Maybe you guy's should stock up on tin foil along with doubling your meds?


They're coming to take me away,
Haha, they're coming to take me away,
Ho ho, hee hee, ha ha,
To the funny farm
Where Life is Beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those Nice Young Men
In their Clean White Coats
And they're coming to take me AWAY,
HA HAAAAA

You thought it was a joke,
and so you LAUGHED, YOU LAUGHED
When I had said that losing you
Would make me flip my lid,

RIGHT?

You know you laughed.
I HEARD you laugh, you laughed
And laughed and laughed
And then you left,
And now you know I'm Utterly Mad

It keeps piling up just like every issue before. KK.


Clinton Deputy A.G: "President had legal authority to OK taps

By John Schmidt, Published December 21, 2005

President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.

The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.

In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."

The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an "agent of a foreign power," which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.

But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

FISA contains a provision making it illegal to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." The term "electronic surveillance" is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication "sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person" (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by "intentionally targeting that United States person." The cryptic descriptions of the NSA program leave unclear whether it involves targeting of identified U.S. citizens. If the surveillance is based upon other kinds of evidence, it would fall outside what a FISA court could authorize and also outside the act's prohibition on electronic surveillance.

The administration has offered the further defense that FISA's reference to surveillance "authorized by statute" is satisfied by congressional passage of the post-Sept. 11 resolution giving the president authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent those responsible for Sept. 11 from carrying out further attacks. The administration argues that obtaining intelligence is a necessary and expected component of any military or other use of force to prevent enemy action.

But even if the NSA activity is "electronic surveillance" and the Sept. 11 resolution is not "statutory authorization" within the meaning of FISA, the act still cannot, in the words of the 2002 Court of Review decision, "encroach upon the president's constitutional power."

FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation. What was needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case-by-case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment.

Should we be afraid of this inherent presidential power? Of course. If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense. The danger is that surveillance will not be used solely for that narrow and extraordinary purpose.

But we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11. I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again.

----------

John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States. He is now a partner in the Chicago-based law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw."

Your aricle references 'foreign intelligence', and the issue is spying on American citizens. All of the issues i am talkimg about are related to American citizens, that is the issue here. At no time did the authorization of use of force resolution contemplate spying on American Citizens, and several Senators from both parties are record stating their surprise at this reading.
Article 1 Chapter 8 places the rule making aouthority for use of the military in the hand of Congress, and at no time does that authority rest solely in the Executive branch.
If there is this supposed power you imply, then why have a court at all? Evidently, you see the power of the Executive as being unchecked, with regards to spying on Americans, and the above post references Clinton, and his spying on Foreign intelligence. Review the actual EO's, and the language contained, and you will see no power is granted for unchecked spying on American citizens.
That's what this debate is about, American Citizens, that is what we are talking about here.

A brief read of Clinton's EO would clearly show the requirements (ceryifications) of the AG needed to be present, in regards to assurances that Americans were not being spied on without warrants.

You also state that all the issues surrounding Bush are from my 'Bush hating', and so I suggest you tell that to Bobn Barr also, as he share my position on this.

Your assumptions regarding Delay, et al, while far from being over and settled, show you have decided in your mind that Delay, Rove , Ambramoff etc are all settled. Unfortunately for that point of view, none of those cases have even gone to court, and all the incidents you refer to are currently under investigation.

Somehow you seem to think calling everyone a 'liberal' and saying those holding dissenting opinions 'should be locked up and shot',passes for 'thought'. It obviously betrays your mindset here, and your 'world view' also.

You seem to feel that since we are as 'far from the constitution' , we may as well chuck it all.
Quite the patriot aren't you?

As to the juvenile comments regarding my 'direct line' to the SC, it is what everyone here has come to expect from you TK.
Over 4000 posts, and I'd bet less than 10% have any factual basis, and I am guessing 75% would be one liners, and name calling. You engage in the basest form of discourse here on a daily basis, and as is your stated goal, you are here simply to piss people off, nothing more.

