What? No Anderson Cooper thread? (non bb)

[strosrays]

I had visions of this "serious newsman" running frantically around the Beruit airport (if there still is one) last night, trying to find the next direct flight from Lebanon to Colorado (if there ever was one.)

Well, that and visions of Rita Crosby and that dingbat on FOX (Nancy something?) reaching mutual maximum orgasm together, on camera, nationwide.

I was prevented from watching the cable last night because I had to go to my in-law's, but I thought sure I could catch up here.

[ybbodeus]

Quote:
I had visions of this "serious newsman" running frantically around the Beruit airport (if there still is one) last night, trying to find the next direct flight from Lebanon to Colorado (if there ever was one.)

Well, that and visions of Rita Crosby and that dingbat on FOX (Nancy something?) reaching mutual maximum orgasm together, on camera, nationwide.

I was prevented from watching the cable last night because I had to go to my in-law's, but I thought sure I could catch up here.

Well, it WOULD have been here but the whole JonBenet thing knocked it back to tier 2.

EDIT:  Oh, I don't know of any Nancy's on FOX....Nancy-BOYS, maybe....but I like the way you're thinking.

[Limey]

One day, a news event will happen and Anderson Cooper will not be between it and the camera.  One day...

[Craig]

Quote:
I had visions of this "serious newsman" running frantically around the Beruit airport (if there still is one) last night, trying to find the next direct flight from Lebanon to Colorado (if there ever was one.)

Well, that and visions of Rita Crosby and that dingbat on FOX (Nancy something?) reaching mutual maximum orgasm together, on camera, nationwide.

I was prevented from watching the cable last night because I had to go to my in-law's, but I thought sure I could catch up here.

Nancy Grace? That awful bitch is on CNN Headline News now, along with dickhead Glenn Beck. CNN Headline News is trying to be new Fox, it appears.

[MusicMan]

Quote:
Well, that and visions of Rita Crosby and that dingbat on FOX (Nancy something?) reaching mutual maximum orgasm together, on camera, nationwide.

Can someone explain to me why anyone would hire Rita Crosby, a woman who sounds like she smoked 5 packs right before going on camera?

Nancy Grace is a slightly less insane Ann Coulter.  That doesn't mean that either one should get a moment's airtime.

[ybbodeus]

Quote:

Quote:
I had visions of this "serious newsman" running frantically around the Beruit airport (if there still is one) last night, trying to find the next direct flight from Lebanon to Colorado (if there ever was one.)

Well, that and visions of Rita Crosby and that dingbat on FOX (Nancy something?) reaching mutual maximum orgasm together, on camera, nationwide.

I was prevented from watching the cable last night because I had to go to my in-law's, but I thought sure I could catch up here.

Nancy Grace? That awful bitch is on CNN Headline News now, along with dickhead Glenn Beck. CNN Headline News is trying to be new Fox, it appears.

Well, once the market had a second viable player, they DID discover 2nd place rather quickly, all by simply being themselves.  A little emulation, and I DO mean a little, won't hurt their core values.

[ybbodeus]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I had visions of this "serious newsman" running frantically around the Beruit airport (if there still is one) last night, trying to find the next direct flight from Lebanon to Colorado (if there ever was one.)

Well, that and visions of Rita Crosby and that dingbat on FOX (Nancy something?) reaching mutual maximum orgasm together, on camera, nationwide.

I was prevented from watching the cable last night because I had to go to my in-law's, but I thought sure I could catch up here.

Nancy Grace? That awful bitch is on CNN Headline News now, along with dickhead Glenn Beck. CNN Headline News is trying to be new Fox, it appears.

Well, once the market had a second viable player, they DID discover 2nd place rather quickly, all by simply being themselves.  A little emulation, and I DO mean a little, won't hurt their core values.

All that said, Nancy Grace is a bit of an odd-ball.

[Bench]

Quote:
I had visions of this "serious newsman" running frantically around the Beruit airport (if there still is one) last night, trying to find the next direct flight from Lebanon to Colorado (if there ever was one.)

He was probably looking for a layover in New Orleans for a quickie follow-up.

God bless Anderson Cooper. Without him, I would never know how to react to anything. Thank you, Anderson. Thank YOU.

[ybbodeus]

Just love this new era of journalism, left OR right, where "I, Newsman, am the story.  If I'm not discussing it, it's not news."  Fox and CNN are overrun with it; ABCBSNBC are still trying to figure that out.  EDIT:  Katie will figure it out, though.

God willing, we will prevail in peace and freedom from fear and in true health through the purity and essence of our natural fluids. God bless you all.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Spack may need to nuke this fucking thread before it gets out of control.  Maybe it's my innate pessimism but I suspect it's only a matter of time before the rants start.

[JGrave]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I had visions of this "serious newsman" running frantically around the Beruit airport (if there still is one) last night, trying to find the next direct flight from Lebanon to Colorado (if there ever was one.)

Well, that and visions of Rita Crosby and that dingbat on FOX (Nancy something?) reaching mutual maximum orgasm together, on camera, nationwide.

I was prevented from watching the cable last night because I had to go to my in-law's, but I thought sure I could catch up here.

Nancy Grace? That awful bitch is on CNN Headline News now, along with dickhead Glenn Beck. CNN Headline News is trying to be new Fox, it appears.

Well, once the market had a second viable player, they DID discover 2nd place rather quickly, all by simply being themselves.  A little emulation, and I DO mean a little, won't hurt their core values.

All that said, Nancy Grace is a bit of an odd-ball.

The other night they were revisiting the Scott Peterson case and what his life is like on deathrow.  She kept going on and on about the menu he was being fed:  "America, this murderer is getting chicken on the bone and an ice cream cup."  The attorney she was interviewing had to bring her back to earth by saying, "well Nancy, I doubt there's very many people in America who would trade places with him."

[strosrays]

Quote:

Quote:
I had visions of this "serious newsman" running frantically around the Beruit airport (if there still is one) last night, trying to find the next direct flight from Lebanon to Colorado (if there ever was one.)

He was probably looking for a layover in New Orleans for a quickie follow-up.

Just excellent.

About a month or so ago, AC was in NOLA hanging out with the Corps of Engineers guys rebuilding the levees, seawalls, etc.  He put on his little yellow hardhat and climbed into a cage with a couple of contractors to be lifted up over the whole scene by crane.  Cooper was trying to convey, dramatically, the scene there as "this battered city, largely left on its own by the rest of America, attempts to pull itself up from the ashes."

Only problem was, this little vignette was being shot at nighttime (greater dramatic-er effect, I suppose), and once the CNN cameras panned out beyond the small work area lit by spotlights, you couldn't see a fucking thing.

Quote:
Spack may need to nuke this fucking thread before it gets out of control. Maybe it's my innate pessimism but I suspect it's only a matter of time before the rants start.

You are Isaac Cline, strolling down East Beach one quiet Sunday morning.  Beautiful morning, everything is quiet, the skies are blue, but you notice the waves are acting kind of weird...

[pravata]

Quote:
I had visions of this "serious newsman" ...

Search in Google news for John Mark Karr, 2,890 articles.  Search for Anna Diggs Taylor 524.

[OldBlevins]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I had visions of this "serious newsman" running frantically around the Beruit airport (if there still is one) last night, trying to find the next direct flight from Lebanon to Colorado (if there ever was one.)

Well, that and visions of Rita Crosby and that dingbat on FOX (Nancy something?) reaching mutual maximum orgasm together, on camera, nationwide.

I was prevented from watching the cable last night because I had to go to my in-law's, but I thought sure I could catch up here.

Nancy Grace? That awful bitch is on CNN Headline News now, along with dickhead Glenn Beck. CNN Headline News is trying to be new Fox, it appears.

Well, once the market had a second viable player, they DID discover 2nd place rather quickly, all by simply being themselves.  A little emulation, and I DO mean a little, won't hurt their core values.

All that said, Nancy Grace is a bit of an odd-ball.

The other night they were revisiting the Scott Peterson case and what his life is like on deathrow.  She kept going on and on about the menu he was being fed:  "America, this murderer is getting chicken on the bone and an ice cream cup."  The attorney she was interviewing had to bring her back to earth by saying, "well Nancy, I doubt there's very many people in America who would trade places with him."

