Letters to the Editor
-
I love this...
I really, really love BushCo having to disclose, but maybe even more enjoyable is the pressure this will put on the bribees... errr, I mean honorable congresspeople and senators to do the same. Hold their feet to the fire until it singes the tassles on their Bostonians.
-
As one astute letterwriter yesterday brought up:
Maybe this is the reason for the Klein disinformation story about FISA.
Timewarner, CNN, and many others are probably very nervous about this ruling.
It's starting to make sense now-and why no retraction by TIME.
-
Yeah, sure, but...
What does Joe Klein think about this? I won't know what's really going on until Holey Joe weighs in with his slanted opinion. Then I'll know the opposite of whatever he says is true.
-
Knowledge is Power
Damn activist judges.
footsore
-
eastriver
What does Joe Klein think about this? I won't know what's really going on until Holey Joe weighs in with his slanted opinion. Then I'll know the opposite of whatever he says is true.
He's made clear on many occasions that he favors telecom amnesty. In fact, as many commenters have pointed out, telecom amnestly played a critical role in his original article and first blog post.
His real argument was, in essence, that Democrats should accept the "compromise" offered by Pete Hoekstra whereby the Republicans agree to basket warrants for calls involving U.S. citizens talking to foriegners (what a compromise) and, in exchange, Democrats agree to telecom amnesty. It was the House Democrats' refusal to accept that deal (thus far) that triggered Klein's scorn.
-
They'll just run out the clock again
My prediction is this court order will have no more effect on the Bush Administration than the Hamden verdict did. There are all sorts of delaying tactics they can and will play, why does anyone think it would be any different this time?
-
Unclaimed Territory is up for the ABA Journal Blawg 100
Since I'm sure Glenn won't hype himself, I will. The link to vote is at my name.
-
Lack of juristiction
Federal courts cannot rule on matters concerning the executive branch. Only the unitary executive can determine which laws apply to the executive branch. If anyone wants to dispute this they are completely welcome to do so. In a court. Which they contend has no juristiction over them. Get it? This is such bullshit! There is no law or ruling that Bush will not ignore. How do you enforce a ruling on someone who contols the military? Ask the people of Pakistan.
-
Dr Eye Ball
My prediction is this court order will have no more effect on the Bush Administration than the Hamden verdict did.
You're mistaken about this. The Supreme Court's ruling did have an effect on the Bush administration. They went to Congress and had their detention and interrogation scheme legalized in the form of the Military Commissions Act.
The one thing the Bush administration hasn't done is openly and explicitly defied a court order. I'm not saying they havent' violated court orders, just not expressly proclaimed their right to do so. I doubt they will start here.
-
Courts, schmorts.
Everybody who thinks Smirky and Darth are going to let that information get within a mile of public access, stand on your head.
-
The Federal Judge better watch her/his back!
I'm glad you are staying on this. It is terribly, crucially important...about as important as getting the documents of the Cheney energy meetings in the summer of 2001. And therefore I fear nothing will happen. It will be stalled, postponed..the judge will disappear.... It is hard to believe the ruling oligarchs will allow the cutain to be opened here. The ruling class is just too powerful..
-
Keep going, Glenn!
We cannot let the government "run out the clock" on this one.
Establishing the precedent that corporations can provide illegal aid to the government without legal repercussions would open the door to limitless new abuses.
Just as a general can do nothing without troops, our govenors cannot exert their will over us without people willing to do their dirty work. We can never allow such people amnesty. True patriots take the Patrick Henry approach, and accept punishment if the cause is just. Only the weasels try to weasel out of responsibility for their actions.
-
elected officials shouldn't be allowed to keep donations when they retire
Is it still the case that our elected officials get to keep whatever is in their election campaign fund when they retire? The campaign fund becomes a politician's retirement fund. Most of these senators are not in need of campaign money, so these donations end up going right in their pocket.
-
What must happen now is...
Sen. Reid needs to make it clear that a vote on this issue is entirely contingent upon the Administration complying with this court order and he needs not to schedule a vote on any FISA bill until the Judge approves the administration's compliance.
With no new FISA bill, it's my understanding that the law will revert back to what it was prior to the last cave in by the Democrats (Rockefeller et al).
Below, is a transcription of a letter I received from my Senator relative to FISA. I intend to keep writing her and insisting that she take the responsibility of her oath of office very seriously, particularly on this issue. She cannot afford to lose any votes in this state and if she continues to sell our constitutional protections down the river, that's precisely what she will accomplish.
I would hope that as many readers as possible contact their Senators (especially those who wish to be President) and also Sen. Reid and let them know how you feel about this issue. It might not do any good, but it will damned sure not do any harm.
----------------------------------------------------
Dear (redacted):
Thank you for contacting me to express your concern about the Protect America Act. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue and I apologize for the delay in my response.
I appreciate your point regarding the legislation’s impact upon the privacy rights of Americans. While I supported the bill, I did so with several reservations--many of which you mentioned in your correspondence to my office. I ultimately supported the bill because, at the time, our national intelligence agencies indicated that there was an increase in terrorist communication and that they lacked the appropriate tools to ascertain the intelligence value of the communications. At the same time, I was pleased that the legislation had a six month sunset so that the Congress would have an opportunity to craft a new law that provides a better balance between protecting our constitutional rights and collecting intelligence.
Please be sure that I understand the importance of preserving our nation’s fundamental notions of due process, fairness, and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. In the weeks ahead, I intend to work with my Senate colleagues to ensure that we can craft a balanced bill that enables our intelligence community to collect necessary information while protecting the civil liberties of all Americans.
I appreciate the opportunity to hear from you about this important matter, and I hope you will continue to contact me on issues of mutual concern. Please feel free to also visit my website at http://www.senate.gov/~landrieu for more information on legislative affairs.
With warmest regards, I am
Sincerely,
Mary L. Landrieu
United States Senator
-----------------------------------------------------
It seems to me that by making certain that no one is allowed to violate the law with impunity, whether it be an elected official such as the President, or a corporation which complies with an illegal and constitutionaly violative request from the government, would be a precursor to protecting our civil liberties. That point will be made clear in my next letter to Sen. Landrieu and also in my letter to Sen. Reid.