Have you written you representative yet??

topic posted Fri, February 2, 2007 - 2:40 PM by  Unsubscribed
------------------------------------- ROLE CALL -----------------------------------

Last Aug. 17, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the United States District Court in Detroit issued her ruling in the A.C.L.U. case. The president, she wrote, had “undisputedly violated” not only the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, but also statutory law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Enacted by a bipartisan Congress in 1978, the FISA statute was a response to revelations that the National Security Agency had conducted warrantless eavesdropping on Americans. To deter future administrations from similar actions, the law made a violation a felony punishable by a $10,000 fine and five years in prison.

I keep reading in this tribe how angry people are with the Administration.
Here it is in your itty bitty laps

A federal judge had done an improper thing committed what may be an ethics violation and gone out on a limb and I am guessing she didn't do it for the sheer joy of it. I suspect she did this exactly so someone might pick up on it and start the process to convene a congressional hearing on the matter to investigate whether they think the Prez did in fact violate statutory law .

A violation of a criminal or misdemeanor statutory law being the minimum threshold for impeachment

So are are you goanna pull them pistols or just stand there whistling Dixie?

Who has acted on all that tough talk ??
Names please !!
posted by:
  • Who has acted on all that tough talk?

    Fri, February 2, 2007 - 4:12 PM
    Tuesday, January 16, 2007
    NYU School of Law
    Lipton Hall
    108 W. 3rd Street

    In 2001, President Bush issued a secret executive order authorizing warrantless electronic surveillance of people in the United States. In
    May 2006, the nation learned that the National Security Agency has been building a massive database of Americans' phone records. Earlier this year a federal court ruled that the Bush administration' s program is unconstitutional and must be stopped.

    Yet the National Security Agency continues its illegal spying. Join the DRUM, the NYCLU, and other co-sponsoring organizations for a
    free town hall meeting to discuss warrantless wiretapping and the threat it poses to civil liberties. Learn how you can take action to
    stop unconstitutional NSA spying and protect your rights to privacy and freedom of speech.

    Share your thoughts on government spying with experts on both sides of the debate, including:

    - Congressman Jerrold Nadler, Chair, Constitution Subcommittee, U.S. House of Representatives;
    - Ann Beeson, lead attorney, ACLU vs. NSA, and ACLU Associate Legal Director;
    - Tara McKelvey, Senior Editor, The American Prospect, and client, ACLU vs. NSA;
    - Andrew McCarthy, former supervisor of the U.S. Attorney's Anti-Terrorism Command Post in New York City, and lead prosecutor of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman; and
    - Timothy Bakken, Professor of Law, United States Military Academy
    • Unfortunatley, none of them:

      "Senate Democrats, emboldened by Election Day wins that put them in control of Congress as of January, say they would rather wait until next year to look at the issue. “I can’t say that we won’t do it, but there’s no guarantee that we’re going spend a lot of time on controversial measures,” Democratic Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois said Thursday.

      "In Senate parlance, that means no."
      • Who is Judge Taylor, anyway?

        Fri, February 2, 2007 - 4:22 PM

        Knowing little about her, I decided to check her out. She is an African-American graduate of Yale Law School (JD '57). In 1964, she spent the summer ("Freedom Summer") in Mississippi to help provide legal services for civil rights activists. She arrived in Mississippi on the very day that three young civil rights workers (James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner) disappeared in Philadelphia, Mississippi. When she and several other attorneys went to the sheriff's office to inquire about the disappearance, they were surrounded by a mob of hostile whites who hurled racial epithets at Taylor and her companions. Forty-four days later, the bodies of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner were found at Olen Barrage's Old Jolly Farm, six miles northeast of Philadelphia, Mississippi. Each of the civil rights workers had been shot in the heart. Four decades after the murders, in June 2005, Edgar Ray Killien, a local minister and member of the Klan, was finally brought to justice.

        After her experience in Mississippi, Anna Diggs Taylor had a distinguished legal career in Detroit, where she served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, special counsel to the city, and a private practioner. Among her many achievements, she won a landmark anti-discrimination case. In 1979, President Jimmy Carter appointed her a United States District Judge.

        Judges are who they are. They strive to follow the law, but personal experience and character matter. I have little doubt that Judge Taylor's willingness to face the merits in ACLU v. NSA was in part the consequence of who she is as a person. Her decision took personal courage and a genuine commitment to the rule of law. The same kind of courage and commitment she manifested forty years ago during Freedom Summer. We need judges cut from such cloth.
  • Unsu...

    Re: Have you written you representative yet??

    Fri, February 2, 2007 - 7:08 PM
    So far no one has specifically addressed this particular issue.

    I ain't going to cause I don't want him impeached.

    But YOU !!! YOU !!!!!!

    Here you are with a Federal judge having stated that she believes he has met all the elements to complete a crime and she named the crime and you haven't done anything.

    I am simply flabbergasted. I don't have any idea what to think.
    • Re: Have you written you representative yet??

      Sat, February 3, 2007 - 11:52 AM
      their biding their time so they can have a dem in office who wont pardon him as soon as he is convicted...
      • Unsu...

        Re: Have you written you representative yet??

        Sun, February 4, 2007 - 10:06 AM
        No they are not. I have no clue why they aren't all over this like stink on shit but, they are clearly not doing according to their words.

        So those of you who haven't - - - Why the hell not??
        What is stopping you?
        • Unsu...