"Chicken on the bone?"  Is that better than off the bone?

[Craig]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I had visions of this "serious newsman" running frantically around the Beruit airport (if there still is one) last night, trying to find the next direct flight from Lebanon to Colorado (if there ever was one.)

Well, that and visions of Rita Crosby and that dingbat on FOX (Nancy something?) reaching mutual maximum orgasm together, on camera, nationwide.

I was prevented from watching the cable last night because I had to go to my in-law's, but I thought sure I could catch up here.

Nancy Grace? That awful bitch is on CNN Headline News now, along with dickhead Glenn Beck. CNN Headline News is trying to be new Fox, it appears.

Well, once the market had a second viable player, they DID discover 2nd place rather quickly, all by simply being themselves.  A little emulation, and I DO mean a little, won't hurt their core values.

All that said, Nancy Grace is a bit of an odd-ball.

The other night they were revisiting the Scott Peterson case and what his life is like on deathrow.  She kept going on and on about the menu he was being fed:  "America, this murderer is getting chicken on the bone and an ice cream cup."  The attorney she was interviewing had to bring her back to earth by saying, "well Nancy, I doubt there's very many people in America who would trade places with him."

"Chicken on the bone?"  Is that better than off the bone?

It is to Nancy Grace's audience, because they're all so marrow-minded.

[MusicMan]

Quote:

Quote:
I had visions of this "serious newsman" ...

Search in Google news for John Mark Karr, 2,890 articles.  Search for Anna Diggs Taylor 524.

In fairness, you're talking about a story that broke yesterday, versus today.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I had visions of this "serious newsman" ...

Search in Google news for John Mark Karr, 2,890 articles.  Search for Anna Diggs Taylor 524.

In fairness, you're talking about a story that broke yesterday, versus today.

Right now, 3,209 to 526, you think it's going to change?

[MusicMan]

Silly me, my faith in humanity has erred again.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

News is about selling advertising. It takes a refined crap detector and great effort to sift through the stupidity to find anything that is meaningful and enriching. It makes me weary and I dispair that it will only get worse and more convoluted. It breeds apathy and hysteria but not much else.

[ybbodeus]

Quote:
"Chicken on the bone?"  Is that better than off the bone?

I think she just likes to say BONE!  Her audience likes to hear it.  Heck, I do and I'm not IN her audience.  I probably meet the demographic profile that's been set up for her, though, which presumes among other things: anger, caucasian, male and perhaps inadequately educated.  Could be wrong, though.

EDITED to free up some space

[Limey]

Quote:
Search in Google news for John Mark Karr, 2,890 articles.  Search for Anna Diggs Taylor 524.

The closing lines of her opinion are classic.  She simply quotes Justice Warren:

"Implicit in the term ?national defense? is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this Nation apart. . . . It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of . . . those liberties . . . which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile."

[juliogotay]

Just curious....are you less free because of the security measures?

[strosrays]

Quote:
Just curious....are you less free because of the security measures?

All riiiiight.  Here we go now.


"In a shocking reminder of why Democrats must never be entrusted with power at any level, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit ruled that a surveillance program utilized by the Bush Administration in the war on terror is unconstitutional.

Who in the hell is Anna Diggs Taylor? And how in the name of all that is decent and righteous can an obscure federal judge unilaterally shut down a key intelligence tool used by the U.S. Commander-in-Chief while the nation is at war?"


 The Link


Yeah, 'cos what the hell is a federal judge doing citing the Bill of Rights and shit like that in her opinions?

[MusicMan]

I realize the scope of this statement, and yet I make it anyway:

That may be the single dumbest thing I've ever read on the Internet.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Quote:

Quote:
Just curious....are you less free because of the security measures?

All riiiiight.  Here we go now.


"In a shocking reminder of why Democrats must never be entrusted with power at any level, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit ruled that a surveillance program utilized by the Bush Administration in the war on terror is unconstitutional.

Who in the hell is Anna Diggs Taylor? And how in the name of all that is decent and righteous can an obscure federal judge unilaterally shut down a key intelligence tool used by the U.S. Commander-in-Chief while the nation is at war?"


 The Link


Yeah, 'cos what the hell is a federal judge doing citing the Bill of Rights and shit like that in her opinions?

The problem is in addition to citing the Bill of Rights, she added:

...federal Judge Anna Diggs Taylor struck down the warrantless surveillance program, finding it to be a violation of the First and Fourth Amendments and the principle of separation of powers. "There are no hereditary Kings in America," she wrote.

 USA Today opinion piece

While the issue of First and Forth Amendment Rights is signficant, that statement wreaks of personal politics.  That alone makes me wonder how long this judges decision will hold up.  Don't get me wrong, I'm no lawyer, so my opinion on this issue is purely as an ignorant citizen.

[Bench]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Just curious....are you less free because of the security measures?

All riiiiight.  Here we go now.


"In a shocking reminder of why Democrats must never be entrusted with power at any level, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit ruled that a surveillance program utilized by the Bush Administration in the war on terror is unconstitutional.

Who in the hell is Anna Diggs Taylor? And how in the name of all that is decent and righteous can an obscure federal judge unilaterally shut down a key intelligence tool used by the U.S. Commander-in-Chief while the nation is at war?"


 The Link


Yeah, 'cos what the hell is a federal judge doing citing the Bill of Rights and shit like that in her opinions?

The problem is in addition to citing the Bill of Rights, she added:

...federal Judge Anna Diggs Taylor struck down the warrantless surveillance program, finding it to be a violation of the First and Fourth Amendments and the principle of separation of powers. "There are no hereditary Kings in America," she wrote.

 USA Today opinion piece

While the issue of First and Forth Amendment Rights is signficant, that statement wreaks of personal politics.  That alone makes me wonder how long this judges decision will hold up.  Don't get me wrong, I'm no lawyer, so my opinion on this issue is purely as an ignorant citizen.

Dicta: the gift that keeps on giving.

[Bench]

Quote:
Just curious....are you less free because of the security measures?

Of course.

[Limey]

Quote:
Just curious....are you less free because of the security measures?

She's not talking about security measures, she's talking about unwarranted wiretapping.  We are all less free if the Govt. can listen in on our phone calls and read our e-mails without any independent oversight.

The Brits rounded up all those would-be plane bombers in London after months of covert surveillance - all warranted by a court order.  Requiring a warrant (which can be sought retroactively if necessary) isn't an impediment to our protection, it's a guarantee of our protection - from illegal search and seizure.

[ASTROCREEP]

Anne Curry is hot.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Quote:
I realize the scope of this statement, and yet I make it anyway:

That may be the single dumbest thing I've ever read on the Internet.

I can't go that far. But as I was reading my mind sort of wandered off and the shapes and contrasting elements between the black and white shit on my computer screen transmogrified into those rainbow colored Grateful Dead dancing bears doing an interpretive dance about how I was supposed to go outside and stare at the sun.

[Limey]

Quote:
While the issue of First and Forth Amendment Rights is signficant, that statement wreaks of personal politics.  That alone makes me wonder how long this judges decision will hold up.  Don't get me wrong, I'm no lawyer, so my opinion on this issue is purely as an ignorant citizen.

It'll be taken all the way to the Supreme Court I'm sure.  Unless Roberts or Alito has to recuse himself, like in Hamdi, I wouldn't be surprised to see it turned over.

As I understand it, the question isn't about whether the NSA program violates the 1st and 4the amendments.  The question is whether the Commander-in-Chief war powers override the Bill of Rights.

That'll be the debate, but an interesting tack might be to debate whether the US is actually at war as intended by the Constitution.  Usually you have to be fighting another nation, not a tactic.  As far as I can tell, the US is not at war with any other country.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Just curious....are you less free because of the security measures?

All riiiiight.  Here we go now.


"In a shocking reminder of why Democrats must never be entrusted with power at any level, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit ruled that a surveillance program utilized by the Bush Administration in the war on terror is unconstitutional.

