« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Breaking: Judge Sides With Gov't In Warrantless Surveillance Case
So much for the ACLU's suit against the National Security Agency over the NSA's warrantless surveillance program. Last year, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the Eastern District of Michigan ordered an injunction against the NSA program, an action crucial to the Justice Department's January announcement that the Bush administration would get out of the warrantless wiretapping business. This morning, Judge Alice Batchelder of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Taylor's injunction based on the plaintiffs' (a group of journalists, academics, and lawyers who regularly communicate with individuals located overseas) lack of standing.
Update: This post initially attributed dissenting views on the legality of the warrantless surveillance program to Batchelder's majority opinion. We deeply regret the error.
Comments (76)
Crust wrote on July 6, 2007 11:26 AM:The case ACLU v. NSA originally had two components: the TSP as discussed here and the call detail database (originally reported by USA Today and neither confirmed nor denied by the Bush Administration). What happened to the second part?
Taylor had ruled in favor of the NSA on States Secrets grounds since the existence of the database hadsnot officially been publicly disclosed. Did ACLU not appeal? Or did they just lose again?
jolly ranchero wrote on July 6, 2007 11:28 AM:Shorter Appeals court--We cannot find standing among the litigants, oddly because the whole thing is secret and classified. When someone, somehow, in 70 years finds a way to get his hand on this list, he can sue. Assuming he's alive.
Jake wrote on July 6, 2007 11:36 AM:Good thing you people weren't around during WWII. Noted historian David Mccullough has correctly noted today's media in 1776 would have lost us the American Revolution.
Ben wrote on July 6, 2007 11:37 AM:Unfortunately, you're quoting the dissent, not the main opinion . . . . .
T Hilbink wrote on July 6, 2007 11:38 AM:Actually, the parts you quote are from Judge Gilman's dissent (which begins on page 41), not the majority opinion by Judge Batchelder. So, not such a great victory. Too bad.
Anonymous wrote on July 6, 2007 11:39 AM:the quotes in here are from the dissenting opinion of Judge Gilman (NOT from Judge Batchelder)
here's the opinion - Judge Gilman's dissent starts on p. 41
Crust wrote on July 6, 2007 11:40 AM:http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0253p-06.pdf
Note this was a 2-1 decision, with three separate opinions. The quote in the update is from the dissenter, Judge Gilman, who found in favor of the ACLU. The other two judges didn't get to the question of whether the TSP is legal or illegal, because they found the ACLU doesn't have standing. That's not surprising by the way. The hard parts in this case are Standing and States Secrets. If you can over that to actually consider the merits, it's pretty clear that the TSP (as disclosed by the government) and call detail database (as reported) are illegal.
And well said, jolly ranchero. There's a Catch-22 here that no one can prove standing because of the secrecy.
Jake wrote on July 6, 2007 12:23 PM:At least TPM finally "deeply regret[s] the error." How about the rest of you who want the U.S. to stop spying on the enemy?
Numero Uno McLean Stevenson/Hello Larry Fan wrote on July 6, 2007 12:37 PM:YAY, another victory for the fascists! They just keep marching on- seemingly unstoppable while Americans sit on their hands, feeling powerless, concerned about Paris Hilton. The fall of America reminds me of the Weimar Republic. I'm being completely serious. The threat posed by these fanatics cannot be underestimated. They exploited the laws (not to mention the use of racism and homophobia to distract the clueless among us- fascists love to single out "the other" and set them up for all manner of social ills) to gain power and once they got in power they set about destroying the laws. They now make the laws. God help us all.
Anonymous wrote on July 6, 2007 12:40 PM:At least TPM finally "deeply regret[s] the error." How about the rest of you who want the U.S. to stop spying on the enemy?
Jake wrote on July 6, 2007 12:50 PM:Posted by: Jake
Sieg Heil!!!!!!!!!!
"YAY, another victory for the fascists!"
Better "fascists" win than the terrorists kill us all.
"They just keep marching on . . ."
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword;
His truth is marching on.
"Sieg Heil!!!!!!!!!!"
You lose -- Godwin's Law
SocraticGadfly wrote on July 6, 2007 12:51 PM:Jake, Jake, take your inaccuracies about "nobody wants to spy on the enemy" and your inaccuracy AND innuendo about "today's media" and go play in traffic -- in Baghdad.
bschmid wrote on July 6, 2007 12:51 PM:Jake,
I fully agree with you. We should wire tap everyone in the country. Who cares about the constitution when there is a .00001% chance we could catch a islamoliberalfacist! That whole fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable searchs and seizures is a rather "quaint" anyway; and don't get me started on that whole "free speach" thing.
Torture is pretty much the same deal; hell, I bet Jake would be more than willing to get tortured for several months if someone mistakenly had fingered him as a terrorist. That whole "Due Process" thing is clearly biased in favor of terrorists anyway.
Jake wrote on July 6, 2007 12:53 PM:Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free
While God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
John wrote on July 6, 2007 12:55 PM:Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
While God is marching on.
The enemy or the opposition?
anonymous wrote on July 6, 2007 12:56 PM:Jake: Noted historian David Mccullough has correctly noted today's media in 1776 would have lost us the American Revolution.
Well, that seals it!
Noted pop icon Paris Hilton recently said . . . blah, blah, blah . . .
