PDA

View Full Version : Judge nixes warrantless surveillance

2pac Shakur
08-17-2006, 12:47 PM
The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_on_go_pr_wh/warrantless_surveillance

Gummint: We could tell you, but we'd have to kill you.

We just got back some freedom! The terrorists won, I think.
SirVLCIV
08-17-2006, 12:49 PM
http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=89196
2pac Shakur
08-17-2006, 12:51 PM
Yea, but I didn't start that thread.

(sorry gang - I've been low on weed lately)
Feif
08-17-2006, 12:54 PM
Mods, please delete this thread
2pac Shakur
08-17-2006, 12:56 PM
Mods, please delete this thread

And let us never speak of this again.
Feif
08-17-2006, 12:57 PM
Attention! 2pac was too high so he didn't realize he was re-posting a thread!
2pac Shakur
08-17-2006, 01:00 PM
Attention! 2pac was NOT high so he didn't realize he was re-posting a thread!

IFYQ
Feif
08-17-2006, 01:18 PM
Hold on 2pac... there are times when you're not high? What happened to you?
2pac Shakur
08-17-2006, 01:32 PM
Hold on 2pac... there are times when you're not high? What happened to you?


I'm trying not to smoke in the morning.
It's tough.
SamTheEagle
08-17-2006, 01:40 PM
I'm trying not to smoke in the morning.
It's tough.

Why?
2pac Shakur
08-17-2006, 01:41 PM
Why?

I have only been able to score chronic lately, which is expensive and makes me more tired than shwag.
SamTheEagle
08-17-2006, 01:41 PM
I have only been able to score chronic lately, which is expensive and makes me more tired than shwag.

Entirely reasonable. Huh.
E. Blackadder
08-17-2006, 01:58 PM
... apparently, according to the plaintiffs, there are a large number of people who are terrorists, the U.S. believes to be terrorists, or who are in organizations that the U.S. considers to be terrorists, who don't want to talk to people in the U.S. anymore because of the removal of the warrant requirement.

Comment on the Volokh Conspiracy.
2pac Shakur
08-19-2006, 02:13 PM
The federal government plans to appeal the case, which appears headed for the Supreme Court.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2006/tc20060818_382622.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index _businessweek+exclusives

I wonder how the good ol' independent Supremes will rule on this one.
I bet Bush's appointees vote against Bush. They can because of their lifetime appointments. :tup:
Malik Shabazz
08-19-2006, 03:25 PM
Trouble in paradise...Experts Fault Reasoning in Surveillance Decision

Even legal experts who agreed with a federal judge’s conclusion on Thursday that a National Security Agency surveillance program is unlawful were distancing themselves from the decision’s reasoning and rhetoric yesterday.

They said the opinion overlooked important precedents, failed to engage the government’s major arguments, used circular reasoning, substituted passion for analysis and did not even offer the best reasons for its own conclusions.

Discomfort with the quality of the decision is almost universal, said Howard J. Bashman, a Pennsylvania lawyer whose Web log provides comprehensive and nonpartisan reports on legal developments.

“It does appear,” Mr. Bashman said, “that folks on all sides of the spectrum, both those who support it and those who oppose it, say the decision is not strongly grounded in legal authority.”

The main problems, scholars sympathetic to the decision’s bottom line said, is that the judge, Anna Diggs Taylor, relied on novel and questionable constitutional arguments when more straightforward statutory ones were available.http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/washington/19ruling.html
SirVLCIV
08-19-2006, 03:32 PM
But but but but the NYTimes is biased!!!