          Re: Have you written you representative yet??

          Mon, February 5, 2007 - 1:12 PM
          Bump !!
          • Congress, spying & the rule of law

            Mon, February 5, 2007 - 7:42 PM
            Posted on Mon, Feb. 05, 2007

            AFTER illegally spying on Americans without the required warrants for several years, the Bush administration is claiming a sudden change of heart.

            Attorney General Alberto Gonzales recently announced that the administration's domestic-spying program will stop bypassing judicial oversight. Instead, it will submit domestic surveillance to review by a federal intelligence court, as required by law.

            But before anyone celebrates the "good news" of an attorney general saying he will stop breaking the law, Congress must confront the administration's record of illegal spying and ensure that surveillance is truly back within the rule of law.

            This is a big challenge because the administration spent the last six years undermining the traditional tools Congress uses to supervise intelligence by ignoring the law, stalling court oversight and declaring that warrantless spying would continue.

            For Congress, that means there is little point in passing another law to restate rules that the administration is openly defying. Public hearings would also be ineffective for reforming or exposing the classified program. So what can the new Congress do?

            The only way to bring spying back under the rule of law is for Congress to strengthen the branch of government that makes the law work: the courts.

            Unfortunately, the courts, with their traditional deference to the political branches, have been slow to tackle this problem.

            There are more than 70 spying lawsuits pending against the National Security Agency or phone companies, but few results so far. One federal district court did rule on the NSA program in August, finding it unconstitutional and issuing an injunction to ban it. But the administration has aggressively appealed and stalled all these cases - and the injunction was stayed on appeal.

            Several other leading cases were transferred at the 11th hour into a new court, wiping out almost a year of work. (Justice Department officials claim the cases are "moot" because of the attorney general's announcement. But even if warrantless spying has ceased, plaintiffs are suing for harm caused by past conduct.)

            At this rate, the domestic spying program may not even reach the Supreme Court before President Bush leaves office. That's probably no accident.

            Yet there is much Congress can do to ensure swift and meaningful judicial oversight. First, there is precedent for providing fast-track review for important cases. Congress can require that the pending cases get accelerated review by either the appeals courts or the Supreme Court. Although the Supreme Court usually gets to choose whether to hear a case, Congress can make the right of appeal mandatory.

            Of all the lawsuits, only one offers evidence that the NSA listened to the plaintiffs' calls. But that's because the government has tried to classify and conceal all potential evidence, and then claim that because plaintiffs do not have proof that their own calls were illegally intercepted, the suits are "frivolous" and should be dismissed.

            But many challengers reasonably argue that they were harmed by being forced to change their behavior by the news of the NSA's warrantless spying program. (Government whistleblowers won't call reporters, for example, once they know the government is listening to calls with no court oversight.)

            Congress can address this problem by making it clear that Americans who were compelled to change their activities because of past illegal surveillance have standing to sue. Guaranteeing a day in court for such challenges would ensure that the NSA doesn't get off the hook on a technicality.

            Finally, the new Congress must grapple with the administration's expansive assertions of the "state secrets privilege" to pre-empt legal challenges.

            Most spying challengers had to spend months fighting the administration's demand that every case be dismissed without any court proceedings because the program was supposedly "too secret" for judges to consider - even in a closed setting. At least one court has already dismissed a challenge to the NSA program on those grounds.

            But today the courts are well-equipped to hear cases with classified information - they routinely do so during criminal trials of former spies. Yet the Bush administration has invoked the secrets claim more than any other administration in history.

            To ensure that the courts actually hear the spying cases, Congress should pass a statute curtailing the "state secrets privilege" with precise boundaries to prevent further misuse.

            OUR SYSTEM OF checks and balances is supposed to enable each branch of government to assert itself by checking the others. Yet to check President Bush's spying, Congress cannot simply repeat itself by passing another wiretapping statute, or hope the administration's latest announcement will end the abuse.

            Congress must strive for the higher ambition of protecting the rule of law itself by empowering the courts to swiftly enforce the laws Congress passed - and review the conduct of the president who broke them

            Shayana Kadidal is a staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, which is challenging the NSA domestic spying program in federal court. Ari Melber served as a legislative aide in the U.S. Senate.
  • Unsu...

    Re: Have you written you representative yet??

    Tue, February 13, 2007 - 7:06 AM
    • Re: Have you written you representative yet??

      Tue, February 13, 2007 - 7:54 AM
      Now why would a U.S. Congressperson want to help US Cliff?
      They all grew up with Platinum Spoons in their mouths,they are millionare's or billionare's today,they haven't got a CLUE as to what it's like to live in the REAL WORLD,and to have to struggle to pay a bill. They are part of an "Eleitis't Society and NONE of "Them" could give as RATS ASS about "Us"!
      I have appealed to "them" in the past,and what I "get" back is their standard Printout.
      "I share your Concern Mr Scott,however I cannot help you at this current time".
      This is becuase they NEVER EVEN SAW my Request or concern,their secrataries did,and sent the "Standard Bullshit line" back to me.
      Senators and Congresspersons(as we have witnessed!) are as useless as Tit's on a Bull!

Recent topics in "! * POLITICS * !"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
stupid party tricks libramoon 7 Yesterday, 7:22 PM
Occupy Building 7 - November 19-20 Harmen 366 June 2, 2016
The Climate Wars... Harmen 264 May 30, 2016