating in a completely different environment:
A lapdog Congress.
everything he does is under an intense level of hostile scrutiny,
Not from anyone who can do anything about it. Woodward and Bernstein wouldn't have gotten anywhere if Congress had steadfastly refused to set up the Watergate Committee, no matter how much press they got. Or if they'd reluctantly made the committee, but refused to allow it to interview administration officials. Or if they were allowed to interview officials, but not alone and not under oath. Or if official government investigators were denied security clearances, and were therefore forced to terminate the investigation.
Woodward and Bernstein wouldn't have gotten anywhere if Congress had steadfastly refused to set up the Watergate Committee, no matter how much press they got.
It's not a matter of "how much press they got". It's
quality rather than quantity, and the
quality has been garbage.
You can play crappy music though a huge amplifier (The Internet, anyone?) but it's still crappy music.
It's just louder.
... everything he does is under an intense level of hostile scrutiny, and it stands up extremely well compared to what Tricky Dick got away with ...
Ken Starr is investigating? :stickpoke
It's not a matter of "how much press they got". It's quality rather than quantity, and the quality has been garbage.
OK. Replace "how much" with "what" in my post above, if you like.
OK. Replace "how much" with "what" in my post above, if you like.
I'll replace it in your post if you replace it in your thinking.
The fact is that three decades later, Bush is operating in a completely different environment: everything he does is under an intense level of hostile scrutiny, and it stands up extremely well compared to what Tricky Dick got away with without even thinking about it much (up to the point he was impeached, anyway) mostly because nobody was looking, or knew how to.
Why is everything that he does under an intense level of scrutiny? Maybe because he's burned his bridges with just about everyone imaginable (the press, the left, the ENTIRE WORLD, the general populace)? Do you think, just possibly, there's a reason why his poll numbers are in the toilet?
And frankly, you're criticism of his being under the microscope doesn't hold up for most of his tenure as president. How else was he able to get us into Iraq on
extraordinarily feeble evidence? Or, for a more recent example, find a comparison on major news outlets on the time spent on JonBenet last week vs. Diggs-Taylor's ruling. I
already have one, but you will probably dismiss it as biased, since TP is a lefty site.
Why is everything that he does under an intense level of scrutiny?
How about "because thirty years later the world is a very different place, and information moves thousands of times faster"? Occam's Razor...
I'm not *criticising* his being scruitnized; it's both necessary and an inevitable consequence of technological change. The same was true of Bill Clinton, to a somewhat lesser extent, and if his wife is elected in '08, it will be even more true for her. Or anybody else who might be elected then.
Do you *remeber* 1974? I sure do. Your profile says you weren't even born yet.
I read implied criticism into your statement by your use of the word 'hostile.' Was I wrong?
Hooray for being born before me.
My response to you, paraphrased, is:
-1)Hostlie scrutiny of GWB is justified.
-2)The scrutiny isn't all that intense in the mainstream.
How does my age enter into the equation here? I'm pretty sure that you're implying a comparison to Nixon into my statement, but it isn't there.
I read implied criticism into your statement by your use of the word 'hostile.' Was I wrong? Hooray for being born before me...I'm pretty sure that you're implying a comparison to Nixon into my statement, but it isn't there.
Actually HappyMonkey invoked Nixon, and my parallel construction was "thirty years later".
I think there's more hostile scrutiny for two reasons:
1) there's more scrutiny, period, and
2) the "mainstream" media has moved considerably to the left since 1974, due not in small part to the
events of 1974.
That said, I'd guess that reason 1 is a vastly bigger impact than reason 2.
Your age is relevant because it's much more difficult to appreciate the profound differences in culture and mediaspace between 1974 and 2006 if you weren't around then.
Only four TV networks, with a daily news cycle rather than an hourly one. PBS/CBS/ABC/NBC news for an hour (or two, if you stayed up late) per night, but no CNN, no CNBC, no FoxNews, no CSPAN. Access to being published only if the editor or publisher of a dead-tree newspaper/magazine deems you worthy, and even your audience is no bigger than the readership of the rag in question.