Jake - yet another clueless and dishonest conservative dimwit who blames people neither fighting nor making policy in Iraq for our losses there. I'm sure he's also blaming a Republican Attorney General, a Republican special prosecutor, a Republican trial judge, and a Republican-dominated appellate court for the "policital" verdict and sentence handed out to Libby.
Code word = cord, the thing that is still attached between Jake and his mom.
bobh wrote on July 6, 2007 12:58 PM:everyone demand the ability to delete jakes posts - thsts the ONLY way they got him to stop posting at think progress - they just edited the little fart for brains out.
When do i get the Delete Jake button?
And Jake...the BUSHco thinks the U.S. IS the enemy. Idiot. Why would the Saudis bankroll bushboy for so long if he wans their patsy?
Captain Dan wrote on July 6, 2007 12:58 PM:Hey Jake
What did WWII have to do with 1776?
Neither you nor Mccullough can correctly say if today's media could have won or lost the American Revolution.
You make as much sense a fantasy football!
captain dan wrote on July 6, 2007 1:00 PM:Hey Jake
What did WWII have to do with 1776?
Neither you nor Mccullough can correctly say if today's media could have won or lost the American Revolution.
You make as much sense a fantasy football!
anonymous wrote on July 6, 2007 1:04 PM:Jake: You lose -- Godwin's Law
Jake - clueless about what Godwin's Law actually is.
Once again proving that ignorance is all-consuming when it comes to conservatives.
They don't know the unofficial laws any better than they know the official ones.
rageahol wrote on July 6, 2007 1:06 PM:Jake:
I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
anonymous wrote on July 6, 2007 1:08 PM:". . . everyone demand the ability to delete jakes posts . . ."
Why?
They provide endless amusement and make conservatives look like the idiots that they are which only enhances the chances of Democratic election success.
Bush's rule has encouraged them for the last 6 years and all it got them was losing Congress and losing public support on every major national issue.
I say, let Jake bring it on.
His obvious lies and ignorance only reinforces the view that conservatives cannot be trusted with government or anything else.
Anonymous wrote on July 6, 2007 1:15 PM:ok this shitferbrains idjit comes over from tp to tpm and starts posting all his shitferbrains ideas. there is a real easy way to solve this problem. ignore old shitferbrains nad shitferbrains will fade into the sunset. If SHITFERBRAINS keeps posting, shitferbrains will only be talking to himself then when noone answers shitferbrains, shitferbrains will have to comment on his own shitferbrains comments. The shitferbrains dog can chase his shitferbrains tail till his shitferbrain face turns blue.
Jake wrote on July 6, 2007 1:15 PM:As Bugs Bunny would say "What a Maroon"
It's called a "hypothetical" Captain Dan.
westcoaster wrote on July 6, 2007 1:16 PM:"...lack of standing." The new way for conservative judges to avoid having to make embarrassing decisions. After all they can't say that the king has no clothes.
anonymous wrote on July 6, 2007 1:25 PM:Not able to find any other way to win the public debate, Jake (as other conservatives do) rewrites Godwin's Law to suit his own needs (as Bush does with the regular laws!).
Chabuka wrote on July 6, 2007 1:38 PM:Jake..you are the weakest link...and the most dangerous...my sister works for TSA..you won't mind if she comes to your house and wathches you and your family..just in case you are talking to any of them terrorists..will you...? Got to be safe..trust no one...!
Chabuka wrote on July 6, 2007 1:42 PM:Jake..you are the weakest link...and the most dangerous...my sister works for TSA..you won't mind if she comes to your house and wathches you and your family..just in case you are talking to any of them terrorists..will you...? Got to be safe..trust no one...!
The persistent inability to change one’s views when confronted with solid proofs that those views are in error is one of the key, defining characteristics of mental illness and/or personality disorder
Jake wrote on July 6, 2007 1:43 PM:anonymous:
Godwin's Law (and subsequent usage) stems from an adage that Mike Godwin formulated in 1990, specifically "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." Godwin's Law does not question whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.
There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's Law. It is considered poor form to raise arbitrarily such a comparison with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's Law will be unsuccessful (this is sometimes referred to as "Quirk's Exception").
Godwin's Law does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi regime. Instead, it applies to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or Nazis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law
Jake wrote on July 6, 2007 1:46 PM:rageahol:
The government is not forcing you to live on your knees. But, George Bush is saving your ass whether you like it or not.
Jake wrote on July 6, 2007 1:48 PM:Latest "ACLU Loses" thread: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003617.php
Jock Strap wrote on July 6, 2007 1:50 PM:Hi, Jake...You should get yourself a manager. After all, why should you sit alone by your computer handling yourself?
anonymous wrote on July 6, 2007 2:08 PM:Jake, Godwin's Law says nothing about winning or losing; therefore, you lose the argument about whether your use was appropriate.
A "tradition" among certain groups that if you mention the Nazis you lose is not an invocation of Godwin's Law, but of the tradition of those particular groups.
This is not one of the groups, there traditions have no merit here, even assuming a "tradition" qualifies as a "law," much less a "law" that must be obeyed or that is relevant and applicable.
Bottome line: Godwin's Law is a prediction about the occurrence of a phenomenon, not a restriction or limitation on debate and does not speak to "winning" or "losing."
