What is Digg?209 Comments
- greenback1, on 02/20/2008, -8/+118I guess we get it at every angle, the same old same old, trust us, trust us. I think it's time we tell all of them we've changed our mind and we want to gut the entire government. We could tell all of them from the White House to Congress to the Supreme Court that they can leave now and don't worry, everything will be alright, trust us.
- inactive, on 02/20/2008, -10/+74Executive: Strike 1
Legislative: Strike 2
Judicial: Strike 3
We're out! - fr0ng, on 02/20/2008, -9/+64Hooray! Now all 3 branches of our government have been infiltrated and tainted!
- inactive, on 02/20/2008, -4/+39Damn, with the powers the executive branch seems to be amassing, we're in deep ***** when an intelligent, aggressive and ruthless president is "elected". What do you think Hillary would do with these so-called powers?
All this ***** is OK as long as your party is in power. Then you piss, whine and moan when the other party uses them. Get a ***** clue! This isn't about partisan politics, it's about freedom, liberty and restoration of these united States of America to their rightful sovereign place. - rnwen2750, on 02/20/2008, -8/+38I like this article because it seems like every third article that comes out about the ACLU supporting somebody who is not white in their lawsuit, people bitch and complain about how the ACLU never does anything but fight racist battles. Here's a prime example of them helping EVERYONE (or at least trying to).
- d03boy, on 02/20/2008, -2/+27cheques and account balances
- decyx, on 02/20/2008, -3/+27So much for checks and balances.
- thebellmaster1x, on 02/20/2008, -4/+28Remember back when the Supreme Court could actually be trusted to interpret laws for the benefit of the populace?
...I'm asking Diggers who are older than I, by the way, because I can't remember any time that that was true. - inactive, on 02/20/2008, -6/+30The War on Terror is a farce. Blaming things on liberals vs. conservatives is a trick to keep people at odds.
It seems Americans have become more than content with giving up their individual liberty for safety. Hell, it's like they can't give them up fast enough!
Maybe someone would be kind enough to provide a link to the official definitions of what makes one a liberal vs. a conservative? Make sure the link provides the definition of what makes one a strict constitutionalist who doesn't buy into the false left/right paradigm. - mikelieman, on 02/20/2008, -4/+28EFF v. AT&T has pretty clear evidence that ***ALL*** Traffic transiting AT&T is copied to the NSA without warrants.
- EllieElliott, on 02/20/2008, -11/+27Thanks Raw Story, see also Christy Hardin Smith, she's been all over this.
http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/19/scotus-rejects-w ... - arcticblue, on 02/20/2008, -2/+15Well, since you want to bring up the wiretapping issue... Yes, wiretapping is allowed and probably required, BUT a warrant is/should be required to do so. The law was already set up to provide warrants to wiretap and there was oversight to ensure everything was done in a legal manner. They even had a system to obtain a warrant in under an hour if needed. The current administration felt this was not good enough and decided to do away with those silly warrants. They also did away with any oversight so they can do whatever they please. THIS is not legal, but they did it anyway and are now re-writing the laws to make it legal as well as offer protection for those that broke the law when it was illegal.
And yeah, you're a douche-bag...and a dumb one at that. - Frostman3D, on 02/20/2008, -5/+18They couldn't prove where there was a victim, that's hard to do when the people their wiretapping are classified.
- mrcoderga, on 02/20/2008, -19/+32Sounds like Exec Branch is now allowed to spy on Congress officially. Which is precisely what Nixon got caught doing and got impeached for doing. But as of today, Congress can also spy on Exec Branch, per this court ruling. Whoever has the most spies, wins. That would be the Exec Branch, at about 15 intelligence agencies within its management. Bye bye Congress, they've got all the dirt on you. Was nice knowing you. Just don't try getting elected again unless you pay into and are obedient to the right party. OR should I say The Right party.
- inactive, on 02/20/2008, -4/+16What a joke , we need a new government system, and real freedom.
- obliviousfool, on 02/20/2008, -2/+12http://midtopia.blogspot.com/2006/03/aclu-and-reli ...
http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/1284 ...
http://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/31346prs20070 ...
http://www.jdharper.com/wordpress/2007/07/27/aclu- ...
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp ...
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=548951&page=1
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/ ...
How does it feel to always be wrong, JimmySpaza? - savetheusa1, on 02/20/2008, -2/+12It sucks when you cherish civil liberties and keep getting kicked in the nuts
- SaladCactusKing, on 02/20/2008, -3/+12The Bush Administration has done something I believe to be unprecedented: One of the points of the Federal government is the checks and balance system. The executive, the legislative, and the judicial departments all balance each other out. In eight years, this administration has managed, through a mix of luck and cunning, to completely fix all three departments to follow his whim. Bush even managed to secure 2 Supreme Court justices to think like him even after he leaves office.