It's simply difficult to take you seriously, when the bulk of your posts are at that level.

As usual, I'll stand by my posts, no surprise there, and you can scurry around and find some more Op Eds, as is your style.

Merry Christmas Everyone

Check Mate KK.

KK,

Been missing your thoughtful posts.

It's too bad TK has been descending to Rory's level of discourse lately. Don't expect him to learn anything from this thrashing you're giving him, however. He deflects, he dodges, he calls people Liberals like that actually serves some purpose, he posts citations that don't really support his claims . . . it goes on. It's made me wonder if he really does have the mental hardware you gave him credit for. One of the members suggested renaming TK King Troll, and I think it fits. He posts some interesting topics to bait reactions that he then jumps all over with increasingly assinine counter-attacks. I've decided that, in the spirit of the holiday season, he just isn't worth the time, even if the original topic was interesting.

Got the Spey rods at the ready for when this water recedes?

Merry Christmas!

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

TK = Gollum
Keyboard = My precious

Quit blowing smoke then KK and cite the case law and the all the sources that will be used in court to convict GW. I provided a link above that will make it easy for you. Lets see your case. Show us how you know more about the law than the AG, Many lawers and above the former assistant AG under Clinton.

One would think that with your open and shut case that you would be waving the impeachment banner like a friggin maniac.

Lets see the meat of your case KK. You keep referenceing more to come but it never comes.

"Your assumptions regarding Delay, et al, while far from being over and settled, show you have decided in your mind that Delay, Rove , Ambramoff etc are all settled. Unfortunately for that point of view, none of those cases have even gone to court, and all the incidents you refer to are currently under investigation"

More smoke, shape shifting etc. You and those that follow you around had convicted these people . It turns out that you where premature and lacking all the facts. I will not put percentages on your factual hit rate because its safer to let you believe you are the expert.

For someone that gets down and rolls in the mud your indignant nature is laughable. Go sell it somewhere else I ain't buying.

Show us YOU understand the stuff you posted first, because it referred to FOREIGN intelligence gathering, not DOMESTIC! KK and Salmo just tried to bring that to your attention, but I guess you don't have the cerebral ability to understand your own posts, let alone anyone elses.

Old hag. It certainly does and people not living in double wides with real fancy diplomas and real world expertise disagree with you, the fish counter and the landscaper. The devil is in the details between ArtII, FISA and the patriot act which you clearly have not read any of them and are certainly not capable of weighing the popints off law in commopan and conflict. So STFU and come up with your own points of discussion for a change and quit the monkey humping.

It would appear that you have some hostility and anger issues over not being quite up to snuff and losing another debate.

Awww.... you poor thing.

Who follows me around here? I am no big liberal leader TK, I am simply my own man.
Regarding my mud rolling, look at how and where I do so. RB, and you, when you act like a jackass. Rarely anyone else, while your posting day consists almost entirely of name calling, and innuendo, directed against anyone who takes a differing poimt of view. I have been rather cordial to you, in comparison to your treatment of anyone else here, and have gone on record here a number of times, stating that I do believe you have more game than you show.
In no way can you look at the bulk of your posts, and the bulk of my posts, and claim I have as much mud rolling experience here as you do.
As a matter of fact, your main talking point is that 'liberals' suck, in essence.
That is not worth much, simply another ad hominum attack from you.
I will continue to post, and say what I think here, and back it up with facts.
Posting a link that is off isssue, and challenging me to present my case against Bush, is another of your tactics. I took apart your OP Ed piece by piece yesterday, and so you changed subjects, and went off on another tangent.
Typical.
Now all you have left is to misrepresent my posts, by claiming that since nothing has happened regarding Dleay to this point, that nothing will.
No logician would ever support that obviously fallacious statement.
But you live in reality.