Your reference to anyone losing, based on an invocation of Godwin's Law, is incorrect, inaccurate, ignorant, and now more than ever (since you have read the description), dishonest.
In other words, typical conservative SOP.
Code Word = rate, as in Jake's debate skills and integrity rate a zero.
anonymous wrote on July 6, 2007 2:12 PM:Jake: George Bush is saving your ass whether you like it or not.
Bush has saved no one's ass, not even his own or those of the members of his party.
Indeed, the GOP got its collective ass handed to it in the last election and continues to suffer the consequences of Bush failures and incompetence.
Bush hasn't saved a single American life.
Bush has cost a lot of "asses" however in Iraq: more than 3500 American soldiers, many American civilians, and countless Iraqi civilians.
None of which has stopped al Qaida from planning attacks here and in other western countries as Bush promised would be the case as long as we remain in Iraq.
p.a. wrote on July 6, 2007 2:33 PM:Hey Joke uh Jake... What's your monthly budget for depends?
Those who give up their liberty for a temporary sense of security deserve neither- B. Franklin
Scott L wrote on July 6, 2007 2:58 PM:It would be nice if everyone went back to the news and just forget this fool Jake. I would like hear imput from all you folks out there about all the storys affecting our country. There are a lot of insightful views out there and I would like to read them. I don't sit at a computer all day so I hate when these storys get hijacked by one person. It's called misdirection.
owenz wrote on July 6, 2007 3:00 PM:Don't feed the trolls. Although I do like Jake's quoting of patriotic songs. Persuasive stuff.
anonymous wrote on July 6, 2007 3:03 PM:Oh jeez Jake...
Putting aside your bizarre faith in an administration that has taken every opportunity to convince you it doesn't deserve it, and the embarassing spectacle of you posting "glory glory hallelujah" (Christ, we could practically hear you fapping yourself as you wrote that- but you get bonus points for one-handed typing!), I'd like to broaden the point and talk a bit about freedom, and in so doing, explain why you are a scared little twit without a patriotic bone in your body.
Look Jake, anyone with half a brain knew from the first time the democratic system of government was explained to them that it had risks- risks a hypothetical benign dictatorship would not have. The inability for the state to spy on individuals without demonstrable cause meant that those who meant us ill could hide in plain sight, protected by the same freedoms as everyone else. I saw that clearly in Junior High School- in fact, back in the cold war days that was something we took pride in.
The reason we accepted that is simple- we knew then, and we know now, that benign dictatorships are few and far between, and those that exist don't last (well, the "benign" part doesn't last). Those of us who love the freedoms America stands for recognize the risks, and we accept them- and nothing, including a terrorist attack, will shake our faith that the freedoms we enjoy are worth those risks.
You, little Jake, are part of that scared bunch that fled from freedom at the first threat- and the damning part is, under the threat of terrorism, you fled TOWARDS FASCISM. You think that safety lies in a police state, so long as it is policed by those that share your neo-conservative values. It's a naive, foolish and ultimately destructive point of view, which is why I'm not staying away from personal attacks in this post.
Jake, you and your fellow neo-cons don't believe in what America stands for- if I'm wrong, let me hear you make the case for freedom of the press, or protection from unlawful search and seizure, or the seperation of church and state. You endorse a government with the power to spy on individuals without evidence that they are criminals, and you justify it by claiming to want to protect us. Fundamentally, you endorse a government that controls its' citizens, and not a government that is controlled by its' citizens.
President Bush explained that the terrorists attacked us because they "hate our freedoms". Doesn't that describe you too, Jake?
PurpleAvenger wrote on July 6, 2007 3:09 PM:Let's get away from Jake, and back to the issue of standing. This is a hugely significant, and problematic, method that conservative judges - including those on the US Supreme Ct - are using to shut down litigation.
Here we have the Court of Appeals saying that people likely being spied on don't have enough of a concrete harm to sue to prevent the harm. Well . . . how do you show that if it's all secret and the gov't won't let you move forward?
Just a couple of weeks ago, the SCt ruled that federal taxpayers lack standing to challenge the Executive Branch's (alleged - because they weren't allowed to continue the suit) violation of the Establishment clause of the constitution - which prohibits gov't establishment of religion. (Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation). they didn't decide on the merits (maybe the president IS spending money to establish religion), they just said, you're not harmed in a way that lets you sue.
It's barring the doors to the courts. And while it sounds technical, it's a very serious and dangerous trend.
Jake wrote on July 6, 2007 3:55 PM:At least I don't post anonymously.
JNagarya wrote on July 6, 2007 4:55 PM:Good thing you people weren't around during WWII. Noted historian David Mccullough has correctly noted today's media in 1776 would have lost us the American Revolution.
Posted by: Jake
Date: July 6, 2007 11:36 AM
1. If McCulloch said that, he's full of shit: the majority of today's media defends everything Bushit does, including by the means of not reporting the facts. It took an investigative reporter to discover and reveal Abu Ghraib. The NY Times sat on the story of the continuous violation of FISA for over a year, protecting not freedom but criminality which undermines freedom.
2. WWII did not occur in 1776.
3. Bushit's illegal invasion and occupation of non-threatening third-world backwater Iraq is in no way comparable to WWII, asshole. WWII was an actual world war, between and among at minimum four major powers, which actually encompassed the entire world and was fought on every continent (except the Americas).