Who in the hell is Anna Diggs Taylor? And how in the name of all that is decent and righteous can an obscure federal judge unilaterally shut down a key intelligence tool used by the U.S. Commander-in-Chief while the nation is at war?"


 The Link


Yeah, 'cos what the hell is a federal judge doing citing the Bill of Rights and shit like that in her opinions?

The problem is in addition to citing the Bill of Rights, she added:

...federal Judge Anna Diggs Taylor struck down the warrantless surveillance program, finding it to be a violation of the First and Fourth Amendments and the principle of separation of powers. "There are no hereditary Kings in America," she wrote.

 USA Today opinion piece

While the issue of First and Forth Amendment Rights is signficant, that statement wreaks of personal politics.  That alone makes me wonder how long this judges decision will hold up.  Don't get me wrong, I'm no lawyer, so my opinion on this issue is purely as an ignorant citizen.

Dicta: the gift that keeps on giving.

Thanks alot.  Having no background in the term "Dicta", I googled.  What I want to know is why a judge feels the need to add their personal opinion yet feel it should have no influence or in anyway be used in understanding/applying the ruling.  

 Definition of Dicta

As I've said, I'm have very little knowledge of the law, but all that did was further convince me that our legal system is totally fucked.  If those legal eagles out there can better explain  "Dicta" than this website, please share.  That explanation leaves me convinced that this Judge, with her "Dicta" opinion, has simply thrown gasoline on the punditry flames.  

There they are again, those damn waves, acting funny...(tip of my hat to Strosray)

[Andyzipp]

I have heard that Spack is keeping a close eye on this discussion.  FYI, Spack considers himself a Libretarian today, so he thinks arguing about whose media outlet is more/less slanted is a fucking waste of breath.

He says.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Just curious....are you less free because of the security measures?

All riiiiight.  Here we go now.


"In a shocking reminder of why Democrats must never be entrusted with power at any level, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit ruled that a surveillance program utilized by the Bush Administration in the war on terror is unconstitutional.

Who in the hell is Anna Diggs Taylor? And how in the name of all that is decent and righteous can an obscure federal judge unilaterally shut down a key intelligence tool used by the U.S. Commander-in-Chief while the nation is at war?"


 The Link


Yeah, 'cos what the hell is a federal judge doing citing the Bill of Rights and shit like that in her opinions?

The problem is in addition to citing the Bill of Rights, she added:

...federal Judge Anna Diggs Taylor struck down the warrantless surveillance program, finding it to be a violation of the First and Fourth Amendments and the principle of separation of powers. "There are no hereditary Kings in America," she wrote.

 USA Today opinion piece

While the issue of First and Forth Amendment Rights is signficant, that statement wreaks of personal politics.  That alone makes me wonder how long this judges decision will hold up.  Don't get me wrong, I'm no lawyer, so my opinion on this issue is purely as an ignorant citizen.

Dicta: the gift that keeps on giving.

Thanks alot.  Having no background in the term "Dicta", I googled.  What I want to know is why a judge feels the need to add their personal opinion yet feel it should have no influence or in anyway be used in understanding/applying the ruling.  

 Definition of Dicta

As I've said, I'm have very little knowledge of the law, but all that did was further convince me that our legal system is totally fucked.  If those legal eagles out there can better explain  "Dicta" than this website, please share.  That explanation leaves me convinced that this Judge, with her "Dicta" opinion, has simply thrown gasoline on the punditry flames.  

There they are again, those damn waves, acting funny...(tip of my hat to Strosray)

She had her shot and she took it.  From what I've been reading, this opinion, procedurally and precedentially, is boned.

[Lefty]

Quote:
She had her shot and she took it.  From what I've been reading, this opinion, procedurally and precedentially, is boned.

"Boned" being time-honored legalese for...?

[Bench]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Just curious....are you less free because of the security measures?

All riiiiight.  Here we go now.


"In a shocking reminder of why Democrats must never be entrusted with power at any level, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit ruled that a surveillance program utilized by the Bush Administration in the war on terror is unconstitutional.

Who in the hell is Anna Diggs Taylor? And how in the name of all that is decent and righteous can an obscure federal judge unilaterally shut down a key intelligence tool used by the U.S. Commander-in-Chief while the nation is at war?"


 The Link


Yeah, 'cos what the hell is a federal judge doing citing the Bill of Rights and shit like that in her opinions?

The problem is in addition to citing the Bill of Rights, she added:

...federal Judge Anna Diggs Taylor struck down the warrantless surveillance program, finding it to be a violation of the First and Fourth Amendments and the principle of separation of powers. "There are no hereditary Kings in America," she wrote.

 USA Today opinion piece

While the issue of First and Forth Amendment Rights is signficant, that statement wreaks of personal politics.  That alone makes me wonder how long this judges decision will hold up.  Don't get me wrong, I'm no lawyer, so my opinion on this issue is purely as an ignorant citizen.

Dicta: the gift that keeps on giving.

Thanks alot.  Having no background in the term "Dicta", I googled.  What I want to know is why a judge feels the need to add their personal opinion yet feel it should have no influence or in anyway be used in understanding/applying the ruling.  

 Definition of Dicta

As I've said, I'm have very little knowledge of the law, but all that did was further convince me that our legal system is totally fucked.  If those legal eagles out there can better explain  "Dicta" than this website, please share.  That explanation leaves me convinced that this Judge, with her "Dicta" opinion, has simply thrown gasoline on the punditry flames.  

There they are again, those damn waves, acting funny...(tip of my hat to Strosray)

That's a fairly decent definition of dicta. They really are just words with little authoritative value, however it can be quite helpful in interpreting and clarifying the theoretical context of the meat of the opinion.

I haven't read the whole opinion yet, so don't know if the "hereditary kings" bit is probably a shot at Dubya (or Hillary, for that matter).

[Bench]

Quote:

Quote:
She had her shot and she took it.  From what I've been reading, this opinion, procedurally and precedentially, is boned.

"Boned" being time-honored legalese for...?

What Scot Peterson eats on deathrow.

And the circle is closed.

[OldBlevins]

Quote:

Quote:
Search in Google news for John Mark Karr, 2,890 articles.  Search for Anna Diggs Taylor 524.

The closing lines of her opinion are classic.  She simply quotes Justice Warren:

"Implicit in the term ?national defense? is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this Nation apart. . . . It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of . . . those liberties . . . which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile."

I greatly admired Earl Warren, but that statement's rather ironic considering he helped round up the Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor.

[Limey]

Quote:
I have heard that Spack is keeping a close eye on this discussion.  FYI, Spack considers himself a Libretarian today, so he thinks arguing about whose media outlet is more/less slanted is a fucking waste of breath.

He says.

Have you ever noticed that, on a subject that you've researched yourself, the news services seem to be mostly fucking clueless?  Witness the Chronicle sportswriters.

Trust little.  Read lots.  Ask questions.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Just curious....are you less free because of the security measures?

All riiiiight.  Here we go now.


"In a shocking reminder of why Democrats must never be entrusted with power at any level, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit ruled that a surveillance program utilized by the Bush Administration in the war on terror is unconstitutional.

Who in the hell is Anna Diggs Taylor? And how in the name of all that is decent and righteous can an obscure federal judge unilaterally shut down a key intelligence tool used by the U.S. Commander-in-Chief while the nation is at war?"


 The Link


Yeah, 'cos what the hell is a federal judge doing citing the Bill of Rights and shit like that in her opinions?

The problem is in addition to citing the Bill of Rights, she added:

...federal Judge Anna Diggs Taylor struck down the warrantless surveillance program, finding it to be a violation of the First and Fourth Amendments and the principle of separation of powers. "There are no hereditary Kings in America," she wrote.

 USA Today opinion piece

While the issue of First and Forth Amendment Rights is signficant, that statement wreaks of personal politics.  That alone makes me wonder how long this judges decision will hold up.  Don't get me wrong, I'm no lawyer, so my opinion on this issue is purely as an ignorant citizen.

Dicta: the gift that keeps on giving.

Thanks alot.  Having no background in the term "Dicta", I googled.  What I want to know is why a judge feels the need to add their personal opinion yet feel it should have no influence or in anyway be used in understanding/applying the ruling.  

