Pajamas Media has a roundup of blog discussions, pro and con, on the subject of whether the President had the authority to conduct wiretaps, one end of which involves a US person, without a court order. However the legal arguments play out, a slightly different question already has a definite answer: the President does not, apparently, have the reliable ability to conduct surveillance of the enemy without the fact being revealed in the New York Times.—
The Belmont Club: The tightrope
Wretchard mentions the Medal of Honor citation of CAPT John P Cromwell. Useful reading. Especially for the Times' sources.
26 comments:
My criticism of the PJ piece is that it muddled the waters more than cleared them.
All kinds of fine legal points, when in fact the truth of the matter could be found reading only Hewitt and Hinderocket.
best summed up below:
Sorry ex, this is the 3rd and hopefully last.
The readers can consider the source.
BTW --- for those who argue that you can find lawyers to defend either side of any issue
I say, what's your point?
If there is no truth --- if the meaning of the law is whatever the loudest or highest paid elites say it is --- then let's drop all the high and mighty shouts of "law-breaker" and "impeach him."
The Volk Conspiracy guy was one of the lamest, imo.
Those who don't see the primacy of the Constitution as first and foremost have no grip on why we remained strong for 200 + years.
re: 3:05 PM
...and Seneca, of course!
OT,
Instapundit.com
LUTTIG SLAPS THE ADMINISTRATION in the Padilla case, suggesting that claims that the Fourth Circuit is a "constitution-free zone" were, um, premature.
---
Hope some of you legal beagles give your take on what this means/what happens next.
Lutig is clear, but I didn't take the time to try to find out what the concurrence is refering to.
TRAXLER, Circuit Judge, concurring in part:
I do not think Rule 36 is applicable to this situation. I
agree with my colleagues that we should not vacate our earlier
opinion.
Knuck--LOL! ...and TROooo....
Germans let that terrorist asshole loose today--I remember reading what he did to that sailor on that airplane back then. Had his hands tied behind his back, face up on the floor, and jumped up and down on his chest--then back into his seat, ribs broken, wheezing, bloodied. And then did the whole thing again a few hours later. Other passengers said he was shaking, in shock, but never broke and asked for mercy. Then he shot him, and dumped him 20' out onto the tarmac, where he died. I think he was 20 or so.
Anybody worried about the dunking ought to imagine being inside that kid's head on the airplane the last day of his life.
See NYTimes story and then see the sailor's friends' story, then for more, google "Stethem".
Scroll to the bottom, please, and tell SW2 Stethem that it ain't over yet.
sorry if link broken, try
this or
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/rdstethe.htm
Knuck, yes--but what struck me was the bloodless report of the sailor's ordeal. As if the terrorists had just 'erased' him--no mess, no pain, no story.
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/rdstethe.htm
(link trouble, sorry)
http://www.arlington
cemetery.net
/rdstethe.htm
There...had to break it into three lines...remember, no spaces when paste-in. Go scroll down and visit the gravestone.
The killer is with his family tonight, the sailor's family is with the news.
Sure enough good way to insure there'll be more hostages taken, eh, Knuck?
I just put this over at Roger's (5:26PM post)--repetitive, but--I'm trying to break thru a wall of invincible cluelessness.
Not mine, Mark.
Debka probably has it wrong again. If these guys are associated with Hezbollah (Shiite) the chances they're working with Sunni kidnappers in Iraq is practically nil.
Mark, you say something like this fairly often. Do you actually have any support for it, outside of it being a running talking point that you've heard over and over again? Do you even have any idea of what the difference is? And how do you explain the money the Sunni Saudi charities run through the Sheat Hizbullah charities?
Augh.
Arlington Cemetary link.
It's really quite easy, honest. Type
<a href="URL">link text</a> and put the whole link from "http:" to the end between the quotation marks.
dunno why it wouldn't take, Seneca. I typed it just that way, but no worky.
Mark's mideast sources are just better than Debka's, Seneca. That's the only explanation that makes any sense.
And i don't blame the sailor's dad for being heartbroken and bitter. I'm sure GWB is no happier than than anyone else on this side of the war, about the outcome. We're talking Germany--the third party. I know, "Why doesn't Bush have better relations with Germany, then?" Right. Let's impeach.
buddy
The secret to doing a link in here is not to preview. I always get an error on preview.
Look at it very closely to be sure you did it right then just post it.
(*sob*)...nobody believes me the link was broken...but--thanks all for the nice bowl of mush, the 5 gallon tub of DentuCream, nice chrome bedpan, and the 8-track of "Fibber McGee and Molly"....\;-)
How about al Qaida's "sacred right to know"? I'm sure I read that in the Constitution somewhere....
Screw al Qaeda's 'right to know', where is OURS in the constitution?
off/thread, but Ron Silver's documentary of the UN:
Post a Comment