By contrast, to hear Bushit himself tell it, we're fighting al Qaeda in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here. Iraq, and "here," do not together constitute the whole world.
You fuckers have no shame, and no intellectual honesty, when it comes to telling any lie, including those of attempting to rewrite history in effort to paint your fake military veteran leader as something he is not: honest, heroic, and courageous. Even when you've nothing to contribute that isn't rankly lame you haven't the moral decency to keep your lying mouth shut. Smear, smear, smear. Show us you aren't a cowardly hypocrite, punk: enlist, and demand to be sent to Iraq so you can show us all how to win the unwinable -- so says the military, not the chickenhawks who've never seen a uniform for which they didn't feel contempt -- all by yourself.
Or continue to be the loud-mouth lying coward you reveal yourself to be by lying at every opportunity against truth, rule of law, and your own country.
And before you denounce those inconvenient facts, punk: national leaders who engaged in the morally depraved war crime of torture include:
Tojo
Hitler
Mao
Stalin
Pol Pot
Saddam Hussein
George W. Bushit and Dick Cheney.
No amount of your smarmy lying against reality, the rule of law, and your country will alter those facts an iota, professional shithead. All it does is decimate your fake moral superiority, on which fake moral superiority you stand and smear those who actually have moral values and act in accordance with them.
Take yourself in your own hand, shove yourself up your own ass, and shout around in the dark there for someone who actually agrees with your hateful, destructive stupidity.
JNagarya wrote on July 6, 2007 5:01 PM:At least TPM finally "deeply regret[s] the error." How about the rest of you who want the U.S. to stop spying on the enemy?
Posted by: Jake
Date: July 6, 2007 12:23 PM
The US citizenry are not the enemy, punk; those, such as you, who cheer on every violation of law by your rancid anti-American party is the enemy.
Were you old enough to know what was going on during Watergate, you would have defended Nixon's illegal wiretapping of the enemy -- such as his own brother, and Henry Kissinger.
It's time your asinine anti-American ass was banned from all decent websites and blogs so you aren't given a platform to spew your anti-Americanism at those who provide you the platform you abuse by shitting on the livingroom rug, then defending that act as "freedom of speech".
JNagarya wrote on July 6, 2007 5:08 PM:". . . everyone demand the ability to delete jakes posts . . ."
Why?
They provide endless amusement and make conservatives look like the idiots that they are which only enhances the chances of Democratic election success.
Bush's rule has encouraged them for the last 6 years and all it got them was losing Congress and losing public support on every major national issue.
I say, let Jake bring it on.
His obvious lies and ignorance only reinforces the view that conservatives cannot be trusted with government or anything else.
Posted by: anonymous
Date: July 6, 2007 1:08 PM
We already know wht the fake "conservatives" such as "Jake" are about. It's time his 27 per cent of lunatic fringe anti-American dead-enders were shoved to the side of the road, and then that road kill moved beyond. They've had their day subverting legitimate -- democratic -- discussion and political discourse; it's time they were subjected to their own medicine: silenced for refusing to be other than abusive and destructive.
SPENCER ADAMS wrote on July 6, 2007 5:14 PM:Jake:
Even though I disagree with you with the "what if" analogy (if Napoleon had a B-52 at Waterloo, etc.), you've got a right to say it.
But I'd like to know the source of McCullough's comment; he usually doesn't make contemporary comparisons in his books.
Jake wrote on July 6, 2007 5:15 PM:JNagarya:
1. David McCulloch indeed said it -- http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2005/cyb20050627.asp#4 and I think he's referring to ALL the media, including your precious "investigative reporter" who revealed Abu Ghraib, etc.
2. I know that WWII did not occur in 1776 -- I was using TWO different examples.
3. In some ways, letting Iraq get nuclear weapons would have been WORSE than WWII -- you are also incorrect that WWII was not fought on our own continent -- http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=7166
Nonetheless, you will note that I will never call for you to be banned from anywhere, online or off.
JNagarya wrote on July 6, 2007 5:17 PM:It would be nice if everyone went back to the news and just forget this fool Jake. I would like hear imput from all you folks out there about all the storys affecting our country. There are a lot of insightful views out there and I would like to read them. I don't sit at a computer all day so I hate when these storys get hijacked by one person. It's called misdirection.
Posted by: Scott L
Date: July 6, 2007 2:58 PM
It's long past time adult websites and blogs ceased tolerating the "Jakes"'s who abuse that tolerance. They shit on their host's livingroom rug, with impunity, and when challenged they insist it is "free speech".
They have nothing of value to conttribute -- not even as entertainment. If you knew a "Jake" in your own life, you'd tell them to grow up and stop being an asshole. If he refused, you would no longer tolerate him being in your presence -- unless you disrespect yourself as much as he does. It's time "Jake" and his fellow lunatic fringe detritous were thrown out, shoved to the side of the road, and avoided for the rotting road kill they are.
Jake wrote on July 6, 2007 5:19 PM:SPENCER ADAMS:
I just provided the link -- it wasn't directly in his book -- he was being interviewed by Tim Russert.
Anonymous wrote on July 6, 2007 5:50 PM:Folks, folks, folks.
anonymous wrote on July 6, 2007 5:54 PM:Ignore these trolls.