 Definition of Dicta

As I've said, I'm have very little knowledge of the law, but all that did was further convince me that our legal system is totally fucked.  If those legal eagles out there can better explain  "Dicta" than this website, please share.  That explanation leaves me convinced that this Judge, with her "Dicta" opinion, has simply thrown gasoline on the punditry flames.  

There they are again, those damn waves, acting funny...(tip of my hat to Strosray)

She had her shot and she took it.  From what I've been reading, this opinion, procedurally and precedentially, is boned.

I hope so.  I'm more concerned with these knuckle heads reaching resolution on what can be done more than who is the political winner.  

As for Spack, I'm doing my best to self-edit in hopes of avoiding any un-intentional rhetoric.

[Limey]

Quote:
"Boned" being time-honored legalese for...?

"Impeachable offense".

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
She had her shot and she took it.  From what I've been reading, this opinion, procedurally and precedentially, is boned.

"Boned" being time-honored legalese for...?

To quote a great legal scholar of the far future, Bender: "Ah, ha ha ha ha...oh, I'm boned."

[Limey]

Quote:
I greatly admired Earl Warren, but that statement's rather ironic considering he helped round up the Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor.

Maybe he hadn't read the Constitution at that point.  He didn't have any judicial background before being placed on the Supreme Court.  Irony upon irony upon irony?

Either that, or he didn't know that the US was also at war with Germany and Italy.  If he had, maybe he would've rounded them up too.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I had visions of this "serious newsman" running frantically around the Beruit airport (if there still is one) last night, trying to find the next direct flight from Lebanon to Colorado (if there ever was one.)

Well, that and visions of Rita Crosby and that dingbat on FOX (Nancy something?) reaching mutual maximum orgasm together, on camera, nationwide.

I was prevented from watching the cable last night because I had to go to my in-law's, but I thought sure I could catch up here.

Nancy Grace? That awful bitch is on CNN Headline News now, along with dickhead Glenn Beck. CNN Headline News is trying to be new Fox, it appears.

Well, once the market had a second viable player, they DID discover 2nd place rather quickly, all by simply being themselves.  A little emulation, and I DO mean a little, won't hurt their core values.

All that said, Nancy Grace is a bit of an odd-ball.

The other night they were revisiting the Scott Peterson case and what his life is like on deathrow.  She kept going on and on about the menu he was being fed:  "America, this murderer is getting chicken on the bone and an ice cream cup."  The attorney she was interviewing had to bring her back to earth by saying, "well Nancy, I doubt there's very many people in America who would trade places with him."

"Chicken on the bone?"  Is that better than off the bone?

To address the culinary aspect of this thread, the answer is, generally, yes.

[Andyzipp]

Some German-Americans were rounded up and placed in a "camp" in Hearne, TX during WWII.

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:
I have heard that Spack is keeping a close eye on this discussion.  FYI, Spack considers himself a Libretarian today, so he thinks arguing about whose media outlet is more/less slanted is a fucking waste of breath.

He says.

Spack is no Libretarian or even a Libertarian.  He's a staunch Federalist.

[Andyzipp]

Quote:

Quote:
I have heard that Spack is keeping a close eye on this discussion.  FYI, Spack considers himself a Libretarian today, so he thinks arguing about whose media outlet is more/less slanted is a fucking waste of breath.

He says.

Spack is no Libretarian or even a Libertarian.  He's a staunch Federalist.

I talked to the fucker.  Operative word is "today".

[Bench]

Quote:

Quote:
I have heard that Spack is keeping a close eye on this discussion.  FYI, Spack considers himself a Libretarian today, so he thinks arguing about whose media outlet is more/less slanted is a fucking waste of breath.

He says.

Spack is no Libretarian or even a Libertarian.  He's a staunch Federalist.

As long as he ain't a librarian.

[UpTooLate]

Quote:
Some German-Americans were rounded up and placed in a "camp" in Hearne, TX during WWII.

Zipp beat me to it.  Here is a  Link .  I didn't read the full article, but I knew they had internment camps for Germans so I did a quick google.  Crystal City was the one I had heard about.

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:

Either that, or he didn't know that the US was also at war with Germany and Italy.  If he had, maybe he would've rounded them up too.

It could have gone something like this:

"Well General Eisenhower, the first thing we do is round up an detain everyone with a German name...."

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I have heard that Spack is keeping a close eye on this discussion.  FYI, Spack considers himself a Libretarian today, so he thinks arguing about whose media outlet is more/less slanted is a fucking waste of breath.

He says.

Spack is no Libretarian or even a Libertarian.  He's a staunch Federalist.

As long as he ain't a librarian.

Right, those fuckers are MEAN.

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I have heard that Spack is keeping a close eye on this discussion.  FYI, Spack considers himself a Libretarian today, so he thinks arguing about whose media outlet is more/less slanted is a fucking waste of breath.

He says.

Spack is no Libretarian or even a Libertarian.  He's a staunch Federalist.

As long as he ain't a librarian.

Right, those fuckers are MEAN.

And they use a lot of big words.  Fuckers.

[Limey]

Quote:

Quote:
Some German-Americans were rounded up and placed in a "camp" in Hearne, TX during WWII.

Zipp beat me to it.  Here is a  Link .  I didn't read the full article, but I knew they had internment camps for Germans so I did a quick google.  Crystal City was the one I had heard about.

Didn't know that.  All you hear about is the Japanese camps.  The article did point out that the Germans and Italians in question were sailors arrested on ships in US ports, and others deported to the US from other coutries.

Did they get compensation and an apology like the Japanese?

[Taras Bulba]

Quote:

Quote:
Some German-Americans were rounded up and placed in a "camp" in Hearne, TX during WWII.

Zipp beat me to it.  Here is a  Link .  I didn't read the full article, but I knew they had internment camps for Germans so I did a quick google.  Crystal City was the one I had heard about.

There were also regular POW camps in Crystal City and Hearne.  A documentary was shot depicting a reunion of former German POW's returning to visit.  The Geneva Convention apparently established that prisoners should be detained in a climate most similar to where they were captured, hence the Afrika Corps enjoyed the sunny southwest.  Many of the Germans shown on the documentary were actually very fond of the time they spent in Texas.  I'm not certain you could say the same for the allied POW's who were guests of the Greater Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

[Limey]

Quote:
It could have gone something like this:

"Well General Eisenhower, the first thing we do is round up an detain everyone with a German name...."

See also Nimitz, Admiral.

[MusicMan]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I have heard that Spack is keeping a close eye on this discussion.  FYI, Spack considers himself a Libretarian today, so he thinks arguing about whose media outlet is more/less slanted is a fucking waste of breath.

He says.

Spack is no Libretarian or even a Libertarian.  He's a staunch Federalist.

As long as he ain't a librarian.

Right, those fuckers are MEAN.

And they use a lot of big words.  Fuckers.

But unlike Ausmus, they always have more big words for you.

[Limey]

Quote:
Search in Google news for John Mark Karr, 2,890 articles.  Search for Anna Diggs Taylor 524.

"Our terrorist surveillance programs are critical to fighting the war on terror and saved the day by foiling the London terror plot."  Dennis Hastert

Really?  Might want to check your facts on that one.

[astrox]

We are so blessed to live in America, yet many people take our freedom for granted.  A mere 5 years later and we've already been lulled back to the sleep of "normalcy" when it comes to our day to day activities.  Heaven forbid we can't bring hair gel or shampoo in our carry on bags.  What, no gel bras either?  Oh the horror.  The same people that bitch and moan about the "oppression" of the government and their "lack of freedom" due to these security measures are the same people that would question why tighter security hadn't been implemented in the aftermath of an attack.  I think people like to bitch.  We will always find something to bitch about.  I personally would rather give up my toiletries than be blown up enroute to my destination city.