There needs to be a massive overhaul in government structure or else we will be prone to another systematic dismantling as we have suffered the past 8 years. - fykusplant, on 02/20/2008, -1/+10As a student of constitutional law, the ACLU didn't have standing as it couldn't prove there was a victim in the case. There must be a victim to sue the government for grievances.
If you can't prove there is a victim, you're speaking in abstract terms. The Supreme Court does not speak in abstract terms.
Stop overreacting. While warantless wiretapping is as unconstitutional as it gets, and is certainly infringing upon our 4th amendment right to search and seizure, and our 14th amendment rights to due process, you need to prove a victim before you can bitch. - TrevaLVF, on 02/20/2008, -5/+14They've fought a variety of worthy battles over the years. The criticism against the ACLU is narrowed down to pet disagreements that right-wing spin doctors use to convince their idiotic right-wing audiences and readers that the ACLU is allegedly evil. It's based on defending people's civil rights. It is not selective with regard to race, sexual orientation, and so forth.
- robbh66, on 02/20/2008, -1/+9There's always going to be conservative and liberal judges on the SCOTUS. All I want is one independent on there to balance it all out.
- slvrbullet87, on 02/20/2008, -0/+8This is whats wrong with digg, nixon was spying on people who might challenge him for president for his second term, not congress. Yet this guy gets dugg up for spouting hate of bush even though his comment is completely wrong.
- Manchowder, on 02/20/2008, -1/+9Justice Warren, Justice Brennan, Justice Blackmun, Justice Douglas, Justice Marshall, Justice Holmes, Justice Cardozo. These men stood up for your rights. You cried and whined when they said blacks get the same rights too. You called them activist when they made women on par with men. But they stood in the way of the executive branch running roughshod over your individual rights.
Scalia and his ilk, have brought the unitary executive theory to the court. Under unitary executive theory, any legislative action that threatens the power of the unitary executive, but does not limit the executive himself, is still unconstitutional. Under unitary executive theory, no member of the executive branch can sue any other member, IE oversight and investigation, because all members of the executive branch are merely outgrowths of the unitary executive. Under unitary executive theory the congress cannot pass a law that limits the executive's power, only the supreme court can check him.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_1 ... - makkaveli19, on 02/20/2008, -2/+9uuuhh...... wtf
- asa400, on 02/20/2008, -3/+10Source? Aside from rightwing nutjob talkshow hosts?
- lgfaphile, on 02/20/2008, -5/+12What are you talking about?
- DogBotherer, on 02/20/2008, -2/+8Neo-con apologists out in force today...
- inactive, on 02/20/2008, -5/+11You're right, you are a poser. Good choice of name.
- Jlaugh, on 02/20/2008, -0/+6I'm guessing that's a reference to the foundation of the federal reserve.
- inchrnt, on 02/20/2008, -4/+10I challenge you to elect non-scum with this simple test. Here are your choices:
1) scum
2) scum
ok, now vote! :) - nrballard, on 02/20/2008, -1/+7"I will not allow the law in my courtroom!"
-Judge Kent Dawson, 2006 - Randinn, on 02/20/2008, -3/+9You're a douche-bag.
- johnny23, on 02/20/2008, -1/+7The constitution was written on hemp. mmmm hemp. peace, man.
- tillerman00, on 02/20/2008, -1/+6We's a-goin fascist, boys.
- Terr01, on 02/20/2008, -3/+8Ad-hominem, straw-man, excessive hyperbole much?
Everything else you've written is based on implicit premises, e.g. "That blastocyst is a child".
You might be conservative if you can't make logical arguments? - thebaron2, on 02/20/2008, -1/+6This may piss a lot of people off, but it's all fact and you can look up the court cases.
To date, two cases have been brought before federal courts to decide the Constiutionality of "warranteless wiretaps" after FISA -- United States v. Duggan 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir., 1984) and United States v. Nicholson 955 F.Supp. 588 (Va. 1997). Both courts flatly rejected claims that warrantless wiretaps violated the Constitution.
Furthermore, a special review court for FISA -- the very same court that everyone would have decide whether Bush's acts violated the law -- have already said (In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. of Rev. 2002) that “All the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information . . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.".
Here's an article from the WSJ detailing historic use of foreign intelligence surveillance, court case, and the constitutionality thereof, along with some snippets:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.ht ...
"Keep in mind that while the Carter administration asked Congress to enact the FISA statute in 1978, Attorney General Griffin Bell emphasized that the law "does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution." And in 1994, when the Clinton administration invited Congress to expand FISA to cover physical as well as electronic searches, the associate attorney general testified: "Our seeking legislation in no way should suggest that we do not believe we have inherent authority" under the Constitution. "We do," she concluded.
