Friday, December 23, 2005

Quote of the day


"Yet in the media/punditry's desperate, mob-like rush to kiss the fat white ass of power even as it farts the most foul-smelling lies right in their face, none of these people have answered or even asked the very simple question: If the president is permitted to break this law with absolutely no concrete justification at all, what law isn't he allowed to break?" - David Sorita on the media reporting of the Bush Administration's reasons for illegally spying on Americans.

I find it frightening when I am in agreement with a twice weekly guest of Al Franken's radio show. The President has a problem, he has a lot of problems and he needs to clean house fast . . . I am missing simple problems like the President sharing moments with an intern . . .

Read Mr. Sorita's post about the ever changing excuses for spying on Americans here.

Finding an appropriate image was a challenge . . . my compliments to John Morris at anglefire.com for posting this photograph - Thanks.

Hat tip to *** for the quote. Sorry, W's advisors will still be reading your mail . . .

7 comments:

Empiricum said...

Bush has lots of problems, indeed. But I don't think he is willing to "clean house." He still has several unfulfilled agenda which I will be discussing here on Treowth in my next op-ed. Besides, Bill Kristol and the rest of PNAC will not let him do it. Also, Dick Cheney and wife, who both belong to the so-called "think-tank" named AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, and the still hungry 1% will simply not let Bush do any house cleaning. Take the case of the ANWR project in Alaska, for example. The oil companies are not yet satisfied with their billions of profits! And they have Ted Stevens by the neck.

But going back to the problems of Bush, it is inevitable and very predictable that he does and will continue to have all sorts of problems with the dual brain that he has: KARL ROVE's and ALBERTO GONZALES'...and the twisted mouth of CHENEY and flexed arms of RUMSFELD.

Incidentally, nice post by David Sorita and a most appropriate photo by John Morris. And thanks to Any Donkey for the commentary.

Empiricum said...

I hope that Alberto Gonzales has conducted the necessary "teach-in" on Title 42, U.S.C. Section 1983 for W's advisors and agents... unless dubya has already unilaterally abrogated that law too!

Empiricum said...

Another notable Quote of the Day:

*** The court that Judge Alito advocated, he wrote, would "issue warrants for electronic surveillance in all cases involving national security." He underscored the word "all." ***

[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/politics/politicsspecial1/24alito.html?ex=1136091600&en=f6992a50ae0a3052&ei=5059&partner=AOL]

---
If that is the case, why the need for the "Court of Warrants" as Judge Alito envisioned? With the word "all" in "national security cases," Judge Alito was envisioning a court that would merely serve as a stamping pad for the Chief Executive! It goes without saying that in cases involving "domestic surveillance" other than national security, the regular courts are already empowered to so... even in the State level involving state statutes. Don't we just love and admire the "logic" of some of these judges?!

In the matter of immunity, be it absolute or qualified, I believe that 42 USC 1983 is the governing law.

Empiricum said...

Revisiting my commentary on Alito's 1984 memorandum to Reagan, quoted above, I was hoping that someone from the so-called "right" (like Pat Buchanan) who seems to be continually WRONG nowadays would come and dispute and rebut my contentions. To my dismay, there is none!

So by their default, notwithstanding, let me analyze further Alito's thinking on the matter at hand. It is apparent that Alito's "logic" as mentioned in my immediately preceding post is designed simply to circumvent the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution on the warrant requirement by having a specialized court that will rubber stamp the whims and caprices of the President and give his actions the appearance and imprimatur of constitutionality! That is so diabolical legal circumvention that a layman or an ordinary legal mind will not readily notice.

A lawyer with such diabolical mind with intent to circumvent the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, has no place in the judiciary --- especially in the Supreme Court! Nomination to and seating in the highest court of the land is the most inappropriate
"reward."

Perhaps Congress should start thinking of amending the Fourth Amendment to specifically include national security cases in the warrant requirement, which should be obtained PRIOR to engaging in surveillance. Let me underscore the word "surveillance" which denotes that the subject is under suspicion and is not in the process of committing a crime because in the latter case there is no warrant required. This brings the Bush administration's argument for swift and immediate action further down the drain.

Again, with my sincere wishes to everyone: MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Empiricum said...

Now I begin to wonder who among Reagan's legal advisors wrote the final memorandum on the "legality" of the Iran-Conta arms deal. The Senate Judiciary Committee should ask Alito if he had anything to do with it, directly or indirectly.. and what was his legal thinking AT THAT TIME.

Also, who among Reagan's advisors, legal or political, coined the phrase "plausible deniability" and put it into practice!

Empiricum said...

On top of all this debate on the legality and constitutionality of Bush's spy program, one must NOT forget the warrantless surveillances' chilling effect on the American people's First Amendment rights in light of the latest revelation that data banks and switches of telecommunications companies and internet service providers have already been mined and tapped by the Bush administration -- without the requisite warrant.

In my view, this could give an acknowledged victim of this constitutional and statutory violation an additional cause of action under 42 Section 1983.

Empiricum said...

Hmmm... still no rebuttal from the "right." I hope that you don't feel intimidated. If so, feel free to bring with you Ann Coulter if you want a balanced debate. I will ask Maureen Dowd to be on my side. Perhaps you can convince her that men are necessary. Deal?

 
Personal Blogs - Blog Top Sites