msnbc.msn.com— DETROIT - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.
Aug 17, 2006View in Crawl 4
@corporate70Oh, since you put it that way, here, wiretap my phone. And while I am giving up my rights, how about I let you censor what I say and ass-rape me too on a periodic basis.If the law is broken, fix it you dumb f**k. Circumventing the law is not a right the government has. Put it up for debate, vote on it, and make it law.
Funny, I didn't hear any of you far left wing fanatics complain when Jimmy Carter did the same thing"In 1978, for instance, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government."The hypocrosy of the left is stunning!
junk all junk. you have nothing. you can say this and that but no one has been effected. you say the govt has AT&T traffic, but you can give me one example of the feds abusing this information. so stop with the crap already.
i think about 90% of the people in here ignore that there is a group of people in the world that just want to end us all and are trying hard everyday to disrupt our lives and in some cases end life, but everyone chooses to ignore that and go on about their business like nothing is happening out there in the world. it is World war III.
No, actually that would be the end of almost all of hostilities. Israel wants to sell us the "war without end" thing. Yeah, when are the Persians going to show up on our shores? Pfft. They can chant death to America until they are blue in the face. Newsflash: Khrushchev didn't bury us, and he had a proper armed forces plus hydrogen bombs and ICBMs. Won't do them any good. And they will realize that soon enough.
Answer: It was done during the Cold War, when we faced a real threat, and to do it now is criminal. Hang the criminals running this country for treason, and restore the Republic. That is the answer.
Interesting. The Soviet Union was ruled by sane rational people who feared a nuclear retaliation as much as we feared being hit by a nuclear first strike. It could be argued that Mutually Assured Destruction contributed as a deterrent. So you are saying that we are not threatened by people who don’t value their own lives? People who deliberately kill civilians as a means to achieve their objective of establishing a new world order don’t pose a real threat? People who use Anthrax to indiscriminately kill people on American soil don’t pose a real threat? People who have demonstrated a growing competence with weapons of mass destruction and a willingness to use them on a civilian population and an ability to successfully conspire don’t pose a real threat?There was a time many decades ago when these people could only dream of achieving what they accomplish now.
I would say the ruling will be thrown out, but i am not sure how this would work:<a class="user" href="http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_5862.shtml">http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_5862.shtml</a>U.S. District Judge Who Presided Over Government Wiretapping Case May Have Had Conflict of InterestJudicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and judicial abuse, announced today that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who last week ruled the government’s warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional, serves as a Secretary and Trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case (ACLU et. al v. National Security Agency). Judicial Watch discovered the potential conflict of interest after reviewing Judge Diggs Taylor’s financial disclosure statements.
syberghostAug 17, 2006
"Now that there has been an end". LOL. 6th District will have overturned this by next weekend.
mbabauerAug 17, 2006
@corporate70Oh, since you put it that way, here, wiretap my phone. And while I am giving up my rights, how about I let you censor what I say and ass-rape me too on a periodic basis.If the law is broken, fix it you dumb f**k. Circumventing the law is not a right the government has. Put it up for debate, vote on it, and make it law.
americaninfidelAug 18, 2006
Funny, I didn't hear any of you far left wing fanatics complain when Jimmy Carter did the same thing"In 1978, for instance, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government."The hypocrosy of the left is stunning!
markglAug 18, 2006
junk all junk. you have nothing. you can say this and that but no one has been effected. you say the govt has AT&T traffic, but you can give me one example of the feds abusing this information. so stop with the crap already.
markglAug 18, 2006
i think about 90% of the people in here ignore that there is a group of people in the world that just want to end us all and are trying hard everyday to disrupt our lives and in some cases end life, but everyone chooses to ignore that and go on about their business like nothing is happening out there in the world. it is World war III.
williamdyerAug 19, 2006
No, actually that would be the end of almost all of hostilities. Israel wants to sell us the "war without end" thing. Yeah, when are the Persians going to show up on our shores? Pfft. They can chant death to America until they are blue in the face. Newsflash: Khrushchev didn't bury us, and he had a proper armed forces plus hydrogen bombs and ICBMs. Won't do them any good. And they will realize that soon enough.
williamdyerAug 19, 2006
Answer: It was done during the Cold War, when we faced a real threat, and to do it now is criminal. Hang the criminals running this country for treason, and restore the Republic. That is the answer.
teddyrooseveltAug 22, 2006
Interesting. The Soviet Union was ruled by sane rational people who feared a nuclear retaliation as much as we feared being hit by a nuclear first strike. It could be argued that Mutually Assured Destruction contributed as a deterrent. So you are saying that we are not threatened by people who don’t value their own lives? People who deliberately kill civilians as a means to achieve their objective of establishing a new world order don’t pose a real threat? People who use Anthrax to indiscriminately kill people on American soil don’t pose a real threat? People who have demonstrated a growing competence with weapons of mass destruction and a willingness to use them on a civilian population and an ability to successfully conspire don’t pose a real threat?There was a time many decades ago when these people could only dream of achieving what they accomplish now.
ashole71Aug 23, 2006
I would say the ruling will be thrown out, but i am not sure how this would work:<a class="user" href="http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_5862.shtml">http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_5862.shtml</a>U.S. District Judge Who Presided Over Government Wiretapping Case May Have Had Conflict of InterestJudicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and judicial abuse, announced today that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who last week ruled the government’s warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional, serves as a Secretary and Trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case (ACLU et. al v. National Security Agency). Judicial Watch discovered the potential conflict of interest after reviewing Judge Diggs Taylor’s financial disclosure statements.
tyrannousdotnetDec 18, 2008
<a class="user" href="http://current.com/items/89632523/meet_the_whistleblower_who_exposed_the_illegal_nsa_surveillance_wiretap_program.htm">http://current.com/items/89632523/meet_the_whistle ...</a>