You're just giving them the attention they seek. A school of medieval monks couldn't parse their chop logic. Ignore them and the go away.
They're just like the class clown back in jr high school.
Jake: In some ways, letting Iraq get nuclear weapons would have been WORSE than WII . . .
Blah, blah, blah.
If Grenada had nuclear weapons when Reagan invaded . . . blah, blah, blah.
Iraq wasn't going to get nuclear weapons in the next 6 months, 18 months, or even 24 months, and probably not for years, if ever.
There was no immediate need to invade based on the threat of an Iraqi nuclear program and a host of other options to prevent that from ever occurring, again even if that were a remote possibility.
And even had Iraq somehow within a few years managed to construct a nuclear weapon, they had no technology to deliver it to any US territory and no incentive to do so, since they would never be able to pull off the massive strike necessary to prevent a full-scale retaliatory strike and Saddam was no suicide bomber.
Indeed, before the US appeared within Iraq, Iraqi suicide bombers were virtually, if not totally, unheard of, as were Iraqi terrorists.
Anybody who thinks Bush's invasion prevented an Iraqi nuclear attack on the US is utterly delusional.
Code Word = fact, a thing that confuses Jake.
Jake wrote on July 6, 2007 5:55 PM:I'm glad I was able to at least "contribute" to SPENCER ADAMS' knowledge via David McCullough : )
I would also posit that it is those who complain about "shitferbrains idjit . . . posting all his shitferbrains ideas" and "lunatic fringe anti-American dead-enders . . . [wishing that they and their] fellow lunatic fringe detritous were thrown out, shoved to the side of the road, and avoided for the rotting road kill they are" who are the ones "shit[ting] on their host's livingroom rug, with impunity."
Jake wrote on July 6, 2007 5:59 PM:I will try the link to McCullough interview again:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2005/cyb20050620.asp#4
djrichard wrote on July 6, 2007 6:05 PM:Jake, I read through the URL you provided on the 1776 statement, and that statement has nothing to do with state secrets. So why are you bringing this up on this thread?
You really ought to be posting that statement to threads where we're laughing at Bush when he says "You mean we can still win this thing?" Then you can raise your torch more proudly for all to see. In the mean time, go find some CEOs who don't want bad press coverage; they need the kind of protection you're selling (absent you actually enlisting in the war that is).
djrichard wrote on July 6, 2007 6:06 PM:Jake, I read through the URL you provided on the 1776 statement, and that statement has nothing to do with state secrets. So why are you bringing this up on this thread?
You really ought to be posting that statement to threads where we're laughing at Bush when he says "You mean we can still win this thing?" Then you can raise your torch more proudly for all to see. In the mean time, go find some CEOs who don't want bad press coverage; they need the kind of protection you're selling (absent any protection you can provide by enlisting in the war that is).
Jake wrote on July 6, 2007 6:12 PM:anonymous:
I'm glad you were willing to risk all those American lives for your little theory -- yet, you won't even post using your real name -- at least there's only been 3500 troops KIA rather than 300 million here in the U.S. Bush and Rice were thankfully not so willing. Obviously, I'm glad they were "utterly delusional" in that regard. God forbid YOU are ever in charge of protecting every American civilian, perhaps you will finally see things a little differently.
According to Charles Dueffler (sp?), Saddam would indeed have continued his pursuit of WMD. And, Saddam didn't need "technology" to deliver it to any U.S. territory -- that would indeed have been suicide -- he all the incentive in the world to attack the U.S. if he could sneak such WMD into a major American city via terrorists but with no traceable connection back to Iraq. Anybody who thinks Saddam did not dream of doing EXACTLY THAT (Clinton bombed him for plotting to assassinate Bush 41) is the one who is utterly delusional.
djrichard wrote on July 6, 2007 6:13 PM:Jake, I read through the URL you provided on the 1776 statement, and that statement has nothing to do with state secrets. So why are you bringing this up on this thread?
You really ought to be posting to some threads where we're laughing at Bush when he says "You mean we can still win this thing?" Then you can raise your torch for the cause and our sarcasm can be more properly placed. In the mean time, I'm sure there are other CEOs out there with bad news (besides Bush) who can use the type of protection you're selling. And I'm sure they'll understand that you're protection is limited to covering their a**es and not actually fighting the good fight for them.
Jake wrote on July 6, 2007 6:26 PM:djrichard:
Once you decide which version of your post you want to go with, I will be glad to respond.
Sully18 wrote on July 6, 2007 6:28 PM:Why the hell do all these conservative assholes live in my town.It`s embarrassing to be from a city famous for the Larry Flint and Maplethorpe debacles as well as Jean Schmidt`s assault on a Vietnam war hero.And the Reds--God loves `em even when they stink.
djrichard wrote on July 6, 2007 6:33 PM:Jake, the latter one please. I like that one better.
Numero Uno McLean Stevenson/Hello Larry Fan wrote on July 6, 2007 6:49 PM:Lester Holt spent fifteen seconds on this story this evening. Thanks for the in depth reporting NBC news. LOL!
Anonymous wrote on July 6, 2007 6:55 PM:If I die before I wake, feed Jake.
Jake wrote on July 6, 2007 7:01 PM:No problem, djrichard. I just wanted to make sure you were done first.
