Letters to the Editor
Jim White
Published Letters: 1094 Editor's Choice: 15
-
Ann Aiken, Patriot in Action
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Plaintiff:Brandon Mayfield (and his family), an attorney in Oregon spied on and arrested after his fingerprint was improperly matched to a latent print from the Madrid bombings.
Defendant: United States of America
Ann Aiken, US District Court in Oregon, presiding.
http://ord.uscourts.gov/rulings/04-cv-1427Opinion.pdf:
Moreover, the constitutionally required interplay between Executive action, Judicial decision, and Congressional enactment, has been eliminated by the FISA amendments. Prior to the amendments, the three branches of government operated with thoughtful and deliberate checks and balances - a principle upon which our Nation was founded. These constitutional checks and balances effectively curtail overzealous executive, legislative, or judicial activity regardless of the catalyst for overzealousness. The Constitution contains bedrock principles that the framers believed essential. Those principles should not be easily altered by the expediencies of the moment.
Despite this, the FISCR holds that the Constitution need not control the conduct of criminal surveillance in the United States. In place of the Fourth Amendment, the people are expected to defer to the Executive Branch and its representation that it will authorize such surveillance only when appropriate. The defendant here is asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning. This court declines to do so.
For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law - with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as illadvised. In this regard, the Supreme Court has cautioned:
The price of lawful public dissent must not be a dread of subjection to an unchecked surveillance power. Nor must the fear of unauthorized official eavesdropping deter vigorous citizen dissent and discussion of Government action in private conversation. For private dissent, no less than open public discourse, is essential to our free society.
Keith, 407 U.S. at 314.
Therefore, I conclude that 50 U.S.C. ยงยง 1804 and 1823, as amended by the Patriot Act, are unconstitutional because they violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint for declaratory relief is granted.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (doc. 126) is granted. Defendant's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint (doc. 134) or cross-motion for summary judgment (doc. 134) is denied. The parties have until November 1, 2007, to submit a stipulation regarding costs, or file briefs regarding this issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 26 day of September, 2007.
-
@ bebop-o: recipe for horse tummy health
[Read the article: Douglas Schoen and Hillary's slimy pollsters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think the politicos are due for a good bran-mash. It keeps our horses "going" strong:
2 qt bran
1 pt mineral oil
Mix with water to medium-thin consistency**Some folks add a bottle of Guinness (for the active yeast, of course)
I'm sure you've mixed this one many times. Maybe we can take a few truckloads up to the Capitol and administer it to all those inside. It should get clear thinking flowing again pretty fast.
Keep on smiling.
-
I still think that it has already happened
[Read the article: The U.S. military's role in preventing the bombing of Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When Iran captured 15 British sailors last March (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6484279.stm), that seemed to be just the provocation Bush (Cheney) needed for an attack on Iran. I expected the bombs to fall within hours of the announcement of the capture. As I posted in May: "Is it possible that Bush did give the order, but the Joint Chiefs simply said no? We already know from Comey's testimony that Bush will make what appears to be concessions when faced by potential mass resignations."
Cheney continues to try to achieve the "work-around" of unwillingness by the Joint Chiefs for an attack. Clearly, having Lieberman-Kyl in their back pockets provides more cover, but the fact remains that the military is simply stretched to the breaking point.
I wrote all three of my congresscritters two weeks ago regarding the country's war stance: "At the very least, if you cannot support accelerated withdrawal from Iraq, please resist the growing pressure from the President and his inner circle for an attack on Iran. I fear that such folly could well result in the complete disintegration of our military and our country because of the over-extension that would result."
As several are suggesting, the Joint Chiefs likely share this concern, at least with regard to the military. I think they also appreciate the existential risk to the country such an attack entails as well.
In short, a "military coup" is not the course I think the Joint Chiefs will choose (or have chosen). The threat of mass resignation rather than following disastrous orders is enough for them to buy time until sanity (hopefully) is restored to the executive branch. Can we make it to January, 2009? I simply don't know at this point.