Member Rara Avis
Say what you will but i have a feeling that if the decision had gone in favor of Bush by a judge appointed by a Republican, a member of a Republican organization and a donator of hundreds of thousands to their causes, you and Ron would both being holding your noses. Since it is the exact reverse, you applaud her decision. Must be nice...
Had the decision gone the other way, Mike, I wouldn't have questioned the judge's partisanship. I would have questioned their sanity.
Seriously, this isn't even a close call. We are protected from illegal search and seizure, period, end of discussion.
Should be interesting watching the ACLU now. They are going after all the congressional bills before Congress dealing with surveillance, stating that, after the Diggs ruling, they are all illegal. Their point has ALWAYS been the program, not the protocol.
I think you're confusing program and protocol, Mike. Any congressional bill dealing with surveillance that does not include judicial overview is illegal. The only way around that is a Constitutional amendment or, perhaps, a declaration of martial law.
That's the one point that is so ludicrous in the Democratic hoopla. First, they don't condemn the surveillance itself. They know how unpopular that would be. Their grievance is the lack of notification and participation. At the same time, they pose little innuendos to mom and pop and all inbetween, hinting that freedoms are being lost or trampled on.
There's nothing wrong with surveillance. It just can't go unchecked because, yes, Mike, THAT constitutes a loss of personal freedom. That's not an innuendo or a hint, it's simply the way our Constitution was written. One man doesn't get to decide another man's fate in a free country. We are protected by due process, where no one gets to simultaneously be judge, jury, and executioner.
Does it mean that, if Bush had got warrants before and made notifications then the plan was a good one and nobody's freedoms or privacy would be in danger? It's just another sleazy tactic....
It's not a sleazy tactic to expect our elected officials to follow the law, Mike. If the Administration procures warrants, that means someone else agrees that probable cause has been established. Checks. Balances. Due process.
In every war (and don't think for a minute we are not in one) there are freedoms traded for security, be it curfews, rationings, blackouts or a variety of things we are not subject to in peacetime.
No, Mike, we are NOT in a war, and even if we were, the things you list are privileges not liberties. Throwing innocent people into an internment camp, as we saw happen in WWII, is illegal -- despite widespread fear that let's our government get away with it. Even in war, where the Constitution grants the Executive branch far more power than in peacetime, there are checks and balances established. The President only gets that extra power when Congress declares war, not when the President declares war. Checks. Balances. Due process.
Iraq aside, because that's not the issue here (although I'd be happy to discuss that, too), the so-called War on Terrorism is no different than Johnson's War on Poverty or the subsequent War on Drugs. It's rhetoric. We are no more at war with terrorists than we are at war with the gangs in Los Angeles, the drug peddlers in New York, or any other criminal between the two coasts. Terrorists are criminals, little different from Al Capone, Ted Bundy, or Timothy McVeigh.
The question is whether or not it was implemented legally - not whether or not it destroys our freedoms and privacy. It doesn't.
You can't separate the two, Mike.
If it was accomplished illegally then it WAS an infringement on those people's liberties. And, I'm sorry, but your freedom and my freedom is inextricably tied to their freedom. You can't protect your own rights unless you are ready to protect everyone's rights. When due process is thrown out the window, the baby goes with it and no one is safe.