LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   All Hank, all the time. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=734)

Tyrone Slothrop 08-17-2006 03:47 PM

Lust in his heart
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
It's been 60-something years, so he thinks it's about time to ignore the Holocaust, don't you?
I think he was pretty much advocating that Jews be rounded up and put in concentration camps.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-17-2006 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Since when did Condi check her brain at the door?
Whose foreign policy do you think she's trying to implement?

Spanky 08-17-2006 03:54 PM

WSJ Poll of the Day
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The point I was trying to get at, though not spelling out, is that I am less interested in changing the rules than I am in changing that system so that security personnel are empowered to use informed and reasonable discretion to find the people who are a threat. Saying you're going to start profiling is like saying you're going to start using computers -- not necessarily a good or bad idea.
Wouldn't you agree that putting all people of middle eastern dissent through the most rigorouse search option open to the security people that that would significantly reduce the odds of deaths caused by terrorists?

Tyrone Slothrop 08-17-2006 03:56 PM

WSJ Poll of the Day
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Wouldn't you agree that putting all people of middle eastern dissent through the most rigorouse search option open to the security people that that would significantly reduce the odds of deaths caused by terrorists?
I like "middle eastern dissent". That's fantastic, even if unintended.

Reduce the odds relative to what? Why can't we do what the Israelis do? It's not like they ignore who they're talking to -- quite the opposite.

SlaveNoMore 08-17-2006 04:05 PM

Quote:

Tyrone Slothrop
Whose foreign policy do you think she's trying to implement?
You tell me.

The folks at the New Republic say Leo Strauss and Norman Podhoretz

The folks at Kos say Rummy and Wolfowitz

The folks at DU say a consortium of Israel, Fox News and Halliburton

Tyrone Slothrop 08-17-2006 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You tell me.

The folks at the New Republic say Leo Strauss and Norman Podhoretz

The folks at Kos say Rummy and Wolfowitz

The folks at DU say a consortium of Israel, Fox News and Halliburton
On the big questions, I think the buck stops with the President. When she lost face a couple of weeks ago trying to get Israel to back off a bit, I think it was because she was bluffing and Israel knew that Bush would back them to the hilt. The last few weeks, with Israel, what you see is Bush's foreign policy.

Adder 08-17-2006 04:42 PM

WSJ Poll of the Day
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The point I was trying to get at, though not spelling out, is that I am less interested in changing the rules than I am in changing that system so that security personnel are empowered to use informed and reasonable discretion to find the people who are a threat. Saying you're going to start profiling is like saying you're going to start using computers -- not necessarily a good or bad idea.
There was a guy on Market Place on NPR yesterday talking about how the airlines already have information that they could you to build a risk profile (name, age, address, trip details, etct), and advocating a trusted traveller program under which people would provide yet more personal information.

Sidd Finch 08-17-2006 04:51 PM

Lust in his heart
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Here's more from Carter:



It's been 60-something years, so he thinks it's about time to ignore the Holocaust, don't you?
You don't much care about context, do you? He is saying that you can ignore the "historical facts" with reference to the notion of including German troops in the international force in Lebanon.

I don't think he is suggesting that we take the Holocaust out of the history books and convert Auschwitz to a water park.

ltl/fb 08-17-2006 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
On the big questions, I think the buck stops with the President. When she lost face a couple of weeks ago trying to get Israel to back off a bit, I think it was because she was bluffing and Israel knew that Bush would back them to the hilt. The last few weeks, with Israel, what you see is Bush's foreign policy.
I think possibly the point may be, whose foreign policy is Bush implementing?

But I might be wrong.

Sidd Finch 08-17-2006 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think possibly the point may be, whose foreign policy is Bush implementing?

Duh. God's.

Adder 08-17-2006 05:08 PM

Lust in his heart
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You don't much care about context, do you? He is saying that you can ignore the "historical facts" with reference to the notion of including German troops in the international force in Lebanon.

I don't think he is suggesting that we take the Holocaust out of the history books and convert Auschwitz to a water park.
I was going to respond similarly, and to point out that I think we can trust that a few German troops wearing blue helmuts will not create a risk of a repeat. But then I decided it might be a question worth asking the Israelis. I could see them not wanting their borders partolled by Germans for emotional reasons even if I think there are no valid geopolitical reasons.