My initial point was that I'm sure glad you people (including the mainstream media) who want to give away state secrets and not spy on the enemy during wartime were not around during WWII. As a seperate and distinct example, and admittedly to a lesser extent, General Washington was spying on the enemy and protecting "state" (America had at least declared independence) secrets too -- just ask Benedict Arnold. More specifically, however, I am attacking the "chicken little" attitude (which sells newspapers / advertising no doubt) exaggerating the bad news -- if the country had only been told how horrible conditions were for Washington, that would have been it for the colonialists and the British would have won -- that's where the David McCullough quote comes in.
Lastly, I won't work for any CEOs ever again. And, I'm certain nothing I do it going to stop those laughing / hating Bush from doing so. If I thought there was even a slim chance of that, maybe I would try. Next question?
djrichard wrote on July 6, 2007 7:13 PM:Darn, just when I think I had him too. He's probably resorting to some screw-up-post he wins rule.
Note to self, assume I'm getting the code word right and my posts are not hitting the bit bucket.
Jake wrote on July 6, 2007 7:44 PM:"it" = "is" (darn spellchecker ; )
jonerik wrote on July 6, 2007 7:52 PM:We can thank fat Tony Scalia for the renewed respect given to "standing" in the federal judiciary. For a judge to determine whether a person has standing you start from the outcome you want, then you state what you think are the purposes of the law/constitutional provision you are considering and then decide the person bringing the lawsuit doesn't fit within those purposes. It's very handy for getting rid of troublemaking citizens who don't respect the orders handed down by the Supreme Court's hand-picked president.
Jake wrote on July 6, 2007 8:11 PM:Actually, have you seen Justice Thomas lately? He's much fatter than Scalia these days (just in case you need an ad hominem attack for Thomas next time ; )
As for "standing" blame goes to the Founding Fathers who wrote the “case or controversy” requirement into Article III, Sec. 2 of the United States Constitution -- there should be no limit to our imagination (or that of greedy plaintiff lawyers) as to who can maintain a lawsuit -- those SLAVE-OWNING BASTARDS!!!
steambomb wrote on July 7, 2007 1:22 AM:Jake, Jake, take your inaccuracies about "nobody wants to spy on the enemy" and your inaccuracy AND innuendo about "today's media" and go play in traffic -- in Baghdad.
Posted by: SocraticGadfly
I didn't realize they still had any traffic left to blow up in Baghdad...
Jane wrote on July 7, 2007 1:53 AM:So Jake:
That's your real name and so I know where to find you among the thousands of other Jakes out there. Oooops, I guess that makes you almost as anonymous as that anonymous among others writing under that name. ( I don't suppose you realize that the Founders had a tradition of robust debate under pen names as a way to stay anonymous?)
I suppose what I object to most is your unthinking claim that because Bush is spying on us we are the enemy. If he were like Nixon, he would be spying on us so that he could put us on HIS enemies list? Or just how was it that Reagan got Carter's briefing book? Or put another way, given your probable phony view of Hillary, do you really want to give her the power to spy on you without a warrant?
Yeah, there are real enemies out there and a neutral judge can provide a check on when an administration (often, known as government and often referred to by your ilk as BIG government) is seeking to spy on them versus spy on the rest of us.
Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affimation, and particularly describing the pleace to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Article II [8] Before he [the President] enters on the Execution of his office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: "I do solemnly swear or (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
I missed the part about how the President gets to do whatever he wants because he is President.
Article II [3] Section 4. The president, Vice president and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Birber, or otheer high Crimes and Misdeameanors.
Failure to abide by the Constitution and your Oath is a high Crime.
THe court did not hold that warrantless wiretapping was permitted. They held they were not going to look at it. Guess, Congress has to....
Adm H. Horatio Hornhonker wrote on July 7, 2007 5:57 AM:I have something important I need to say. I anticipate it will result in my receiving a barrage of angry e-mail from Jake Boy accusing me of being amoral, but in my effort to uncover Jake's hidden prejudices, I will need to show Jake how he is as wrong as wrong can be. But first, I'm going to jump ahead a bit and talk in general terms about how Jake should pay a price for his bloody-minded, imperious ventures. Then, I'll back up and fill in some of the details. Okay, so to start with the general stuff, Jake has been trying for some time to convince people that merit is adequately measured by his methods and qualifications. Don't believe his hype! Jake has just been offering that line as a means to promote the total destruction of individuality in favor of an all-powerful group.
He has stated that some people deserve to feel safe while others do not. That's just pure diabolism. Well, in Jake's case, it might be pure ignorance, seeing that the ultimate aim of Jake's apologues is to restructure society as a pyramid with Jake cult leader Bush at the top, Bush's buddies directly underneath, peremptory, polyloquent mob bosses beneath them, and the rest of at the bottom. An unbeknown to him, the bottom includes Jake. This new societal structure will enable Jake and the cronies he supports to sully anyone's reputation, which makes me realize that I don't care what others say about him.
Jake's an impertinent twit, and he wishes to separate people from their roots and cut their bonds to their natural communities. Okay, that was a facetious statement. This one is not: The tone of Jake's comments is eerily reminiscent of that of litigious, barbaric fast-buck artists of the late 1940s, in the sense that you, of course, now need some hard evidence that Jake feels he has not only a right, but also a duty, to destroy the heart and fabric of our nation. Well, how about this for evidence: If Jake thinks that our elected officials should be available for purchase by special-interest groups then maybe he should lay off the wacky tobaccy.