Today's media environments create huge information spaces at the drop of a hat; the memetic equivalant of a flashmob. They're just not comparable playing fields.
Today's media environments create huge information spaces at the drop of a hat; the memetic equivalant of a flashmob. They're just not comparable playing fields.
Agreed.
However, I'm going to call shenanigans on saying the media has moved to the left since '74. There's always been folks willing to call the government on it's BS (Edward Murrow comes to my mind). What changed was the press's willingness to dig into what those in power were actually doing and exposing it. I'll also argue that the sunlight effect is fading with consolidation of major media (though that's another thread). Do you have some general trends (specific examples are not conclusive data) that you could point out that say the media is drifting left? I have some that say the mainstream press is moving rightish (though not through changes in demographics of reporting editorial or reporting staff), but I'd like to hear your theory.
I'll replace it in your post if you replace it in your thinking.
It's what I meant all along. No matter what the press said.
Do you have some general trends (specific examples are not conclusive data) that you could point out that say the media is drifting left? I have some that say the mainstream press is moving rightish (though not through changes in demographics of reporting editorial or reporting staff), but I'd like to hear your theory.
I can't think of an objective measure that could be applied across the period 1974-2006...and if I could, I wouldn't think excluding demographics of the press would be appropriate...they are, after all, who they are; trying to tune out shifts in the population would distort the overall picure.
My subjective impression over that period is that the mainstream media have moved left over that time, but then I've moved away from the left over that time, so that's a moving frame of reference.
Speaking of scrutiny:
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.)
OK, I take it back. Maybe she
is Taliban.
What makes us tired is that somehow all the findings of people like these are clearly aimed not at increasing, but reducing US effectiveness in prosecuting the GWOT. This "we must lose because we're, uh, America" attitude is nonsense, and must go if we really want a good world.
Maybe she is Taliban.
I had to go back to the first page (is Maggie referencing my comment?) ...and then I found this:
Who wants to force their religious views on the entire nation, and make them law of the land, like the Taliban?
Who wants to force prayer in school, like the Taliban?
Who were against the ERA, wanting to keep women in their place as second-class citizens like the Taliban?
Who wants everybody in the country to tote around an AK47, like the Taliban?
Who would never stand for same-gender marriage, like the Taliban?
Who punishes you for opposing their agenda like the Taliban?
Who has a core following who are fundamentalist religious conservative extremists, like the Taliban?
Who doesn't care if their fellow countrymen live or die, like the Taliban?
Who bypasses diplmacy, in favor of violence, like the Taliban?
ha ha ha <smilie of approval>
What makes us tired is that somehow all the findings of people like these are clearly aimed not at increasing, but reducing US effectiveness in prosecuting the GWOT. This "we must lose because we're, uh, America" attitude is nonsense, and must go if we really want a good world.
Here's an easy way to win the GWOT: All American citizens must have an identification number tattooed on their forehead, and an identifying microchip implanted rectally. Anyone in America must submit to daily body cavity searches, and weekly home and business searches, as well as random automobile searches. Then, we should just use our nukuler weapons on the rest of the world. With this strategy in place, we'll win the GWOT in a heartbeat!
I can't think of an objective measure that could be applied across the period 1974-2006...and if I could, I wouldn't think excluding demographics of the press would be appropriate...they are, after all, who they are; trying to tune out shifts in the population would distort the overall picure.
My subjective impression over that period is that the mainstream media have moved left over that time, but then I've moved away from the left over that time, so that's a moving frame of reference.
And I've moved left :)
So, my general theory is that in the past few years (say, from the mid-90's, when media de-regulation really kicked into overdrive), fewer and fewer companies have controlled larger and larger percentages of the top-down, traditional media. And, though I may disagree with alot of the right's politics, they're generally better business people than the left. Therefore, the people that own top-down media have decreased in number, while simultaneously moving to the right politically, which has influenced the overall tone of media outlets.
So I wasn't trying to remove the demographic shift of the newsroom staff, I just didn't think it was relevant.
