Regards,
Peter H.

Regards,
Peter H.

Bologna. If that were the case, you’d be demanding Obama’s immediate impeachment, trial, and imprisonment on “crimes against humanity”, just like you did with Bush. The fact that you don’t put your money where your mouth is when it comes to enforcing those laws against your Obamamessiah, Levi, is proof that you are flat-out lying in a desperate attempt to save some credibility.

“Yes, some parts of the document are more important than others, and yes, men in black robes get to decide.”

“Just because you got that into the Constitution doesn’t mean it’s locked in for all time, that it’s unreviewable [By judges who can void it] or set in stone. ”

I dunno Levi, seems he has you pegged very well.

Wow, there isn’t a single thing even remotely close to correct in this paragraph.

AE – how is he is say ing f— FISA? The courts saw the docs and said yup these are state secrets?

Like this…

In a federal lawsuit, the Obama legal team is arguing that judges lack the authority to enforce their own rulings in classified matters of national security.

Not only is he saying FISA cannot restrict his constitutional powers, he is saying neither can the courts. The fact that a court agreed with him doesn’t change the fact that he is saying f* you. You don’t have the authority.

The same exact argument libtards were apoplectic over when Bush made it. Mainly because you are ignorant of the Constitution and believe a law can supersede presidential powers. Congress and the courts can no more limit the Presidents powers to wiretap our enemies than the president can alter the powers of the courts or congress with an executive order.

Although I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Obama tries it.

The “rule of law” is NOT “law according to my political views.” (Unless, of course, the courts are totally packed with liberals.)

You, Levi, would be addressed by the great Daffy Duck thusly: “It is to laugh.”

But no messages of SUPPORT for Barry The One.

I’m sure they would if they had any idea how. Given that they voted for a guy they knew nothing about, I’m sure it’s difficult to support that on any meaningful level.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/us/politics/08obama.html?_r=1&hp

So why debate FISA at all? Obama is not going to wiretap our enemies. He wants to coddle them, negotiate with them, appease them, legitimize them, and treat them like fu*king diplomats. There is only one solution when it comes to the Taliban. Total extinction. That is true no matter what Obama decides to do instead. He’s just well on his way to ensuring that more people will be killed in the end.

Even here, the usual liberal retort is: “Bush left him the mess”

But no messages of SUPPORT for Barry The One.

Curious….. (and developing story, I’m sure)

So it’s pretty disingenuous to claim that going around FISA based on this case. And its not accurate to say that Obama is allowing warrantless wiretapping to continue. So if anything you, Sean A, WSJ are reading too much into this case.

AE – how is he is say ing f— FISA? The courts saw the docs and said yup these are state secrets?

Second – To ask for a link on how Bush broke the FISA law is like asking for a link to prove Clinton committed adultery. However , this is a good sum up of how Bush broke the law:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1216-01.htm
But basically its this:
Due to that pesky constitution to legally search someone the gov needs a warrant. Congress made a law making it very easy to get a warrant (even retroactively)
Bush said, I don’t have time for that and searched people anyway. Clearly that is not leagal He then said its OK because in times of war there is no law. (to paraphrase of course)

Third – I thought any tax cut was good tax cut.

4th – no problem about the typo. I have been called worse!

Here, all of us have been naively discussing Obama and the wiretap program designed to track down our enemies, but it really makes no difference because Obama has no intention of spying on suspected terrorists. Instead, he plans to “reach out” to them. “Obama Ponders Outreach to Elements of the Taliban”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/us/politics/08obama.html?hp

That’s right, folks. Obama apparently is thinking that a diplomatic approach with “moderate elements of the Taliban” would be a better plan for winning in Afghanistan. I mean, I don’t know about all of you, but the FIRST thing I think of when I hear the word “Taliban” is moderate. They are an eminently reasonable bunch, as their actions in 1998 certainly confirm:

“The worst attack on civilians came in summer of 1998 when the Taliban swept north from Herat to the predominantly Hazara and Uzbek city of Mazar-i-Sharif, the largest city in the north. Entering at 10 am on 8 August 1998, for the next two days the Taliban drove their pickup trucks ‘up and down the narrow streets of Mazar-i-Sharif shooting to the left and right and killing everything that moved — shop owners, cart pullers, women and children shoppers and even goats and donkeys.’ More than 8000 noncombatants were reported killed in Mazar-i-Sharif and later in Bamiyan. Contrary to the injunctions of Islam, which demands immediate burial, the Taliban forbade anyone to bury the corpses for the first six days while they rotted in the summer heat and were eaten by dogs.” (Wikipedia)

Yes, I know. It sounds like they have a few rowdy upstarts in the group, but Obama isn’t going to deal with THAT element of the Taliban–only the MODERATES in that charming organization. Plus, they killed those 8000 people and left them in the streets to rot and be eaten by dogs like what? Ten years ago! I’m sure they’re not like that anymore. There’s no word yet on where or how the White House plans to find these Taliban moderates to negotiate with, but they can probably round up the whole gang and just ask for a show of hands. Then they could probably get the whole thing resolved by dinnertime. What could possibly go wrong?

As long as wiretapping US citizen’s private conversations is done through FISA rules, I don’t think you will find much complaints.

You don’t even get it. What Bush argued (and the courts upheld), which is what Obama is continuing to argue is that the powers in question are Constitutional and as such cannot be limited by judges, FISA or any other statute. Of course liberals never got it.

Obama is saying, “f*ck FISA! I’m the president!”…where’s your intellectually consistent outrage?

Bush was right. Conservatives were right. Obama is right (now). The courts have confirmed it (several times) And libtards and Obama (during the campaign) were flat wrong.