I'm not saying that what the president authorized was unquestionably lawful. The Supreme Court in the 1972 "Keith case" held that a warrant was required for national security wiretaps involving purely domestic targets, but expressly distinguished the case from one involving wiretapping "foreign powers" or their agents in this country. In the 1980 Truong case, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the warrantless surveillance of a foreign power, its agent or collaborators (including U.S. citizens) when the "primary purpose" of the intercepts was for "foreign intelligence" rather than law enforcement purposes. Every court of appeals that has considered the issue has upheld an inherent presidential power to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence searches; and in 2002 the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, created by the FISA statute, accepted that "the president does have that authority" and noted "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."
For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful. "
It's a constitutionally granted power to the president folks, and every court to EVER examine the issue has found that that's the case. It's important to maintain 3 EQUALLY POWERFUL branches of government, because anything that happens now to abridge the powers of the president will carry over long past Bush.
Look up the case law. We may not like it, but the only way to make this wiretapping illegal will be to pass a constitutional amendment, so if you want something to be done start writing your legislators. - brycelb, on 02/20/2008, -0/+5It's official, Digg is completely ridiculous! Who is digging this up? When exactly did Nixon get impeached?
- Ziak, on 02/20/2008, -0/+5The reason why: "Basically with the expiration of the Protect America Act this weekend, foreign surveillance will revert to oversight by the FISA court" They lack jurisdiction and it needs to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court
and yes this came from /. - yunus, on 02/20/2008, -1/+6Who are you to claim authority. Diebold did not elect you. Know your place citizen.
- inactive, on 02/20/2008, -2/+7Spaza, as in right-wing spazz?
Dude, figure out the Constitution and get back to us, thxbye. - Terr01, on 02/20/2008, -2/+6Thanks for the link (have a digg), but you did not really answer.
Your summary does not compute. For example, FISA is primarily a protection for calls with one or both points that are DOMESTIC. Why would they claim standing based on representing people ABROAD? You're putting words in the ACLU's metaphorical and legal mouth, and they aren't remotely plausible.
Top of Page 3: It's representing CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS INSIDE THE USA. - TheSwashbuckler, on 02/20/2008, -1/+5SCOTUS didn't agree to it at all you moron. Learn a little bit about how government actually functions before spouting your drivel...
- WiseWeasel, on 02/20/2008, -1/+5Depending on how they interpret the law, judges do in fact make the laws, by building a case history of judgments with certain interpretations, which become increasingly difficult to change as they are more commonly referenced. This is the case for both "conservative" and "liberal" judges, whatever you think those words mean.
- inactive, on 02/20/2008, -2/+6Yes, that would be prior to 1913 so I'm guessing there is NOBODY on digg who remembers that. Excellent question though and one that deserves considerable thought.
Then again, I don't think most people can think beyond what the TV guide states is on for the evening. - Terr01, on 02/20/2008, -2/+6"The allegation of course is that those people who they MIGHT be in contact with are foreign terrorists"
Firstly, There are many reasons people would cut back on what they say if they think the US government is warrantlessly snooping on them, whether they are domestic or foreign, citizen or not. Consider the case of Journalist/Cameraman Sami Muhyideen al-Hajj. Obviously not such a terrifying figure when the US government, to cut a deal to release him if he'd spy on the Al-Jazeera news network. (Released, no charges, no evidence, blah blah blah.)
Secondly, "representing Al Queda operatives" and "are foreign terrorists" is a dishonest framing of the legal issues involved. You're not just blurring but explicitly crossing the line between "people of interest" and "criminal murderers". Given given the evidence of "people of such extreme interest we unconstitutionally detain them" who have been grudgingly freed on lack of gronds, I fail to see why "people of minor interest whom we wiretap" comes anywhere close to getting an automatic guilty verdict from you on never-filed charges.
And I'm the one resorting to hyperbole? Meh.
And what "carve out" are you referring to? The part where FISA states that oversight is required *even if the target is a non-citizen resident in the United States* and that violation is a felony?? - TrevaLVF, on 02/20/2008, -1/+5That's a half-baked lie coming from somebody that hates our civil rights. I keep trying to tell you fascist tards, if you don't like American civil liberties and you think that people have to be subjected to this kind of crap, then go where it's common place and generally accepted. Like to China.
- Terr01, on 02/20/2008, -3/+7What are you smoking?
"the ACLU claimed they had standing to sue on the theory that they might represent suspected terrorists abroad"? Source? Which "they"?
Oh, and the POTENTIAL violations are ACTUAL violations under federal statute. Look it up. - gmillerd, on 02/20/2008, -0/+4They dont have a case until someone is damaged by the tapping the court said, they just need someone that is harmed and back they can go. They were given that response rather than no response which is good.
- inactive, on 02/20/2008, -1/+5No, we just need to return to the one we were given by our FF. We haven't known real freedom in this country for over 90 years. Hopefully I will live to see it returned. I'll definitely die trying to return it.
- rnwen2750, on 02/20/2008, -1/+4BillO would never lie to America!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 204 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is