RE: Diggs-Taylor's potential links to the ACLU:
Probably not a big deal. After, Scalia didn't recuse himself from the SCOTUS case involving the VP, and they're friends. ;)
What makes us tired is that somehow all the findings of people like these are clearly aimed not at increasing, but reducing US effectiveness in prosecuting the GWOT. This "we must lose because we're, uh, America" attitude is nonsense, and must go if we really want a good world.
And how is the prosecution of the GWOT going at the moment? Hmmm...increased hostility towards Americans? Check. Increased incidences of acts of terrorism? Check. Decreased political stability in notoriously unstable regions of the world? Check.
And BTW, how exactly do you win a war on terror? Simple answer: not by blowing shit up or undermining civil liberties (those pesky little things that make us BETTER than the rest of the world), but by NOT BEING TERRORIZED.
Increased incidences of acts of terrorism?
You got proof? The gubmint don't publish those no more, cuz it harms the GWOT.
And I've moved left :)
Well, watch this space. The evening is young, and so are you.
RE: Diggs-Taylor's potential links to the ACLU:
Probably not a big deal. After, Scalia didn't recuse himself from the SCOTUS case involving the VP, and they're friends. ;)
There's a whopping big difference between not recusing and not even disclosing...and this is a case of not disclosing. I don't think anyone was unaware of the Scalia-Cheney friendship.
Actually, I don't think there is much of a difference, legally speaking. The judge in question is the ultimate arbiter of whether or not there's a conflict of interest (which I think is a bunch of horsecrap, but that's another thread). I'm pretty sure there's no legal requirement for a judge to even disclose if there's even of potential COI. The flip side of that is there's more than likely an ethical necessity, but since when do ethics and law coincide?
but reducing US effectiveness in prosecuting the GWOT.
Uh oh, we have an official acronym now. Ok folks, an acronym has been assigned and discussion is over, let's all pack up, ASAP.:rolleyes:
Oh boy, I'm glad that whole thing is finally over! I bet all you Bush-Haters feel pretty silly now. See, things worked out just fine, as usual (oh ye of little faith). Nothing more to see here, move along now. Hey! Move it along, we said. Now!
Central Control, we got us a Freedom-Hater in sector 7G.. Release the hounds!
The President has decided to reduce US effectiveness in prosecuting the GWOT.
...wait, he what?
I'm gonna wait until the House and Senate Intelligence Committees have a look at exactly what he's doing before I believe it. I'm guessing this is pretty much lip service.
Simple answer: not by blowing shit up or undermining civil liberties (those pesky little things that make us BETTER than the rest of the world), but by NOT BEING TERRORIZED.
I include under "not being terrorized" embassies not blown up, the USS Cole not damaged with 17 dead, and the WTC not being attacked twice, nor the Pentagon once.
Seems this hasn't quite happened.
We've a problem: fanatical bigots attack us. Convert these to good bigots by killing them in ways that make other bigots know it's extremely unsafe, and makes for not only a solitary, poor, nasty, and brutish life to attack us, but a short one as well. Deprive the fanatical anti-Americans any advantage, of any sort.
Do these antis wish to scream at us about Israel? Advise them they are being immoral, and back it up by vaporizing the anti-Israelites. They really should have learned their lesson from 1948 and 1956, when Israel showed the whole planet God wanted Israel to be, twice over. All we're doing is helping God's manifest plan.
The eastern Mediterranean
could be enriching itself in trade with a highly successful country, but it foolishly refuses to do this -- how moronic can you get? Nobody paid much attention to that stretch of the Mediterranean littoral until a bunch of Jews moved in and made a success of the place. If the Arabs would do as the Israelis do... "There'd be a lot less people to worry about, and a lot more people who care."
We've a problem: fanatical bigots attack us. Convert these to good bigots by killing them in ways that make other bigots know it's extremely unsafe, and makes for not only a solitary, poor, nasty, and brutish life to attack us, but a short one as well. Deprive the fanatical anti-Americans any advantage, of any sort.
Uh, most the fanatical ones are willing to die for their cause. I don't think they fear dying...