I would much rather our government have wiretaps on terrorists during this time than be prevented because it "infringes on the liberties" of those who want to kill the innocent.  Oh yeah, "if they do it here, it's only a matter of time before they do it all the time to everyone."  Yeah.  Get over yourself.  And I thought I was a conspiracy theorist.  We are in a war, but the problem is that this war cannot be won, just like the war on drugs is an unwinnable war.  So, does that mean we just stick our heads in the sand and act like it doesn't exist?  Hell no.  Right now, it is drastic measures for these drastic times.  That means that we may have to give up some luxuries that we equate with freedom to make the nation as a whole safer.  Why is that such a problem?  Why is it that the Left is so intent on allowing every jihadist more freedom than those who he's trying to kill?

And the media?  Don't get me started.  They're going to stir the pot regardless because it's all about ratings.  I love to see them eating crow when they publish something that conforms to what they are trying to feed the masses only to learn after the fact that the report was faked, the photos were doctored, the stories were false.

So, by all means, let's stop the unjust opression by the government.  It's too much.  Restrictions cramp our style.  Wiretapping a terroist cell is unconstitutional.  Let's just stop all of that tomfoolery.

Let's get Cindy Sheehan to run for president!  That would be great.  We'd really be safe with people like her in office.  I know I would feel very safe.  Of course, I'm not sure she could run if she's living in Venezuela..oh wait, she has all this money to spend on flying around the world, says she'd rather live in Venezuela than under Bush, yet she buys land not in Venezuela, but in....Crawford??  WTF??

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:
We are so blessed to live in America, yet many people take our freedom for granted.  A mere 5 years later and we've already been lulled back to the sleep of "normalcy" when it comes to our day to day activities.  Heaven forbid we can't bring hair gel or shampoo in our carry on bags.  What, no gel bras either?  Oh the horror.  The same people that bitch and moan about the "oppression" of the government and their "lack of freedom" due to these security measures are the same people that would question why tighter security hadn't been implemented in the aftermath of an attack.  I think people like to bitch.  We will always find something to bitch about.  I personally would rather give up my toiletries than be blown up enroute to my destination city.

I would much rather our government have wiretaps on terrorists during this time than be prevented because it "infringes on the liberties" of those who want to kill the innocent.  Oh yeah, "if they do it here, it's only a matter of time before they do it all the time to everyone."  Yeah.  Get over yourself.  And I thought I was a conspiracy theorist.  We are in a war, but the problem is that this war cannot be won, just like the war on drugs is an unwinnable war.  So, does that mean we just stick our heads in the sand and act like it doesn't exist?  Hell no.  Right now, it is drastic measures for these drastic times.  That means that we may have to give up some luxuries that we equate with freedom to make the nation as a whole safer.  Why is that such a problem?  Why is it that the Left is so intent on allowing every jihadist more freedom than those who he's trying to kill?

And the media?  Don't get me started.  They're going to stir the pot regardless because it's all about ratings.  I love to see them eating crow when they publish something that conforms to what they are trying to feed the masses only to learn after the fact that the report was faked, the photos were doctored, the stories were false.

So, by all means, let's stop the unjust opression by the government.  It's too much.  Restrictions cramp our style.  Wiretapping a terroist cell is unconstitutional.  Let's just stop all of that tomfoolery.

Let's get Cindy Sheehan to run for president!  That would be great.  We'd really be safe with people like her in office.  I know I would feel very safe.  Of course, I'm not sure she could run if she's living in Venezuela..oh wait, she has all this money to spend on flying around the world, says she'd rather live in Venezuela than under Bush, yet she buys land not in Venezuela, but in....Crawford??  WTF??

I would respond to this steaming pile of bullshit, but this thread is getting dangerously close to getting "spacked".  Let's just end it right here.

[Bench]

Quote:
We are so blessed to live in America, yet many people take our freedom for granted.  A mere 5 years later and we've already been lulled back to the sleep of "normalcy" when it comes to our day to day activities.  Heaven forbid we can't bring hair gel or shampoo in our carry on bags.  What, no gel bras either?  Oh the horror.  The same people that bitch and moan about the "oppression" of the government and their "lack of freedom" due to these security measures are the same people that would question why tighter security hadn't been implemented in the aftermath of an attack.  I think people like to bitch.  We will always find something to bitch about.  I personally would rather give up my toiletries than be blown up enroute to my destination city.

I would much rather our government have wiretaps on terrorists during this time than be prevented because it "infringes on the liberties" of those who want to kill the innocent.  Oh yeah, "if they do it here, it's only a matter of time before they do it all the time to everyone."  Yeah.  Get over yourself.  And I thought I was a conspiracy theorist.  We are in a war, but the problem is that this war cannot be won, just like the war on drugs is an unwinnable war.  So, does that mean we just stick our heads in the sand and act like it doesn't exist?  Hell no.  Right now, it is drastic measures for these drastic times.  That means that we may have to give up some luxuries that we equate with freedom to make the nation as a whole safer.  Why is that such a problem?  Why is it that the Left is so intent on allowing every jihadist more freedom than those who he's trying to kill?

And the media?  Don't get me started.  They're going to stir the pot regardless because it's all about ratings.  I love to see them eating crow when they publish something that conforms to what they are trying to feed the masses only to learn after the fact that the report was faked, the photos were doctored, the stories were false.

So, by all means, let's stop the unjust opression by the government.  It's too much.  Restrictions cramp our style.  Wiretapping a terroist cell is unconstitutional.  Let's just stop all of that tomfoolery.

Let's get Cindy Sheehan to run for president!  That would be great.  We'd really be safe with people like her in office.  I know I would feel very safe.  Of course, I'm not sure she could run if she's living in Venezuela..oh wait, she has all this money to spend on flying around the world, says she'd rather live in Venezuela than under Bush, yet she buys land not in Venezuela, but in....Crawford??  WTF??

And we were all doing so well.

Wire-tapping isn't unconstitutional. It was just  done unconstitutionally, according to this judge. There's a perfectly good constitutional way to do it: get a warrant.

The "why do you care if you aren't doing anything wrong" logic defeats the whole purpose of the bill of rights.

[Ty in Tampa]

Wow. Just wow.

[Jacksonian]

Quote:

Quote:
Search in Google news for John Mark Karr, 2,890 articles.  Search for Anna Diggs Taylor 524.

"Our terrorist surveillance programs are critical to fighting the war on terror and saved the day by foiling the London terror plot."  Dennis Hastert

Really?  Might want to check your facts on that one.

I suspect *all* of the facts in this case will never be known. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that some classified actions on the part of US surveillance, perhaps in conjuntion with UK authorities, were of use. I would only be guessing though.

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:

And we were all doing so well.

Wire-tapping isn't unconstitutional. It was just  done unconstitutionally, according to this judge. There's a perfectly good constitutional way to do it: get a warrant.

The "why do you care if you aren't doing anything wrong" logic defeats the whole purpose of the bill of rights.

I cannot abide people who are such fucking cowards as to say "giving up a little of our freedom keeps us safe from terrorists".  Yes, standing up for some principle may mean you get punched in the nose from time to time, but show some fucking balls.  "We need need to feel safe...I'd rather give up freedom than have my plane blown up...blah blah blah".  Fucking pussies.  Reach down and find a fucking pair.  God, people like that piss me off to no end.

[Limey]

You've missed the point.  No one is saying "don't wiretap".  The NSA is at liberty to wiretap any foreigner it likes without asking anyone.  It's called spying and it's what the NSA is there to do.

However, when such spying activity could involve a US citizen, the Constitution applies.  In that case, a court order is required (George Bush said so, without equivication, in this Press Conference*).  The FISA law was designed specifically to allow such court orders to be obtained in total secrecy and, if needs be, retroactively.

This decision of the court is that the NSA program is both unconsitutional and illegal.  This does not stop survveillance of foreigner to foreigner communications, nor of communications involving US citizens if the FISA court approves.  The Brits got court orders to track the would-be plane bombers, why can't the NSA?

You can argue that the judge's ruling is wrong in fact (and Arky probably will because he and I have been around the houses on this one) but you are wrong suggest that this is an attempt to prevent wiretapping of terrorists because it is no such thing.


* "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
  - George W. Bush, April 20, 2004.

[Limey]

Quote:
I suspect *all* of the facts in this case will never be known. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that some classified actions on the part of US surveillance, perhaps in conjuntion with UK authorities, were of use. I would only be guessing though.