Adder 08-17-2006 05:12 PM

Hello, can Ossama come out and play?
 
Federal Judge Orders Halt to Warrantless Wiretapping
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 3:42 p.m. ET

DETROIT (AP) -- A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

''Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution,'' Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

The Justice Department appealed the ruling and issued a statement calling the program ''an essential tool for the intelligence community in the war on terror.''

''In the ongoing conflict with al-Qaida and its allies, the president has the primary duty under the Constitution to protect the American people,'' the department said. ''The Constitution gives the president the full authority necessary to carry out that solemn duty, and we believe the program is lawful and protects civil liberties.''

The ruling won't take immediate effect so Taylor can hear a Justice request for a stay pending its appeal.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves wiretapping conversations between people in the U.S. and those in other countries.

The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.

The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule.

''At its core, today's ruling addresses the abuse of presidential power and reaffirms the system of checks and balances that's necessary to our democracy,'' ACLU executive director Anthony Romero told reporters after the ruling.

He called the opinion ''another nail in the coffin in the Bush administration's legal strategy in the war on terror.''

While siding with the ACLU on the wiretapping issue, Taylor dismissed a separate claim by the group over NSA data-mining of phone records. She said not enough had been publicly revealed about that program to support the claim and further litigation would jeopardize state secrets.

The lawsuit alleged that the NSA ''uses artificial intelligence aids to search for keywords and analyze patterns in millions of communications at any given time.'' Multiple lawsuits have been filed related to data-mining against phone companies, accusing them of improperly turning over records to the NSA.

However, the data-mining was only a small part of the Detroit suit, said Ann Beeson, the ACLU's associate legal director and the lead attorney on the case.

Beeson predicted the government would appeal the wiretapping ruling and request that the order to halt the program be postponed while the case makes its way through the system. She said the ACLU had not yet decided whether it would oppose such a postponement.

link

[Here is the decision. -- T.S.]

ltl/fb 08-17-2006 05:15 PM

Lust in his heart
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Adder
a few German troops wearing blue helmuts
deliberate?

Adder 08-17-2006 05:16 PM

Lust in his heart
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
deliberate?
Sadly, no.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-17-2006 05:20 PM

Hello, can Ossama come out and play?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Adder
Federal Judge Orders Halt to Warrantless Wiretapping
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 3:42 p.m. ET

DETROIT (AP) -- A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

link

[Here is the decision. -- T.S.]
In related news, Karl Rove was so happy he wet his pants.

Hank Chinaski 08-17-2006 05:29 PM

Hello, can Ossama come out and play?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Adder
Federal Judge Orders Halt to Warrantless Wiretapping
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 3:42 p.m. ET

DETROIT (AP) -- A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

''Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution,'' Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

The Justice Department appealed the ruling and issued a statement calling the program ''an essential tool for the intelligence community in the war on terror.''

''In the ongoing conflict with al-Qaida and its allies, the president has the primary duty under the Constitution to protect the American people,'' the department said. ''The Constitution gives the president the full authority necessary to carry out that solemn duty, and we believe the program is lawful and protects civil liberties.''

The ruling won't take immediate effect so Taylor can hear a Justice request for a stay pending its appeal.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves wiretapping conversations between people in the U.S. and those in other countries.

The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.

The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule.

''At its core, today's ruling addresses the abuse of presidential power and reaffirms the system of checks and balances that's necessary to our democracy,'' ACLU executive director Anthony Romero told reporters after the ruling.

He called the opinion ''another nail in the coffin in the Bush administration's legal strategy in the war on terror.''

While siding with the ACLU on the wiretapping issue, Taylor dismissed a separate claim by the group over NSA data-mining of phone records. She said not enough had been publicly revealed about that program to support the claim and further litigation would jeopardize state secrets.

The lawsuit alleged that the NSA ''uses artificial intelligence aids to search for keywords and analyze patterns in millions of communications at any given time.'' Multiple lawsuits have been filed related to data-mining against phone companies, accusing them of improperly turning over records to the NSA.

However, the data-mining was only a small part of the Detroit suit, said Ann Beeson, the ACLU's associate legal director and the lead attorney on the case.