If Jake were as bright as he thinks he is, he'd know that in order to convince us that the ancient Egyptians used psychic powers to build the pyramids, Jake often turns to the old propagandist trick of comparing results brought about by entirely dissimilar causes. He wants to play the blame game. Such intolerance is felt by all people, from every background. If Jake could have one wish, he'd wish for the ability to convince paltry ex-cons that there is absolutely nothing they can do to better their lot in life besides joining him. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that if Jake thinks that he can make me languish along beneath the thousand eyes of the most superstitious scallawags I've ever seen, then he's barking up the wrong tree. This moral issue will eventually be rendered academic by the fact that his felloe idiot Freepers get a thrill out of jacking off at their keyboards. They have no idea what causes they're fighting for or against. For them, going down to the local protest, carrying a sign, hanging out with the likes of a Jake, and meeting some other lame-brained, vicious bloodsuckers is merely a social event. I have already written enough, surely, to convince you that we must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that Jake will pass off all sorts of resentful and obviously crude stuff on others as a so-called "inner experience". And to overcome these fears, we must anneal discourse with honesty, clear thinking, and a sense of moral good. There is an unpleasant fact, painful to the tender-minded, that one can deduce from the laws of nature. This fact is also conclusively established by direct observation. It is a fact so obvious that rational people have always known it and no one doubted it until Jake and his trucklers started trying to deny it. The fact to which I am referring states that Jake is a tool.
A central point of Jake's belief systems is the notion that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years, but too worry like hell over some distant shady "Islamofacists." Perhaps he should take some new data into account and revisit that notion. I think he'd find that he says that coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power. Yet he also wants to deprive individuals of the right to examine the warp and woof of his sermons. Am I the only one who sees the irony there? I ask because his pleas are based on hate. Hate, careerism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life. Ladies and gentlemen, as long as the beer keeps flowing and the paychecks keep coming, Jake and the Freepers like him don't really care that were he alive today, Hideki Tojo would be his most trustworthy ally. I can see Tojo joining forces with Jake to help him sanctify his depravity. If he thinks that might makes right, then he's sadly mistaken. Jake's canards are designed to denigrate and discard all of Western culture. And they're working; they're having the desired effect. It's easy to tell if Jake's lying. If his lips are moving, he's lying.
What we need from Jake is fewer monologues and more dialogue. Of course, this sounds simple, but in reality, the real issue is simple: Compassion and moral principle are not the main motives for his actions. Even by Jake's own account, I feel that writing this letter is like celestial navigation. Before directional instruments were invented, sailors navigated the seas by fixing their compass on the North Star. But Jake wants to break the mind and spirit, castrate the character, and kill the career of anyone whose ideas he deems to be self-absorbed. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is Jake's gossamer grasp of reality. Let me end this comment by pointing out that the battle to denounce Jake Boy's principles is now joined on many fronts. We will not waver; we will not tire; we will not falter; and, we will not fail.
Jake, please drop me a comment over at my site linked at my name. I look forward to hearing from such a jack-booted mental midget such as you... Cheers!
Dumb Shit wrote on July 7, 2007 7:21 AM:Please stop making fun of my roommate Jake. He has worked hard to be able to live without supervision. If you make bad words about Jake and they make Jake go back, I'll be alone and scared.
And besides, I always help Jake change his Depends faster than the nurses.
So please don't fun with him.
Jake wrote on July 7, 2007 9:42 AM:Jane, Adm Hornhonker (can't wait to see what you would consider a REAL "monologue"), and Dumb Shit:
Thank you all for your input. While I disagree with your opinions, I fully support your right to state them. For the record, however, I never stated that "some people deserve to feel safe while others do not." As for who should lay off the wacky tobaccy, perhaps you should concentrate on Al Gore III first?
Adm H. Horatio Hornhonker wrote on July 8, 2007 3:01 AM:Adm H. Horatio Hornhonker
major_grim@hotmail.com
http://yohoyohoasailorslifeforme.blogspot.com/
To the holy anointed of Spin and Spew,
In reference to your statement here Jake:
> > "I never stated that 'some people deserve
> > to feel safe while others do not.' "
Oh well ... One misconception out of 450 correct points of perception about such a nut-bagger as you in what I've penned above, still leaves me batting .999 ...
And by the glaring lack of a denial from you, we are left to assume that I hit the bullseye with my following statement:
> > Jake often turns to the old propagandist trick of
> > comparing results brought about by entirely
> > dissimilar causes.
Now with that out of the way:
1.) Do you have trouble taking instructions?
2.) Do you have a problem understanding the English language?
I succinctly recall requesting you to, "...please drop me a comment over at my site linked at my name. I look forward to hearing from such a jack-booted mental midget such as you."
Come on. Come on by and dump one. You've already dumped more than enough steaming piles 'round here.
Cheers!
JNagarya wrote on July 8, 2007 9:16 PM:JNagarya:
1. David McCulloch indeed said it -- http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2005/cyb20050627.asp#4 and I think he's referring to ALL the media, including your precious "investigative reporter" who revealed Abu Ghraib, etc.