British citizens have no protections under the US constitution, so the NSA can wiretap away with impugnity.  The UK authorities got court orders for their surveillance, because they are required to do so by law.  This would also allow them to use any information provided to them by US agencies.

[Limey]

Quote:
I cannot abide people who are such fucking cowards as to say "giving up a little of our freedom keeps us safe from terrorists".  Yes, standing up for some principle may mean you get punched in the nose from time to time, but show some fucking balls.  "We need need to feel safe...I'd rather give up freedom than have my plane blown up...blah blah blah".  Fucking pussies.  Reach down and find a fucking pair.  God, people like that piss me off to no end.

The Presidential Oath of Office says:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The President protects the Constitution and the Constitution protects the people.  Cutting out the middle man is not in the President's job description.

[Bench]

Quote:

Quote:

And we were all doing so well.

Wire-tapping isn't unconstitutional. It was just  done unconstitutionally, according to this judge. There's a perfectly good constitutional way to do it: get a warrant.

The "why do you care if you aren't doing anything wrong" logic defeats the whole purpose of the bill of rights.

I cannot abide people who are such fucking cowards as to say "giving up a little of our freedom keeps us safe from terrorists".  Yes, standing up for some principle may mean you get punched in the nose from time to time, but show some fucking balls.  "We need need to feel safe...I'd rather give up freedom than have my plane blown up...blah blah blah".  Fucking pussies.  Reach down and find a fucking pair.  God, people like that piss me off to no end.

That's an excellent perspective.

[Limey]

Quote:
That's an excellent perspective.

HH is a longwinded gas bag!  "Give me liberty or give me death" is all you need to say.

[Jacksonian]

Quote:

Quote:
I suspect *all* of the facts in this case will never be known. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that some classified actions on the part of US surveillance, perhaps in conjuntion with UK authorities, were of use. I would only be guessing though.

British citizens have no protections under the US constitution, so the NSA can wiretap away with impugnity.  The UK authorities got court orders for their surveillance, because they are required to do so by law.  This would also allow them to use any information provided to them by US agencies.

So then why the objection to Hastert's statement? If he's exaggerating some underlying truth, it's not as if he's the first or last politician to do so.  Unless you object to hyberbole for political effect.  In which case you must really despise all politicians.

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:

British citizens have no protections under the US constitution,

That is not true.  You still have rights, God-given rights, that are protected by the Constitution.  The Constituion doesn't grant rights, it protects them.  British citizens, by virtue of being human beings, have the right to free speech, religion, bear arms, rights as an accused, etc. regardless of whether or not they have the freedom to exercise those rights in their own country.  When in the United States, the US Constitution protects those rights, that are granted by nature, not statute, regardless of your citizenship.

[Limey]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I suspect *all* of the facts in this case will never be known. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that some classified actions on the part of US surveillance, perhaps in conjuntion with UK authorities, were of use. I would only be guessing though.

British citizens have no protections under the US constitution, so the NSA can wiretap away with impugnity.  The UK authorities got court orders for their surveillance, because they are required to do so by law.  This would also allow them to use any information provided to them by US agencies.

So then why the objection to Hastert's statement? If he's exaggerating some underlying truth, it's not as if he's the first or last politician to do so.  Unless you object to hyberbole for political effect.  In which case you must really despise all politicians.

He states as a matter of fact that, had Judge Taylor's decision been in place before the UK plot was discovered, the plot might not have been discovered.  This is patently false because nothing on which Judge Taylor ruled applies.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I suspect *all* of the facts in this case will never be known. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that some classified actions on the part of US surveillance, perhaps in conjuntion with UK authorities, were of use. I would only be guessing though.

British citizens have no protections under the US constitution, so the NSA can wiretap away with impugnity.  The UK authorities got court orders for their surveillance, because they are required to do so by law.  This would also allow them to use any information provided to them by US agencies.

So then why the objection to Hastert's statement? If he's exaggerating some underlying truth, it's not as if he's the first or last politician to do so.  Unless you object to hyberbole for political effect.  In which case you must really despise all politicians.

It's better to just accept the bullshit that you find easier to digest than acknowledge that all politicians are full of shit.  I'm just happy the convergence of reality and philosophical principle is something incredibly obvious to some.  It's not to me.

[Limey]

Quote:
That is not true.  You still have rights, God-given rights, that are protected by the Constitution.  The Constituion doesn't grant rights, it protects them.  British citizens, by virtue of being human beings, have the right to free speech, religion, bear arms, rights as an accused, etc. regardless of whether or not they have the freedom to exercise those rights in their own country.  When in the United States, the US Constitution protects those rights, that are granted by nature, not statute, regardless of your citizenship.

This is correct, but the US Constitution has no jurisdiction over the UK nor any other foreign country.  As a permanent resident, I enjoy the protections afforded by the US Constitution.  When not in the US, however, I'm just Johnny Foreigner with no guarantee of protection under the US Constitution.

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:

This is correct, but the US Constitution has no jurisdiction over the UK nor any other foreign country.  As a permanent resident, I enjoy the protections afforded by the US Constitution.  When not in the US, however, I'm just Johnny Foreigner with no guarantee of protection under the US Constitution.

Right.  I thought you were saying that as a non-citizen in the US, you don't have rights protected by the Constitution. My bad.

[Limey]

Quote:
It's better to just accept the bullshit that you find easier to digest than acknowledge that all politicians are full of shit.  I'm just happy the convergence of reality and philosophical principle is something incredibly obvious to some.  It's not to me.

All politicians are full of it, true.  What gets my goat is that the media used to do a good job of calling them on it.  Now they just run it as footage then blather on about car chases.

[Limey]

Quote:
Right.  I thought you were saying that as a non-citizen in the US, you don't have rights protected by the Constitution. My bad.

I didn't make the distinction because I was trying to shorten my original post by the exact length of these last few posts.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Search in Google news for John Mark Karr, 2,890 articles.  Search for Anna Diggs Taylor 524.

"Our terrorist surveillance programs are critical to fighting the war on terror and saved the day by foiling the London terror plot."  Dennis Hastert

Really?  Might want to check your facts on that one.

I suspect *all* of the facts in this case will never be known. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that some classified actions on the part of US surveillance, perhaps in conjuntion with UK authorities, were of use. I would only be guessing though.

An undercover British agent infiltrated the group, giving the authorities intelligence on the alleged plan, several U.S. government officials said

Bush thanked British Prime Minister Tony Blair for "busting this plot."
The Link

Undercover, infiltrated.  "Our" surveillance had fuck all to do with it.

[Limey]

Quote:
Undercover, infiltrated...

The Brits have been doing this for decades with IRA terror cells.  They usually wait until much closer to the denouement before swooping, however, in order to net as many people as possible and have evidence that sticks.

In this case, the swoop may have been a bit premature.  Two have already had to be released, and the clock is running down on the time allowed before they have to shit or get off the pot with the remainder.  If the evidence isn't strong enough to charge 'em, and some UK pundits are saying as much, then they'll have to let 'em go.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
Undercover, infiltrated...

The Brits have been doing this for decades with IRA terror cells.  They usually wait until much closer to the denouement before swooping, however, in order to net as many people as possible and have evidence that sticks.

In this case, the swoop may have been a bit premature.  Two have already had to be released, and the clock is running down on the time allowed before they have to shit or get off the pot with the remainder.  If the evidence isn't strong enough to charge 'em, and some UK pundits are saying as much, then they'll have to let 'em go.

It's always habeas corpus with you people? Isn't it?  Gotta be fancy with the latin phrases.  Can't be reglar, "ded er uhlive" is how you want em.

[Jacksonian]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Search in Google news for John Mark Karr, 2,890 articles.  Search for Anna Diggs Taylor 524.

"Our terrorist surveillance programs are critical to fighting the war on terror and saved the day by foiling the London terror plot."  Dennis Hastert

Really?  Might want to check your facts on that one.

I suspect *all* of the facts in this case will never be known. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that some classified actions on the part of US surveillance, perhaps in conjuntion with UK authorities, were of use. I would only be guessing though.

