Reply With Quote
Xray=Say anything that has nothing to do with changing the fact that Bush is a liar and is the most horrible US President ever.
SA210=still stuck under a bridge.
Xray=Say anything that has nothing to do with changing the fact that Bush is a liar and is the most horrible US President ever.
But that's precisely the point: it's not about WHO the ACLU defends; it's about what the ACLU defends. Whether its Rush Limbaugh or white supremacists or Nazis, the ACLU has defended all kinds of right wing ideologues when the Cons utional rights of those ideologues have been threatened. Their agenda IS defending (and, in some cases, defining) what the Cons ution protects.
The ACLU defends the Cons utional rights of individuals, no matter who they are or what they believe, from infringement by the goverment. They do argue to extend Cons utional rights in some cir stances, but our society would be a worse place if we all stood by and let the executive and legislative branches have the final say on what our rights are -- if nobody ever challenged decisions that might interfere with broader rights.
The ACLU defended Rush because the Cons ution guarantees and individual's right to privacy and the State of Florida was threatening to invade on Rush's right to privacy by compelling disclosure of his medical records. If that's not fighting an issue of cons utional law, I don't know what is.
Frankly, I suspect that you repeat this mantra of ACLU hatred because you've been lead to believe that the ACLU threatens conservative values. I doubt, in most cases, that you could even describe what it is that the ACLU has done wrong -- you just have decided that the ACLU can do nothing worthwhile.
What the ACLU does is prevent Cons utional rights from being threatened by the whim of the majority. That is precisely what the Bill of Rights was intended to prevent -- but it works only if someone is willing to fight to ensure that minorities aren't trampled by the whim of those who are more powerful. Unless you believe that the rights of a social, religious, racial, or economic minority should be subject to whatever the majority wishes those rights to be, you shouldn't have any real problem with the ACLU's work.
But, but, but.....Clinton got a blowjob!! In the oval office!!
^^^ on EASTER!!!
Ah, yes. Here is another example of how your favorite newspaper does their
thing.
Monday, Jan. 2, 2006 3:15 p.m. EST
NY Times 'Stonewalling' on NSA Leak
New York Times executives are "stonewalling" on questions about the paper's decision to publish top secret information about the Bush administration's use of the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance operations against terrorists, the paper's public editor charged on Sunday.
"The New York Times's explanation of its decision to report, after what it said was a one-year delay, that the National Security Agency is eavesdropping domestically without court-approved warrants was woefully inadequate," public editor Byron Calame wrote in a New Years Day column.
In its initial report on Dec. 16, Times said that editors held the story at the request of the White House, then edited out some - but not all - of the information that Bush administration officials warned would compromise national security.
But a frustrated-sounding Calame said that explanation wasn't good enough, adding: "I have had unusual difficulty getting a better explanation for readers, despite the paper's repeated pledges of greater transparency."
"For the first time since I became public editor, the executive editor and the publisher have declined to respond to my requests for information about news-related decision-making," he lamented.
Three days after the Times began publishing the national security secrets, Calame says he emailed a list of 28 questions to executive editor Bill Keller, who "promptly declined to respond to them."
He then sent the same questions to Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., who also declined to respond. "They held out no hope for a fuller explanation in the future," Calame said.
He accused the two top Times officials of "stonewalling," adding, "The paper's silence leaves me with uncomfortable doubts."
================================================== =============
Guess they are going to take the "high road". Of course, couldn't be that they
want to sell books, could it?
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act,
-President Bush
Well seems to me like he was talking about the patriot act authorizing the fbi to wiretap terrorist. That was the subject, not wether the US secret agencies wiretap at all, that's allready a known fact.
But ofcourse you'd be wise enough to know about those matters.
Don't know. Is there a list of this 28 questions? Why does this guy need to know anyway?Guess they are going to take the "high road". Of course, couldn't be that they
want to sell books, could it?
That's an interesting way to parse the statement -- the Cons utional warrant requirement applies to executive branch agencies like FBI (which is governed by Article II of the Cons ution), but not to the executive (who is governed by Article II of the Cons ution)?
Any wiretap, by any US agency (whether secret or not) in the United States requires a warrant. Whether that warrant comes from a federal court or from the FISC, there still must be a warrant. The Patriot Act does not eliminate that requirement.
THAT is what the President was saying in the passage that is quoted in this forum repeatedly.
Quite obviously, now that his statement is rather inconvenient to defending the position he's taken on domestic spying, it's not what the President is currently trying to sell.
Curious also that this is the New York Times questioning its own editorial policy.
Please take a read on this , Your Gayness,
Your quite wise enough to know about these matters.
Big Bush Lies: Bush Lies, Then McClellen Lies In Cover-Up Attempt, Jerry Politex
"A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources....At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan was asked to explain why Bush last year said, "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." McClellan said the quote referred only to the USA Patriot Act." --Washington Post, Dec. 21, '05.
This is not true. Bush was explaining that there was no difference between wiretaps before the Patriot Act and wiretaps after the Patriot Act: "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, cons utional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Cons ution." This was a lie, given the New York Times story on the subject on Dec. 16 and Bush's admission on December 17: "On Friday, the New York Times revealed that, after the 2001 terrorist attacks, Bush authorized the NSA to eavesdrop inside the United States without court-approved warrants. The newspaper said thousands of people may have had their phone calls and e-mail monitored as a result. Bush, appearing angry during his radio address, called the program lawful and crucial to safeguarding America from further attacks." --Houston Chronicle.
The thing that blows me away is Bush's continued pimping of the Patriot Act. Why have that when he's going to do whatever the he wants anyway? Burn the ing Patriot Act.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