I need no links from you to case law, my friend, and have no need to reference your Op Ed pieces. While you claim that 'many lawyers' support your position, you fail to consider what those lawyers are supporting, as witnessed by the latest in a string of OP Ed pieces you post, dealing with foreign survailence.
NYT has filed FOIA's and has recieved info on 1500 cases of domestic spying, most related to 'activis' groups, anti war protests, and a Peta rally against Llama fur.
All in defense of the country eh? Protecting it from terrorists my ass.
I simply called your post yesterday what it was, pure unadulterated bull****, and you have provided nothing to back up that NRO piece. Nothing. And I doubt you will, given the lack of factual basis contained in that Op Ed.
But that won't matter to you, as in your mind, you are simply the end all be all here, just read some of your posts sometime, had they been written by anyone besdies you, you would no doubt feel the writer had serious mental issues.

Who is living in reality here ?
Seems you would have a hard time making that case for yourself, given the 'cut and run' tactics you employed once your OP Ed piece was ripped to shreds yesterday.

You have a mighty high opinion of yourself TK, but that opinion may just be a product of your 'world view', a view that seems not grounded in reality at all, but more akin to some bizarre self aggrandizment that you get from posting here about how wrong everyone else is, and how right you are.
Without even having met anyone here, you can sit in judgement of all, pronouncing yourself ........TheKing.


Merry Christmas, I have to work now.

concerning frequently cited United States v. Sinclair, commonly referred to as the Keith Decision, in 1972.

Judge Keith found that then-President Richard Nixon and then Attorney General John Mitchell could not engage in warrantless wiretap surveillance of three individuals suspected of conspiring to destroy government property because the surveillance was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The decision was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit and unanimously upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

When are you going to show me how it is legal for a president to SPY on US CITIZENS without a WARRANT?? without giving me a biased opinion editorial piece that is suggesting W should be let off the hook.

TK,
are you on the payroll of a right-wing "think tank"? The word is that people can make money sitting at the keyboard all day, "participating" on boards, spinning the radical right talking points they are fed. If you're not getting paid to do this, you should be. No one should have to endure the humiliation you endure for free.

KK,

I am waiting for your case quit dodging. Spell it out , line it out piece by piece. Citing 1500 FOI cases does nothing you have not done to date which is imply and spin to bash GW. FOI cases in and of themselves are menaingless quit playing ames.

Playing to a partisan crowd is different than being in hostile territory.Notice after each and everyone of your post there is an avg. of 3 monkey humps saying nothing. I could find a web site where everyone agreed with me and pat myslef on the back like you do . Go to a right wing dominated website and postt your I hate Bush slander pieces and lets see how you fair.

I roll in the mud for fun. I can enjoy juvenile humor like Howard Sterns with out a care of what the neighbors think. You take yourself too seriously and care too much about what others think. The eastside is a great palce for you. Safety in numbers.

This whole thread has been pretty much people posting facts to show that you are emphatically wrong, your argument is inarticulate and unfounded. KK has over and over proven you wrong.

Balls in your court wee-todd, time for you to submit another editorial that has no foundation in truth but is merely another ploy by the right to support the CIC although he has certainly not upheld the constitution.

This whole thread has been idiot after idiot jumping on the back of a guy that claims he can make a case on an issue he cannot. He has done it time and time again. Then he gets called on a few of them and all of the sudden he is real busy at work and cannot play anymore because the opposition is beneath him. It the same story with his past marriage. cut and run and blame the other guy. Old habits are hard to break. You yourself will do the same Duckie. You will quit posting and claim you are too busy right after you claim victory on every issue. In a forum of like minded people thats pretty bold and brave of you. Maybe you can head on down to the homeless shelter and impress everyone with your wealth as a topper to the day.

If you are referring to me TK, I have never been married, so once again you are incorrect.

But you live in reality.......

KK

Don't you people know by now, KT is Perry Mason, George Washington, Sigmund Freud, and Chuck Norris all rolled into one.

rolled into one pile of....