Even if Bush's warrantless taps are legal

and I am not saying that they are, I am still amazed reading and listening to the Halluejah Chorus defending the rationale and wisdom of bypassing the FISC. The warrants can be granted retroactively, for heaven's sake! No one I've seen has any compelling argument for why this power should be exercised even if it exists. The court apparently has turned down fewer than a dozen warrant requests in, what, twenty five years? All I can figure is that the administration really doesn't want to run the risk of ever being told no.

pretty much makes any excuse for not getting on moot. That plus the fact that only 4 warrants out of 19,000 requests have ever been rejected make any argument for not using proper procedures pretty weak.

WHY when the warrents can be given up to 3 day retroactively would they do this? What is the motivation? The only thing I can think of is that they thought there was a significant chance the FISA court would not grant the warrants.

WHY when the warrents can be given up to 3 day retroactively would they do this? What is the motivation? The only thing I can think of is that they thought there was a significant chance the FISA court would not grant the warrants.

should be legal. Let's not dignify the claim that they are by discussing it.

I don't agree, so let's not discuss it. F'ing brilliant.

What were they afraid to disclose to a bunch of FISC judges? I think they were into something highly illegal, they know it, and with any luck it will come out.

Al Queda my ass. They were spying on political enemies ala Nixon.

It's about trying to develop a rationalization to legitimize the abuse that has been going on - so that we can "aclimate" our culture to this Orwellian mindset.

it's completely unacceptable, it has to be rejected.

This is the only issue actually worth going to war over in my view.

Because our FREEDOMS are being directly ATTACKED from WITHIN.

The Bush Crime family HATES OUR FREEDOMS.

are part of a well-rehearsed orchestra. They practice diligently, each one intimate with the role they play, and are rarely off-key.

NT

...I'll answer anyway. My take on it is that their main concern is their desire for an imperial presidency. Secondarily, and more in the legal forum, is this: there is a great likelihood that the administration has been using the information they've obtained illegally under *'s executive orders in subsequent (and legal) FIS Court proceedings, without informing the Court where they obtained their probable cause information. This leads to the legal problem of all subsequent legal action proceeding from that initial illegality being considered "fruit of the poisoned tree." In simpler terms, let's say a cop searches your car and trunk after stopping you for speeding. If he finds an illegal gun in your trunk -- with which you'd just murdered a Cub fan, say -- and arrests you for it and you are subsequently charged with murder, you should be acquitted because his warrantless search, without probable cause to believe you'd committed some offense more serious than speeding, was illegal. The gun would be tossed out as evidence, and any knowledge they acquired as a direct result of the officer finding the gun would also be tossed.

Now to the real deal: Ken Wwilliams is doing a great job setting up next year's team. I get the impression Hendry is a little behind the curve??? :-)

...some genetic or behavioral aberration is to be expected from you, but your stuttering -- in print, no less -- the name of your team's GM is a sad spectacle, indeed. It's Williams, with one "W," not two. (Besides, haven't we all had just about enough "W"'s to last a lifetime.) I actually like what Hendry's been doing: adding Juan Pierre (!!!) and Jacque Jones (!?!) means Corey Patterson is gone. (Now, if only Dusty would join him in Cub oblivion....) A couple strong middle relievers -- perhaps one of them could fill in as closer if Dempster falters or goes down this year -- were added to the mix, too, something that killed 'em last year. The bottom line, though, is they need their starters healthy for the full season. With that, they compete; without it, middle of the pack again.

Once we say it "might" be legal, then the only issue is bypassing a court. Very small issue there, comparing to illegal spying on the American people.

Let's just leave it that the taps are ILLEGAL. We don't want to go to any "even if's" because that conceeds the whole shebang.

..they just forget to read the last part about oh, warrants supported by testimony under oath through the proper legal procedures...

It's a really sad reading of what's 'reasonable' when the rest of the damn amendment says what reasonable is defined as by the Founders.

It's not a complicated case. The law broken was Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, Section 1802 of the US Code:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html

The penalties for breaking that law are "a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both" (according to Section 1809 of the same law).

and morphing it into "in a time of war" meme...

please see my earlier post on this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2329623