Comments on: Better Start Listening to Opposing Views

By: dannybill

dannybill — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I think Fitzmas is late because he is finding so much illegal crap he does not know where to start?

Cheney in Iraq probably to check for things left behind that should be shredded.

Note - this post is being monitored by NSA for quality control purposes…

By: rwcole

rwcole — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

By the way- new poll out from Gallup- Clusterfuck JAR down to 41% (from 42%)–it’s beginning to look as if the WP poll that showed Clusterfuck with 47% was a fluke- hope so- it appears that he’s getting a bit of a lift from:

Miers in the rear view mirror-

Gas prices declining

The election in Iraq- which he ballyhooed as a great success.

His vulnerabilities are pretty obvious:

Iraqis having huge demonstrations about rigged elections (why didn’t we think of that)

Rove waiting for indictment

The unpredictable spygate case

Housing bubble lookin like it wants to pop!

High heating oil and natural gas prices

The Abramoff case coming to a head

etc.

He’s got a nice little bump at the moment- but that could be history by spring.

By: Heathen

Heathen — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

LOL!! I should have ead the comments first.

By: Heathen

Heathen — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Anybody but me notice in that pic of Shrub, he’s talking to the wrong end of the phone?!!!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Better Start Listening to Opposing Views

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Like you listen to opposing views….

glad you think you know everything!

By: villageidiot

villageidiot — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Please excuse the victims of our war in Iraq (and elsewhere) if they are bewildered by this furore about telephone taps, after all that has transpired in the name of this GWOT.

Does our hypocrisy have no bounds?

By: RJJ

RJJ — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

is this the Orrin Kerr business?

http://www.volokh.com/archives.....1135029722

By: ReddHedd

ReddHedd — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Anon — do you have a link on the Kerr article you are quoting? Would love to take a peek.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Krauthammer has an article entitled “Impeachment nonsense” in today’s WaPo on this stuff. When I read, “George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr (one critic calls him the man who ‘literally wrote the book on government seizure of electronic evidence’) finds ‘pretty decent arguments’ on both sides, but his own conclusion is that Bush’s actions were ‘probably constitutional,’” I knew that I better check the source . I found that Professor Kerr went on to conclude that Bush has probably violated FISA and that AUMF doesn’t provide the statutory authorization that would have provide Bush an exception: “In the end, my best sense is that the AUMF doesn’t extend to this. I have three reasons. First, O’Connor’s [majority] opinion says the following about detention for interrogation: ‘Certainly, we agree that indefinite detention for the purpose of interrogation is not authorized.’ It seems to me that surveillance and wiretapping is pretty similar to interrogation: the point of both is getting information about your enemy. Second, it doesn’t seem like wiretapping counts as a ‘use of force.’ If you read the text of the AUMF, it doesn’t seem to me that it authorizes wiretapping. Finally, note that Congress passed the Patriot Act about a month after passing the AUMF; if Congress had intended the AUMF to give the president wide authority to conduct domestic surveillance against Al Qaeda, I don’t think they would have spent so much time amending FISA for terrorism investigations. So at bottom, I think the AUMF probably didn’t authorize this, although the Hamdi case gives some colorable (if ultimately unpersuasive) arguments that it might.”

Interesting stuff!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Krauthammer has an article entitled “Impeachment nonsense” in today’s WaPo on this stuff. When I read, “George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr (one critic calls him the man who ‘literally wrote the book on government seizure of electronic evidence’) finds “pretty decent arguments” on both sides, but his own conclusion is that Bush’s actions were ‘probably constitutional,’” I knew that I better check the source . I found that Professor Kerr went on to conclude that Bush has probably violated FISA and that AUMF doesn’t provide the statutory authorization that would have provide Bush an exception: “In the end, my best sense is that the AUMF doesn’t extend to this. I have three reasons. First, O’Connor’s [majority] opinion says the following about detention for interrogation: “Certainly, we agree that indefinite detention for the purpose of interrogation is not authorized.” It seems to me that surveillance and wiretapping is pretty similar to interrogation: the point of both is getting information about your enemy. Second, it doesn’t seem like wiretapping counts as a “use of force.” If you read the text of the AUMF, it doesn’t seem to me that it authorizes wiretapping. Finally, note that Congress passed the Patriot Act about a month after passing the AUMF; if Congress had intended the AUMF to give the president wide authority to conduct domestic surveillance against Al Qaeda, I don’t think they would have spent so much time amending FISA for terrorism investigations. So at bottom, I think the AUMF probably didn’t authorize this, although the Hamdi case gives some colorable (if ultimately unpersuasive) arguments that it might.”

Interesting stuff!