Beeson predicted the government would appeal the wiretapping ruling and request that the order to halt the program be postponed while the case makes its way through the system. She said the ACLU had not yet decided whether it would oppose such a postponement.

link

[Here is the decision. -- T.S.]
here's where all that stuff Ty was explaining about the Supreme Court and District courts kicks in.

SlaveNoMore 08-17-2006 05:36 PM

Hello, can Ossama come out and play?
 
Quote:

Tyrone Slothrop
In related news, Karl Rove was so happy he wet his pants.
I was going to say Joe Lieberman, but you made the point

Tyrone Slothrop 08-17-2006 05:37 PM

Hello, can Ossama come out and play?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
here's where all that stuff Ty was explaining about the Supreme Court and District courts kicks in.
All you need to know is that this will be neither the last ruling in the case nor the one that anyone ultimately cares about.

Query for appellate mavens: Given the district court enjoined the government from continuing the program, and assuming that the injunction will be stayed on appeal, will the Sixth Circuit expedite the case? Will the Sixth Circuit rule before November?

Tyrone Slothrop 08-17-2006 05:39 PM

Question for constitutional scholars: If President Bush has the Article II power to order the wiretapping notwithstanding FISA, assuming that FISA forbids such activity, why does he have to obey an injunction to stop?

SlaveNoMore 08-17-2006 05:41 PM

Uh Oh!!!
 
The trouble begins here....

Quote:

Tri-State Airport in Wayne County has been evacuated. Officials ordered the main terminal closed to passengers around 11:30 this morning.

The Transportation Security Adminstration says a woman is being detained at the airport after she tried to go through security with two vials of an explosive material in her carry-on.

Airport Director Larry Saylers tells 13News a 28 year-old women is being questioned. He says the women born in Pakistan, relocated to Detroit and recently moved to Huntington.

The woman was trying to board US Airways Express flight 4168 from Huntington to Charlotte this morning. The flight was allowed to leave, but the women was detained. The FBI is handling the investigation and has the woman in custody. Officials have not released the women's name.

West Virignia State Police robots are moving the vials to a remote location of the airport for testing and possible detonation..

Adder 08-17-2006 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Question for constitutional scholars: If President Bush has the Article II power to order the wiretapping notwithstanding FISA, assuming that FISA forbids such activity, why does he have to obey an injunction to stop?
Because to not do so is to throw out our system of checks and balances entirely.

Adder 08-17-2006 06:12 PM

Uh Oh!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The trouble begins here....
We shall see. Yesterday a flight was diverted because a middle eastern woman had a screw driver, vasoline, and multiple notes referencing al queda. Today it turns out it was just a clastrophobic woman who freaked out and had none of those things (although she had some prohibited hand cream).

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 08-17-2006 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Question for constitutional scholars: If President Bush has the Article II power to order the wiretapping notwithstanding FISA, assuming that FISA forbids such activity, why does he have to obey an injunction to stop?
Because it is emphatically the province and duty of the courts to say what the law is.

If Bush didn't make the constitutional argument, and he's enjoined, then his lawyers did a bad job of lawyering.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-17-2006 06:15 PM

Uh Oh!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Adder
We shall see. Yesterday a flight was diverted because a middle eastern woman had a screw driver, vasoline, and multiple notes referencing al queda. Today it turns out it was just a clastrophobic woman who freaked out and had none of those things (although she had some prohibited hand cream).
You're missing the big news -- that robots have infiltrated the West Virginia State Police.

I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords from the West Virginia State Police.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-17-2006 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Because it is emphatically the province and duty of the courts to say what the law is.
I hereby deputize you to answer Hank's follow-up questions on this point.

Shape Shifter 08-17-2006 06:18 PM

Uh Oh!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're missing the big news -- that robots have infiltrated the West Virginia State Police.

I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords from the West Virginia State Police.
Where did they find inbred robots?

