Comments on: Wiretapping oversight http://dumpendebat.net/2007/01/17/wiretapping-oversight/ A sniff in the kortevar, that what you cry for, yeled? A prert up the cull, a prang on the dumpendebat? Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:31:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Stram http://dumpendebat.net/2007/01/17/wiretapping-oversight/comment-page-1/#comment-6335 Stram Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:34:21 +0000 http://dumpendebat.net/2007/01/17/wiretapping-oversight/#comment-6335 Fellows, we will just agree to disagree. I 'think' you're both being naive to think that Gonzalez would be appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee telling them they would now comply with the FISA Court. In fact, if the Democrats had NOT taken control of Congress, he wouldn't even have been called before the Committee. Fellows, we will just agree to disagree. I ‘think’ you’re both being naive to think that Gonzalez would be appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee telling them they would now comply with the FISA Court.

In fact, if the Democrats had NOT taken control of Congress, he wouldn’t even have been called before the Committee.

]]> By: dumpendebat http://dumpendebat.net/2007/01/17/wiretapping-oversight/comment-page-1/#comment-6334 dumpendebat Fri, 19 Jan 2007 05:39:54 +0000 http://dumpendebat.net/2007/01/17/wiretapping-oversight/#comment-6334 Hanque might be onto something here. Remember, the government also took Jose Padilla out of military custody and charged him with "conspiracy to support terrorism" (after three years of being held, without formal charges, on suspicion of being a Dirty Bomber) once it looked like they might lose a court appeal on the constitutionality of his detention. Maybe it is a coincidence that this decision came shortly after the Democrats took over Congress. Hanque might be onto something here. Remember, the government also took Jose Padilla out of military custody and charged him with “conspiracy to support terrorism” (after three years of being held, without formal charges, on suspicion of being a Dirty Bomber) once it looked like they might lose a court appeal on the constitutionality of his detention. Maybe it is a coincidence that this decision came shortly after the Democrats took over Congress.

]]> By: Stram http://dumpendebat.net/2007/01/17/wiretapping-oversight/comment-page-1/#comment-6333 Stram Fri, 19 Jan 2007 05:13:37 +0000 http://dumpendebat.net/2007/01/17/wiretapping-oversight/#comment-6333 Hanque, I think you're wrong. If the Democrats had not taken over Congress, Bush would not have changed his mind on his illegal wiretapping. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/18/gonzales-surveillance/ Hanque,

I think you’re wrong. If the Democrats had not taken over Congress, Bush would not have changed his mind on his illegal wiretapping.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/.....veillance/

]]> By: Hanque http://dumpendebat.net/2007/01/17/wiretapping-oversight/comment-page-1/#comment-6329 Hanque Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:34:18 +0000 http://dumpendebat.net/2007/01/17/wiretapping-oversight/#comment-6329 Found something on this subject: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-17-our-view_x.htm It's from August and there is another article from CNN that covers a lot of the same ground. In August, the administration indicated it would appeal a decision a federal judge that said the warrantless wiretaps were unconstitutional. I would guess that some attorneys or judges have advised the administration that their appeal wouldn't stand up and that they are being proactive now instead of taking a loss in the courtroom later on. Again, that's speculation on my part though. Found something on this subject:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/o.....view_x.htm

It’s from August and there is another article from CNN that covers a lot of the same ground. In August, the administration indicated it would appeal a decision a federal judge that said the warrantless wiretaps were unconstitutional. I would guess that some attorneys or judges have advised the administration that their appeal wouldn’t stand up and that they are being proactive now instead of taking a loss in the courtroom later on. Again, that’s speculation on my part though.

]]> By: Hanque http://dumpendebat.net/2007/01/17/wiretapping-oversight/comment-page-1/#comment-6328 Hanque Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:29:01 +0000 http://dumpendebat.net/2007/01/17/wiretapping-oversight/#comment-6328 My guess is that the change in policy probably results from some lower court ruling and that it is unrelated to the election. The AG's office is probably confronting an adverse ruling in a district other than the ninth circuit and that may be prompting a change in policy. That's just a hunch though. Anyone hear of any recent rulings on wiretaps that may have resulted in this policy change? My guess is that the change in policy probably results from some lower court ruling and that it is unrelated to the election. The AG’s office is probably confronting an adverse ruling in a district other than the ninth circuit and that may be prompting a change in policy. That’s just a hunch though. Anyone hear of any recent rulings on wiretaps that may have resulted in this policy change?

]]> By: Ziem http://dumpendebat.net/2007/01/17/wiretapping-oversight/comment-page-1/#comment-6324 Ziem Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:17:09 +0000 http://dumpendebat.net/2007/01/17/wiretapping-oversight/#comment-6324 Well, this might be good news for me, $100,000+ to late, but good news none the less. I'll find the link where I told my story if you'd like. My man Stram knows it. Well, this might be good news for me, $100,000+ to late, but good news none the less.

I’ll find the link where I told my story if you’d like. My man Stram knows it.

]]> By: Stram http://dumpendebat.net/2007/01/17/wiretapping-oversight/comment-page-1/#comment-6314 Stram Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:26:26 +0000 http://dumpendebat.net/2007/01/17/wiretapping-oversight/#comment-6314 Bush has never had an excuse to bypass the FISA Court since it does not require a warrant before a wiretap but only within 72 hours after. He's changing is tune for one reason only and that's the November elections. Do you think he'd be changing his criminal behavior if Republicans had kept control of Congress? No way. As for wingnuts calling Bush a 'liberal'? They do that because he's increased spending by $1 trillion a year in his first 6 years of office, but that's no different than what Reagan did, and they don't refer to him as a 'liberal'. Bush is not a liberal. He's the farthest thing from one, in fact. Bush has never had an excuse to bypass the FISA Court since it does not require a warrant before a wiretap but only within 72 hours after. He’s changing is tune for one reason only and that’s the November elections. Do you think he’d be changing his criminal behavior if Republicans had kept control of Congress? No way.

As for wingnuts calling Bush a ‘liberal’? They do that because he’s increased spending by $1 trillion a year in his first 6 years of office, but that’s no different than what Reagan did, and they don’t refer to him as a ‘liberal’.

Bush is not a liberal. He’s the farthest thing from one, in fact.

]]>