1 2 out of 3 ain't bad. I guess? Seems like 3 of 3 would be proper for an Amierican court.

2 Ha ha...hey Bo...stick that one up yer ass......


http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834

3 "A divided federal appeals court rejected a lawsuit Friday challenging President Bush's domestic spying program without ruling on the issue of whether warrantless wiretapping is legal."
 
Dismissed on a technicality.  So there is still hope.
 
Dorian:  only Nazi's support govenrment spying on its citizens without a court order.  Glad you have shown your true colours.

4 Dorian:  only Nazi's support govenrment spying on its citizens without a court order.

Typical.

Godwin's Law - if you have to invoke Nazis to describe patriotic Americans, then you're argument is weak and you are grasping at straws.

PS - The program is for monitoring incoming and outgoing calls to other countries. Warrants still have to be obtained for domestic-on-domestic communications. They never had to be obtained for domestic-to-international or vice versa. Get your facts straight before you start slurring people as Nazis, you wingnut moron.

5 Bo
"A divided federal appeals court rejected a lawsuit Friday challenging President Bush's domestic spying program without ruling on the issue of whether warrantless wiretapping is legal."    

Yes that is a fact, though it has been stretched to a leftist talking point conclusion.  The Court never specified the program was Constitutional, or not. But your desire to amplify that shows a high degree of spin. 

If the Constitutionality of it were in question, then plaintiffs would have had legitimate right to pursue the suit as an American under the Constitution. Courts are able to rule that orders given by the other branches ARE unconstitutional without waiting for damage to occur. In short, an Unconstitutional order is itself, sufficient to deserve a Court response. All someone has to do is bring thier grievance before the Court, and in this case, the plaintiffs were claiming a Constitutional violation was ongoing.  The claim was that the program was unconstitutional on it's face, and that it should not stand.

In an indirect way, the Court has defacto ruled that there is no Constitutional issue. The order as it stands, is not automatically unconstitutional. No rights have been found to be violated, so no offense against the Bill of Rights has been committed. 

Only if it ever turns out that such rights have been violated, will the Court proceed, and then they have made it quite clear with this decision, that this should be handled as individual offenses, based on individual circumstances. If information from the NSA program, gained without warrant, or probable cause, ends up being used against an American citizen, then clearly, someone can fight that individual case.

On a broader level, there is nothing wrong with the NSA program, or they would have upheld plaintiffs right to petition, and upheld Judge "Lefty's" ruling on that portion. Alas ... all the left has is emotion, and spin, and when the logic and facts don't fit thier mystical worldview, they have to try and distort thrm to fit.

It's like the combined evidence for an Old Earth, where life changed or 'evoloved' over time, flies in the face of young Earth creationists.  The fingerprints for an 'old' Earth are everywhere, and my sympathy for the 'literal' Bible readers doesn't change that. I am Christian, but I am also interested in FACTS. 

The fact is the ACLU and friends had no case. NOTHING! They had magical thinking, and a whole herd of nimrods  with an agenda, following in tow.  Now the nimrods, mostly reporters, and newspeople are unhappy, and you are eating thier spin with a spoon! Of course they want to cry out that the Court didn't specifically say the program was Constitutrional.  THEY LOST!!!  Anyone who accepts the MSM's blanket dogmatic headlines, and spin, is a dope.

Sure they get some things right, but that stuff usually has little or nothing to do with a broader leftist-antiAmerican agenda. 'So they discovered a new dinosaur? How does that help get Hillary elected? It doesn't! So I guess we can leave that story as is, can't we?'  So I can believe the stuff about dinosaurs. 

That's what I have to say about this.

USA, all the way!

6 Lt., Dan,
 
Where on earth did you get the impression they have gone through the proper legal proceedure?  That is a myth.  We do not know - remember...everything is "top secret."
 
[...]
 
After all, the whole point of FISA is to make it illegal for the government to spy on us in secret. And yet spying on us in secret is exactly what the Bush administration did; that is the crux of the lawbreaking here. But precisely because it spied on Americans in secret rather than with judicial oversight, nobody knows whose conversations they surveilled and we cannot find out.
 
[...]
 
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/07/nsa/index.html
 
 
Thus rendering your whole arguement worthless.
 
 

7 Salon is a leftwing website - that's like me citing Townhall.com as an authoritative source. Citing the Sockpuppet Queen himself, who was caught trolling blogs pretending to be other people, is just the icing on this little cake of teh stoopid that you've foisted on us here.

And yet spying on us in secret is exactly what the Bush administration did; that is the crux of the lawbreaking here.

[...]

it spied on Americans in secret rather than with judicial oversight,
nobody knows whose conversations they surveilled and we cannot find out.

Wait...you just said that we don't know anything that happened because its "top secret." Now you know for certain, absent a shred of actual evidence (as the Sixth Circuit found) that any actual spying on US citizens actually happened.

Which is it? I get the feeling that you have no idea what you're talking about, but that's just par for the course.

And again, you missed the point entirely. FISA is only for domestic-to-domestic communication monitoring, and there is no evidence of it being circumvented in the event of monitoring such communications. The NSA program, on the other hand, is for monitoring international to domestic and domestic to international communications, which is not covered by FISA. Again, you don't even have a basic understanding of the facts in this, so the ruling by the court must seem a bit perplexing to you.

And by the way, Lt. Dan was a war hero. Fictional, but a hero nonetheless.. Not exactly a great insult, jackass.