2. I know that WWII did not occur in 1776 -- I was using TWO different examples.
3. In some ways, letting Iraq get nuclear weapons would have been WORSE than WWII -- you are also incorrect that WWII was not fought on our own continent -- http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=7166
Nonetheless, you will note that I will never call for you to be banned from anywhere, online or off.
Posted by: Jake
Date: July 6, 2007 5:15 PM
The difference is this, "Jake," as I made clear, and have repeatedly made clear, and which you continue to ignore: there is no right to lie and lie and lie, and then claim such is protected speech, or is legitimate "opinion" or discourse: it is noe of those. Deliberately undermining discussion by others is only destructive, and need not be tolerated by those whose efforts to discuss are destroyed by hateful liars such as you. If you can't conduct yourself in accordance with civil norms, then you don't deserve to mix with those who do conduct themselves in accordance with those norms.
None of the threads on TPM are about Clinton. Yet you slime insist, at every opportunity, to drag in and lie about Clinton as all-purpose means to dishonestly avoide the actual legitimate issues. You have nothing constructive to contribute. It is the tolerance of lying, and the defense of lawlessness, which put Bushit in office, and resulted in the massive destruction which has flowed from that result.
You and your hateful ilk essentially shit on your host's livingroom rug, then insist that result is both legitimate opinion and "freedom of speech". Lying is not legitimate to begin with, therefore cannot be legitimate "opinion" or speech. And it need not be tolerated in the name of freedom of speech, especially when it is repeated and repeated and repeated, without regard for how many times shown to be lies and refuted.
You don't discuss facts -- you deliberately distort them, and lie, in order on one hand to smear others, and on the other defend the blatantly indefensible. Again, lying punk:
Torture is a war crime which cannot be made legal -- even by "signing statement". Yet Bushit claims the right to make the war crime of torture legal by means of "signing statement," does so, and proceeds to engage in the war crime of torture. Those facts alone are sufficient grounds to not merely impeach and remove, but also to subject the perpetrators to trial at the Hague.
Yet you refuse to address those facts and that issue, lying instead that the Bushit gang is respectable, and whatever other lies you want to assert, and that they are protecting the nation while in fact they are destroying it. You hate truth, and reveal that every time you open your supercilious mouth.
You ignore the violations of numerous laws in effort to defend the persons engaged in those violations -- mixed with the endeavor to distract from those violations by smearing others for crimes they didn't commit.
All you do, in a word, is lie and propagandize against truth, the rule of law, and your country. Lying is not legitimate discourse of any kind because lying is illegitimate. Lying -- yours is constant -- is by nature and definition the enemy of truth.
You insult the generosity and intelligence of those who provide the platform you exploit in order to spread your anti-American and anti-moral hatred -- even against those who provide the platform.
You deliberately contribute nothing of value in effort to prevent any form of legitimate discussion -- especially that which exposes the corruption you support and defend. You knowingly and intentionally defend the destruction of our system of laws while lying against and smearing those who defend it. And you defend those who are engaged in that destruction on utterly specious grounds by make claims which have been refuted umpteenth times. Then, when refuted yet again, you start all over, repeating the very same litany of lies and hate already repeatedly refuted.
If you won't be civil, then you are not fit to mix with civil, mature adults. You have no manners, no ethics, no morals; and no right to repeatedly shit on your host's livingroom rug and then defend it as legitimate "opinion" and freedom of speech. Take your deliberate destructiveness to where that is acceptable -- Free Republic will embrace it. It is not acceptable to civil society. That is why you should be banned from every civil website and blog: because lying is illegitimate, and the enemy of civility and truth, and all you do is lie.
JNagarya wrote on July 8, 2007 9:27 PM:At least I don't post anonymously.
Posted by: Jake
Date: July 6, 2007 3:55 PM
Irrelevant. What is relevant is that you deliberately contribute nothing of value; instead, your deliberate effort is knowingly destructive. Your enemy is truth; thus your enemy is rule of law and your country.
Torture is was crime which cannot be made legal -- even by means of "signing statment". And as we learned, yet again, as result of Abu Ghraib, it only succeeds in making enemies.
Torture is the most morally depraced of acts which can be imposed by humans on other humans. As you defend Bushit, you defend that moral deparavity. And you do so on knowingly-false grounds: that which violates the law does not uphold the law. That which violates the law as concerns others' rights -- in this instance their right not to be tortured -- violates those rights.
Bushit hasn't protected anyone -- except his own -- from anything -- except the rights and protections of law, including those which define and ban the use of torture.
Yet you continue to tell any lie, and distort and misrepresent any fact, in order to defend that indefensible anti-Americanism.
You hate this country, and truth, as everyone here -- including you -- is well aware. Leave.
Jake wrote on July 8, 2007 10:31 PM:Adm H. Horatio Hornhonker:
I'm not going to your web site, nor am I sending you an email directly. You can say whatever you want to say to me right here.
JNagarya:
You keep telling yourself that I am the one not being "civil."
Jane wrote on July 9, 2007 11:49 PM:Jake: Nice of you to disagree with my opinions: confirms my view of your reality testing abilities.
Compliments exchanged, how about telling us your real name rather than hiding behind a couple thousand Jakes? Or, in the alternative,stop complaining about anonymous posts.
Jake wrote on July 10, 2007 12:57 PM:My full name is James Moore Dort, but all my friends call me Jake. What's your full name, Jane?