An undercover British agent infiltrated the group, giving the authorities intelligence on the alleged plan, several U.S. government officials said

Bush thanked British Prime Minister Tony Blair for "busting this plot."
The Link

Undercover, infiltrated.  "Our" surveillance had fuck all to do with it.

Could be that US intell led to the undercover operation in the first place (unlikely). Is there any evidence to suggest that US intell led to the early disruption of the plot?  As Limey points out the early jump may have fucked the prosecution.

Or, Hastert is a blowhard.

[Jacksonian]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I suspect *all* of the facts in this case will never be known. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that some classified actions on the part of US surveillance, perhaps in conjuntion with UK authorities, were of use. I would only be guessing though.

British citizens have no protections under the US constitution, so the NSA can wiretap away with impugnity.  The UK authorities got court orders for their surveillance, because they are required to do so by law.  This would also allow them to use any information provided to them by US agencies.

So then why the objection to Hastert's statement? If he's exaggerating some underlying truth, it's not as if he's the first or last politician to do so.  Unless you object to hyberbole for political effect.  In which case you must really despise all politicians.

He states as a matter of fact that, had Judge Taylor's decision been in place before the UK plot was discovered, the plot might not have been discovered.  This is patently false because nothing on which Judge Taylor ruled applies.

Oh. You didn't provide a link that made that connection.  Did he actually say that quote in the context of the Taylor ruling?

[Rebel Jew]

Quote:

Quote:
It's better to just accept the bullshit that you find easier to digest than acknowledge that all politicians are full of shit.  I'm just happy the convergence of reality and philosophical principle is something incredibly obvious to some.  It's not to me.

All politicians are full of it, true.  What gets my goat is that the media used to do a good job of calling them on it.  Now they just run it as footage then blather on about car chases.

To me, the worst thing that has happened to the media is that politicians and (mostly) right wing pundits have succeeded in introducing to the mainstream media a false concept of objectivity.  It seems as though the mainstream media is becoming little more than the equivalent of a disc jockey; some talking head operates the video board to blindly play whatever is collected from whatever popular issue.

The media has a responsibility to be selective in what it chooses to cover, not subjective but selective.  That's why every news agency has editors.  You don't have to give equal consideration to some bullshit statement or action simply because you're supposed to be "objective," and give everybody an equal chance.  It's the media's responsibility to filter the news, check it for facts, report it right down to its core.

NEWSPERSON 1:  "And why did you rob that bank, Senator?"
SENATOR:  "I was merely acting in the interest of the American people."
NEWSPERSON 1:  "Thank you Senator... And now we turn our attention to our panel...  Panelists, what do you think of the Senator's statement that robbing banks is in the interest of the American people?
PANELIST 1:  "I think it's outrageous.  US Senators simply do not have the right, under the US constitution, to rob banks."
PANELIST 2:  "We are in a time of war.  Would you rather a dirty Arab drop a dirty bomb on the US Capitol, or a respected member of the United States Senate rob a bank?"

...

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Quote:

NEWSPERSON 1:  "And why did you rob that bank, Senator?"
SENATOR:  "I was merely acting in the interest of the American people."
NEWSPERSON 1:  "Thank you Senator... And now we turn our attention to our panel...  Panelists, what do you think of the Senator's statement that robbing banks is in the interest of the American people?
PANELIST 1:  "I think it's outrageous.  US Senators simply do not have the right, under the US constitution, to rob banks."
PANELIST 2:  "We are in a time of war.  Would you rather a dirty Arab drop a dirty bomb on the US Capitol, or a respected member of the United States Senate rob a bank?"

...

huh??? WTF...

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Search in Google news for John Mark Karr, 2,890 articles.  Search for Anna Diggs Taylor 524.

"Our terrorist surveillance programs are critical to fighting the war on terror and saved the day by foiling the London terror plot."  Dennis Hastert

Really?  Might want to check your facts on that one. [/quot

I suspect *all* of the facts in this case will never be known. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that some classified actions on the part of US surveillance, perhaps in conjuntion with UK authorities, were of use. I would only be guessing though.

An undercover British agent infiltrated the group, giving the authorities intelligence on the alleged plan, several U.S. government officials said

Bush thanked British Prime Minister Tony Blair for "busting this plot."
The Link

Undercover, infiltrated.  "Our" surveillance had fuck all to do with it.

Could be that US intell led to the undercover operation in the first place (unlikely). Is there any evidence to suggest that US intell led to the early disruption of the plot?  As Limey points out the early jump may have fucked the prosecution.

Or, Hastert is a blowhard.

Everything I've seen says it was a British and Pakistani operation.  Reports are that they were keeping the US informed and the FBI fanned out across the country.  They've found nothing.  There was another instance in the past where the US jumped the gun.  The British had a mole in the plot which eventually blew up the London subways, the US government exposed the cover on that too soon and people escaped capture. .

[Jacksonian]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
It's better to just accept the bullshit that you find easier to digest than acknowledge that all politicians are full of shit.  I'm just happy the convergence of reality and philosophical principle is something incredibly obvious to some.  It's not to me.

All politicians are full of it, true.  What gets my goat is that the media used to do a good job of calling them on it.  Now they just run it as footage then blather on about car chases.

To me, the worst thing that has happened to the media is that politicians and (mostly) right wing pundits have succeeded in introducing to the mainstream media a false concept of objectivity.  It seems as though the mainstream media is becoming little more than the equivalent of a disc jockey; some talking head operates the video board to blindly play whatever is collected from whatever popular issue.

The media has a responsibility to be selective in what it chooses to cover, not subjective but selective.  That's why every news agency has editors.  You don't have to give equal consideration to some bullshit statement or action simply because you're supposed to be "objective," and give everybody an equal chance.  It's the media's responsibility to filter the news, check it for facts, report it right down to its core.

NEWSPERSON 1:  "And why did you rob that bank, Senator?"
SENATOR:  "I was merely acting in the interest of the American people."
NEWSPERSON 1:  "Thank you Senator... And now we turn our attention to our panel...  Panelists, what do you think of the Senator's statement that robbing banks is in the interest of the American people?
PANELIST 1:  "I think it's outrageous.  US Senators simply do not have the right, under the US constitution, to rob banks."
PANELIST 2:  "We are in a time of war.  Would you rather a dirty Arab drop a dirty bomb on the US Capitol, or a respected member of the United States Senate rob a bank?"

...

I think a case could be made that the reason radio talk shows are dominated by conservative pudnits is that those who listen truly believe, rightly or wrongly, that mainstream news outlets are the ones who were trying to provide the public with a false sense of objectivity first.  Goes to the "mainstream news outlets are liberal agenda driven" argument.

Didn't the NY Times editor have to resign recently? Gotta employ people with high integrity. Seems to me that's been a problem.

[Limey]

Quote:
It's always habeas corpus with you people? Isn't it?  Gotta be fancy with the latin phrases.  Can't be reglar, "ded er uhlive" is how you want em.

Either that, or we could "render" them somewhere else where such personal protections don't apply...

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I suspect *all* of the facts in this case will never be known. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that some classified actions on the part of US surveillance, perhaps in conjuntion with UK authorities, were of use. I would only be guessing though.

British citizens have no protections under the US constitution, so the NSA can wiretap away with impugnity.  The UK authorities got court orders for their surveillance, because they are required to do so by law.  This would also allow them to use any information provided to them by US agencies.

So then why the objection to Hastert's statement? If he's exaggerating some underlying truth, it's not as if he's the first or last politician to do so.  Unless you object to hyberbole for political effect.  In which case you must really despise all politicians.

He states as a matter of fact that, had Judge Taylor's decision been in place before the UK plot was discovered, the plot might not have been discovered.  This is patently false because nothing on which Judge Taylor ruled applies.

Oh. You didn't provide a link that made that connection.  Did he actually say that quote in the context of the Taylor ruling?

