Tuesday, February 19, 2008

George W rents the ACLU mule.

Yes, the truly frivolous ACLU lawsuit against the Bush Administration’s Terrorist Surveillance Program was rejected by the United States Supreme Court. Beaten again like a rented mule by the dullard from Texas. No wonder the President causes actual symptoms of mental illness in liberals. (Talkin’ right to ya Sundance).

The Sixth Circuit decision remains the law of the case, the ACLU Plaintiffs have no standing because they have no injury. The entire liberal legal machine has searched the globe, far and wide, searching for someone whose actual, real rights were violated by the program. You name it, they were looking. The same Ted Kennedy slime machine that uncovered Anita Hill’s rock-found nothing. The world class bottom feeders that Dan Rather employed to suck a creative writing team from the sewage filament of the American body politic-nothing. Not one person on earth could be identified as the victim of illegal “domestic spying” by the Bush Administration. NOT ONE FREAKING PERSON!!!!!!!!

After caterwauling for years about the facial illegality of the program to intercept terrorist telephone calls without warrants, the liberals have again lost in the real world. Yes, every time you hear a liberal talk about domestic spying they are talking about the completely legal interception of enemy communications in a time of war. But hey, why would a liberal let reality interfere with a good whine.

The President recently asked the most important question of critics of his anti-terror intelligence and surveillance policies, which of the many attacks that the Administration has prevented would the critics have allowed?

You should ask the same question every time you hear a liberal whine about domestic spying.


Art A Layman said...


The gauntlet appears once again.

I have no doubt that the dullard from Texas would beat a rented mule. Iowan homilies seem lacking in the flavor which emanates from those of the southern genre.

Treading ever so lightly into your area of expertise, I would agree that "standing" is applicable in many legal issues. Alas, it is also an infamous cop-out often employed by courts, especially the Supreme Court, to avoid entering an imbroglio that might upset their majority, collective political bent.

Where governmental actions, free from the bounds of checks and balances, clearly pose a threat of attack on the heart of Constitutional guarantees, it would not seem an issue that the court should dance around as if they were contestants in a "Dancing with the Stars" episode.

From my limited knowledge of the facts, the ACLU was estopped from knowing whether anyone existed whose Constitutional rights might have been infringed because access to that information would have violated national security. It is part and parcel of the Catch-22 game this adminstration loves to play. Anyone potentially injured might not even be aware of it for many years.

Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death". He did not say give me less liberty that I may not die.

The Framers would be aghast that we elected a President so impaired that he can't appreciate the tenets of the dream.

Surely, in your legal acumen, you can't deny the fact that the Framers clearly did not desire, nor would they countenance, a President, who attempts to secure unto himself monarchical powers.

Having the FISC involved in the process is not a major hangup. It's just that Dumbya (I've always had a spelling problem) can't stomach anybody interfering with his way of doing things. It's his way or the highway and all wrapped up in that father/son pyschological problem he has.

Back to the court. One can easily imagine that were they to hear the case they would have become involved in the issue of what is and what isn't classified information. To ajudicate properly on the larger Constitutionality issue they would need to understand the standards in place which determine who gets listened to and when or how come. This would have created issues that they likely didn't want to enter into - Ambition should be made of sterner stuff.

Consider how impotent the Supreme Court would be today had Justice Marshall made a decision to side step Marbury v. Madison, which he easily could have done.

Yes, every time you hear a liberal talk about domestic spying they are talking about the completely legal interception of enemy communications in a time of war. But hey, why would a liberal let reality interfere with a good whine.

Your naive, ridiculous argument above has to astound anyone who credits you with an ounce of sense. Neither you, nor the ACLU, nor the Supreme Court can know the methodology employed in this surveillance program, therefore you cannot assuredly state that it is only enemy communications that are being listened to.

Once again, discussing a serious and arguable issue, you want to obscure the issue with vitriol that has your minions clapping and not thinking. Your minions and thinking is likely an oxymoron.

Let us all be thankful that you are happy being a mere divorce attorney, writing as hobby, fatuous blog entries, and avoiding a serious entry into the real political realm.

Anonymous said...

Dear Art who Lays Men:

Are you flirting with Ted? Your attention seems a bit, well....unseemly.

Art A Layman said...

anonymous 6:40:

Alas, mine is one of unrequited love. Are you available?

KenRichards said...


The ACLU argument is one of possible abuse of power but since they can't (and rightly so) gain access to super secret government lists they claim they don't know whether rights where violated.

The reciprocal argument might be that since nobody has been convicted in open court of something unrelated to National Security it seems the program is not being abused after all.

Art A Layman said...


Am not thoroughly versed in the ACLU case details, but in my mind, eliminating FISC from direct involvement in the process vests entirely too much power in the Executive branch. Time of war or not, this is contrary to the essential freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

I am not opposed to the basic process. I can readily agree that monitoring potential terrorist's communications is vital to our national security and must be done. The crux is that it shouldn't be done in the absence of the "checks and balances" intended by the Framers in the operation of our government.

An argument that since it hasn't happened yet, it will never happen and therefore should be left alone, tends to toward the specious. It is logically, "begging the question".

If the barn door has been open for years and the horse has not left the barn, that fact does little to negate the wisdom of closing the barn door.

Many of the illegal activities of the Nixon administration hadn't happened before either; until they happened.

Our criminal/jurisprudence system does not move at warp speeds. Who is to know what non-terrorist communications were listened to that set the wheels of "justice?" in motion only to result in some manifestation years from now.

The "war on terrorism", more a political phrase than a reality, in that there has been no official declaration of war, is an anamoly to any of our previous wars. The nature of it is such that it will go on for years. Consequently the surveillance will be necessary for years. A process with a hole in it, for years, will likely commence leaking at some point.

It is best, given the significant nature of this thin ice, that the process be reviewed by all the branches of government and that they collectively agree to where the lines should be drawn so that all are in agreement as to the sanctity of the Constitution versus the safety of the nation.

It is extremely difficult, with an administration given to rampant, exaggerated spinning(to be kind), to achieve a sense of comfort simply because the President assures us that no illegal activity is taking place.

If, or more likely when, a case of abuse surfaces it will be long after damage was done and, all the king's horses and all the king's men, will not be able to completely repair the tsores created.

Best if the Supreme Court faces this issue, and now, going through whatever security clearance process is necessary, to enable them to effect a wise and just decision on a Constitutional question of such significant importance.

Art A Layman said...


I sincerely hope you forgive my whining.