Tyrone Slothrop 08-17-2006 06:20 PM

Uh Oh!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Adder
Today it turns out it was just a clastrophobic woman who freaked out and had none of those things (although she had some prohibited hand cream).
She peed on the floor, which is kinda like terrorism.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 08-17-2006 06:24 PM

Uh Oh!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
She peed on the floor, which is kinda like terrorism.
Question -- if she was restrained in plastic cuffs, and the plane was being escorted by F-15s, why divert the flight to Boston rather than having it land at Dulles, where it was headed? Was there a ba (not a ba, a bomb) on the plane that was about to go off? I'm sure they disembarked right quick in Boston . . .

Hank Chinaski 08-17-2006 06:25 PM

Uh Oh!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Where did they find inbred robots?
oh please. you think your home state has a leg up on West Virginia? Huntington is almost DC bedroom community.

SlaveNoMore 08-17-2006 06:28 PM

Uh Oh!!!
 
Quote:

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Question -- if she was restrained in plastic cuffs, and the plane was being escorted by F-15s, why divert the flight to Boston rather than having it land at Dulles, where it was headed? Was there a ba (not a ba, a bomb) on the plane that was about to go off? I'm sure they disembarked right quick in Boston . . .
No one - outside of Boston - cares if you blow up Boston?

Just a guess.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 08-17-2006 06:35 PM

Uh Oh!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
oh please. you think your home state has a leg up on West Virginia? Huntington is almost DC bedroom community.
Yet, curiously, Huntington is 275 miles from Detroit, whereas DC is 294 miles.

calculator

ltl/fb 08-17-2006 06:36 PM

Uh Oh!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
No one - outside of Boston - cares if you blow up Boston?

Just a guess.
Boston (to me) is kind of like NYC and SF. Just to update you.

Penske_Account 08-17-2006 06:38 PM

Uh Oh!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
She peed on the floor, which is kinda like terrorism.
I have read that drinking urine can cause renal failure, so there seems there was some danger to the other passengers. If she tried to pee in their mouths. But just peeing starts you down the slippery slope, so I think the arrest was warranted. eta: Figuratively. I am assuming no actual warrant was issued prior to the arrest.

Hank Chinaski 08-17-2006 06:40 PM

Uh Oh!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I have read that drinking urine can cause renal failure, so there seems there was some danger to the other passengers. If she tried to pee in their mouths. But just peeing starts you down the slippery slope, so I think the arrest was warranted. eta: Figuratively. I am assuming no actual warrant was issued prior to the arrest.
how did we come to know she had peed? isn't that the operative question? certainly peeing on a plane is fine- i have done so on several occasions. So it must be the manner or location of the peeing that is in question. I am troubled how the Bush administration went about discovering these facts w/o seeking a warrent.

Penske_Account 08-17-2006 06:41 PM

WSJ Poll of the Day
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Should profiling of airline passengers based on ethnicity or race be allowed?

So far


Yes
1893 votes (87%)

No
283 votes (13%)


FWIW, these things usually skew more left than one might expect. Apparently a lot of Dems read the journal......know thy enemy, indeed.
Update:

Yes
5141 votes (86%)

No
811 votes (14%)

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 08-17-2006 06:46 PM

Uh Oh!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Boston (to me) is kind of like NYC and SF. Just to update you.
I would put LA and Dallas on your list, and delete SF and Boston. But that's me.

ltl/fb 08-17-2006 06:48 PM

Uh Oh!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I would put LA and Dallas on your list, and delete SF and Boston. But that's me.
We both hate NYC? We are soulmates. *sniff*

ETA I think you mean to say, your (Burger's) list would include Dallas and LA in place of SF and Boston. Either that, or you are sorely mistaken about my city preferences.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 08-17-2006 06:49 PM

Uh Oh!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
We both hate NYC? We are soulmates. *sniff*
Your attraction to my donut-head made that clear.

ltl/fb 08-17-2006 06:50 PM

Uh Oh!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Your attraction to my donut-head made that clear.
This is so tragic. We are just like, uh, people separated by fate or some force that prevents one of them from being in the geographic location of the other.

Penske_Account 08-17-2006 06:54 PM

Uh Oh!!!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I would put LA and Dallas on your list, and delete SF and Boston. But that's me.
For the continental US, I would say NYC is indispendable as the center of finance, DC you need for the President (although the east end of the Mall is expendable).

After that, maybe you need Seattle, given Microsoft's control of the software to get us onto the information highway.

After that, pretty much the rest is equally expendable.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:56 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com