Press release from House Speaker Hastert's office

WASHINGTON, Aug. 17 /U.S. Newswire/ -- U.S. Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert today responded to the ruling by a U.S. District judge that the federal government's wiretapping surveillance programs are unconstitutional.
... Our terrorist surveillance programs are critical to fighting the War on Terror and saved the day by foiling the London terror plot.
The Link

[Limey]

Quote:
Oh. You didn't provide a link that made that connection.  Did he actually say that quote in the context of the Taylor ruling?

According to this article in the NY Times, Hastert's comment was in a written statement criticising Judge Taylor's decision.  A quick search didn't bring up a direct link to Hastert's statement, but it should be out there somewhere...

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
Oh. You didn't provide a link that made that connection.  Did he actually say that quote in the context of the Taylor ruling?

According to this article in the NY Times, Hastert's comment was in a written statement criticising Judge Taylor's decision.  A quick search didn't bring up a direct link to Hastert's statement, but it should be out there somewhere...

Just raise your eyes slightly upwards on the page.

[davek]

Deere Lowered, what an entertaining waste of bandwidth...

I particularly enjoy bombastically questioning the manhood of another poster because he doesn't agree with your amateur personal opinion of a 43 page legal opinion that likely no one here has even read...

Now I haven't read her honor's opinion either but I have read the thoughts of others far more qualified than I in thsi matter...

Most hold that her opinion will likely be overturned on appeal...

One attorney, a national security expert and former Clinton Administration federal prosecutor no less, said:

"I wouldn?t accept this utterly unsupported, constitutionally and logically bankrupt collection of musings from a first-year law student, much less a new lawyer at my firm. "

It's a partisan verdict obtained by the ever popular ACLU by jurisdiction shopping into the Federal Courtroom of a self described liberal democrat appointed by that paragon of virtue Jimmy Carter...

Much ado about nothing...

Spack, do your stuff...

[pravata]

Quote:
Deere Lowered, what an entertaining waste of bandwidth...

I particularly enjoy bombastically questioning the manhood of another poster because he doesn't agree with your amateur personal opinion ...

Show me where this is.

[Limey]

Quote:
Didn't the NY Times editor have to resign recently? Gotta employ people with high integrity. Seems to me that's been a problem.

I wouldn't mind what the media did, if the governemnt had some sense of accountability.  Dan Rather fucks up on a document, and is hounded out of his job.  The bulk of the intelligence in the run up to the invasion of Iraq turns out to be wrong; no one gets fired, Condoleeza Rice (then Security Advisor) gets promoted and George "Slam Dunk" Tenet get the Medal of Freedom.

[tophfar]

Quote:

To me, the worst thing that has happened to the media is that politicians and (mostly) right wing pundits have succeeded in introducing to the mainstream media a false concept of objectivity.  

... not subjective but selective.  

i have no idea what this is supposed to mean.  you either present things objectively or subjectively.  if objective reporting is a "false concept" (huh?), then one cannot then be "not subjective".

that whole problem of definition gets in the way.

[matadorph]

Quote:


  There was another instance in the past where the US jumped the gun.  The British had a mole in the plot which eventually blew up the London subways, the US government exposed the cover on that too soon and people escaped capture. .

Yes. I've pointed out the blown cover of double agent Mohammed Noor Khan in July 2004 in numerous arguments with 33%ers and they all blink back blankly without a clue of understanding of what the fuck I'm talking about. The details about the recent plot and the timing of the breaking news should raise eyebrows. We've seen this before.

[Bench]

Quote:
It's a partisan verdict obtained by the ever popular ACLU by jurisdiction shopping into the Federal Courtroom of a self described liberal democrat appointed by that paragon of virtue Jimmy Carter...

You can't really pick your judge. You can pick the division to file in, but there're several judges in each division. And the plaintiff has no say in which judge they appear before.

That being said, the Detroit devision of the whatever district of Michigan may have been stacked by Carter. I honestly don't know, but I doubt it.

[Rebel Jew]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
It's better to just accept the bullshit that you find easier to digest than acknowledge that all politicians are full of shit.  I'm just happy the convergence of reality and philosophical principle is something incredibly obvious to some.  It's not to me.

All politicians are full of it, true.  What gets my goat is that the media used to do a good job of calling them on it.  Now they just run it as footage then blather on about car chases.

To me, the worst thing that has happened to the media is that politicians and (mostly) right wing pundits have succeeded in introducing to the mainstream media a false concept of objectivity.  It seems as though the mainstream media is becoming little more than the equivalent of a disc jockey; some talking head operates the video board to blindly play whatever is collected from whatever popular issue.

The media has a responsibility to be selective in what it chooses to cover, not subjective but selective.  That's why every news agency has editors.  You don't have to give equal consideration to some bullshit statement or action simply because you're supposed to be "objective," and give everybody an equal chance.  It's the media's responsibility to filter the news, check it for facts, report it right down to its core.

NEWSPERSON 1:  "And why did you rob that bank, Senator?"
SENATOR:  "I was merely acting in the interest of the American people."
NEWSPERSON 1:  "Thank you Senator... And now we turn our attention to our panel...  Panelists, what do you think of the Senator's statement that robbing banks is in the interest of the American people?
PANELIST 1:  "I think it's outrageous.  US Senators simply do not have the right, under the US constitution, to rob banks."
PANELIST 2:  "We are in a time of war.  Would you rather a dirty Arab drop a dirty bomb on the US Capitol, or a respected member of the United States Senate rob a bank?"

...

I think a case could be made that the reason radio talk shows are dominated by conservative pudnits is that those who listen truly believe, rightly or wrongly, that mainstream news outlets are the ones who were trying to provide the public with a false sense of objectivity first.  Goes to the "mainstream news outlets are liberal agenda driven" argument.

Didn't the NY Times editor have to resign recently? Gotta employ people with high integrity. Seems to me that's been a problem.

Conservative radio talk shows can say whatever they want.  They are OPINION shows that offer a specific perspective and interpretation of the news, and despite the vitriol of some of the hosts, they do not claim to be anything else.  Alex Jones does the same thing.  True news agencies are supposed to report facts, and let those facts speak for themselves.  I can accept the argument that, in the past particularly, a majority of the people who work in news agencies are personally liberal, and so that personal political stance might affect, unintentionally or not, the whats and hows of the stories they cover.  I cannot accept, however, the seemingly accepted notion that you have to give equal time to every half-assed political opinion in the simple interest of fairness.  It's like the mainstream media is so focused on proving there is no bias, liberal or otherwise, that they end up creating a bias by paying lip service to every crackpot idea that comes along.  Call it the idiot bias.

[Limey]

Quote:
Deere Lowered, what an entertaining waste of bandwidth...

I particularly enjoy bombastically questioning the manhood of another poster because he doesn't agree with your amateur personal opinion of a 43 page legal opinion that likely no one here has even read...

I don't see anyone claiming to have a bona fide opinion on the decision.  I've argued that getting warrants doesn't get in the way of surveilling terrorists and that the Judge's ruling would have no effect on what the Brits do (in the same way that the National Health Service wouldn't give you free dental treatment).

[Spack McGrimm]

And we're done, mother fuckers.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

To me, the worst thing that has happened to the media is that politicians and (mostly) right wing pundits have succeeded in introducing to the mainstream media a false concept of objectivity.  

... not subjective but selective.  

i have no idea what this is supposed to mean.  you either present things objectively or subjectively.  if objective reporting is a "false concept" (huh?), then one cannot then be "not subjective".

that whole problem of definition gets in the way.

There aren't that many objective facts.  Gravity is one.  Any time a human gets involved there is an element of subjectivity. Even if it's just in the chosing of what gets aired and what doesn't.  Admitting it is about the best you can do.

[Limey]

Quote:
i have no idea what this is supposed to mean.  you either present things objectively or subjectively.  if objective reporting is a "false concept" (huh?), then one cannot then be "not subjective".

that whole problem of definition gets in the way.

I have no problem with objective or subjective, except when the latter claims to be the former.  Also, I have a problem when the media's idea of "objective" means allowing anyone to say what they want without challenge.  So when RNC Chairman Kenneth Mehlman goes on "Meet the Press" and says "...we?re not coming in and saying 'stay the course'", and the Russert stand-in says "Right", instead of "WTF?!!!", I get not a little perplexed.