Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 1824
-
Some eedjit wrote:
[Read the article: The enduring myth of Americans' dislike of investigations]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You'll note that in voter concerns rated "very important" Iraq came in sixth behind Government ethics, Economy, Social Security, Healthcare, and National Security. I'd say that puts the kibosh on Congressional numbers being the result of not enough Bush Bashing.
Leaving aside for the moment that Dubya's the guy that is into "gummint ethics" issues up to his neck (not to mention his involvement with the "Economy, Social Security, Healthcare, and National Security"), what makes you think that voters can't be concerned about these things, and still not be primarily pissed at Congress for acting on these (or not acting [<*cough*Social Security*cough*>])? There's several hidden assumptions to your claim above that you haven't shown any evidence for.
But let's get back to that stuff above: Gummint ethics is tops on the list?!?!? So are you claiming that the American public, so concerned with this issue as to make it Numero Uno, don't want investigations into shady dealing in the Dubya maladministration?!?!? That makes no sense ... which is about your speed, as we well know here.
Cheers,
-
@ Stoopidator
[Read the article: The enduring myth of Americans' dislike of investigations]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]a hint ...
walter_map, when in a hole, stop digging.
The "I'm rubber, you're glue" form of argumentation has been abandoned by most people after third grade or so.
To be perfectly honest, you're a pretty damn poor troll ... and Sh**ter and Elephantdung here have set a pretty low bar to begin with.
Why not infest Freeperville or Little Green Snotballs with your wisdom? If you would be kind enough to abscond over there, I'm sure they'd appreciate it more than we, and you'd be raising the collective IQ of both domains, an eventuality to be cheered by all concerned.
Cheers,
-
@ Ché Pasa
[Read the article: The enduring myth of Americans' dislike of investigations]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And how we must in Iraq or they'll follow us home. We don't want another Vietnam, do we???
PsyOps?
Well...
FWIW, Garry Trudeau is doing a creditable jobs of skewering this eedjitcy in "Doonesbury", which has a large readership....
Cheers,
-
@ Ondolette
[Read the article: Mike McConnell's clear explanation of FISA]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn, could you explain please...
...why this isn't prohibited by Article I?
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
This is the second time for this stuff, there was a retroactive immunity clause in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 as well. What does ex post facto mean if it doesn't mean this kind of law?
IANAL, but: I think the general consensus is that it's unconstitutional to make a previously legal act illegal retrospectively. It's grounded in the notion that it's unfair to expect people to know that in the future, their acts might be illegal.
The same considerations apply to laws making previous actions legal, in terms of people acting on the basis of expectations; should people be allowed to violate the law now if it's going to be legal eventually; kind of unfair to prosecute, but that's the way it is; the law is the law. You might want to give retroactive immunity (or pardons) out of decency when the law changes in a permissive manner (but see many cases where the law changes due to evolved understandings of Constitutional law where the new Constitutional protections are not extended retroactively, in the interest of finality of settlements and judgements).
That said, the most manifest unfairness is to imprison people for acts that they thought -- nay, knew -- were legal, and that is what the ex post facto clause reaches.
Cheers,
-
Some eedjit wrote:
[Read the article: Mike McConnell's clear explanation of FISA]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No. The President has Constitutional powers that he claims will override the Federal Law in question. Even the FISA court agreed with that assessment.
Which, of course, is why McConnell says we have a "retroactive liability" problem for companies that caved to maladministration requests for warrantless surveillance, when in fact they get off the hook scott-free under 18 USC § 2511 if they were just complying with valid gummint requests.
Makes perfect sense ... if you're a two-neurone RW Dubya-butt-sucker.
Cheers,
-
@ Margalis -- Fortuitous typo of the day:
[Read the article: Mike McConnell's clear explanation of FISA]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bling support of the government is not.
Poetry on a plate. I like it on so many levels.
Cheers,
-
Can you spell "dicta"
[Read the article: Mike McConnell's clear explanation of FISA]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Some eedjit wrote:
Finally, in 2002, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review decided Sealed Case No. 02-001. This case arose out of a provision of the Patriot Act that was intended to break down the “wall” between law enforcement and intelligence gathering. The Patriot Act modified Truong’s “primary purpose” test by providing that surveillance under FISA was proper if intelligence gathering was one “significant” purpose of the intercept. In the course of discussing the constitutional underpinnings (or lack thereof) of the Truong test, the court wrote:
The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. 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. The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President’s power by providing a mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the government’s contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable.
That is the current state of the law.
That is dicta. As the opinion itself (in the part Sh**ter quoted!!!) points out, the question in In re: Sealed Case was actually the "reverse". Not to mention, Truong was a pre-FISA case and couldn't have ruled on the legality of FISA (which of course is the issue in dispute here, much as Sh**ter would like to muddle the issue).
Cheers,
-
So what's new?
[Read the article: How our seedy, corrupt Washington establishment operates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][Glenn, from the post]: It is self-evidently improper for someone working on Iraq policy for the administration to be simultaneously paid by someone who has a vested interest in working against the administration's policy.
How about Ahmed Chalabi? The Doofus administration has a habit of supporting power-hungry thugs, and getting taken for a ride by them. But to be fair, that's been U.S. maladministration practise for nigh on a century....
Cheers,