The West and Others

Looking back... at things said in the light of today



"Gregg,
You either don’t want to get it, don’t get, can’t get it or need a new pair of glasses.

When you stand me in line, make me sleep at the airport, listen in on my telephone conversations without my permission or judicial oversight, harass my peace of mind with ever-changing terror threat levels occasioned by unverifiable government claims (most probably manufactured under the cover of TSP), dictate who I can and cannot have a transcontinental telephone conversation with, command what I can or cannot say (a la politically incorrect speech), compel me to lose valuable time, income and opportunities via delayed flights and unsubstantiated closures premised on suspicions-what does that amount to in your neocon vocabulary?

What you have done without constitutional sanction, is to deny me my God-given rights to oxygen and clean air! You subvert my freedom of free speech, locomotion and liberty: to choose, labor and excel. To indulge in my peace of mind and live my life as I deem fit within the construct of the constitution."~~Egoigwe's comment

Pundit Review
Posted by Gregg on Aug 20, 2006 @ 15:10

Bryan Cunningham who served in senior positions in the CIA and as a federal prosecutor under President Clinton, and as deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council under President George W. Bush has written this fantastic piece on National Review Online.

He says of the recent decision by Carter appointee federal court judge Diggs-Taylor which ordered the “president to halt in wartime a foreign-intelligence-collection program that has undoubtedly saved lives probably sympathizes with the journalists, and others, who are suing to stop the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) in which NSA intercepts foreign-U.S. terrorist communications.” :

We can sympathize with her motives, and even share some of her gut feelings of uneasiness about the program. But we cannot accept the stunningly amateurish piece of, I hesitate even to call it legal work, by which she purports to make our government go deaf and dumb to those would murder us en masse. Her bosses on the Court of Appeals and/or the United States Supreme Court will not accept it.

He argues that the ruling conatains “process fouls.”

Worse, the judge clearly failed to do enough homework to understand the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act itself, much less the Fourth Amendment. She gets basic provisions of the statute itself wrong, e.g., apparently believing that a provision explicitly dealing with foreign agent/non-U.S. persons communications constitutes an “exception” to FISA’s warrant requirements. She also seems to make the elementary and fatal mistake made by many commentators, that the government can, under FISA, listen in on conversations for 72 hours without meeting FISA’s substantive and procedural tests. This is simply false. NSA cannot lawfully, under FISA, listen to a single syllable of a covered communication until it can prove to the Attorney General (usually in writing) that it can jump through each and every one of FISA’s procedural and substantive hoops. These basic errors could have been corrected had the court bothered to gather any evidence or hold substantive hearings.

Cunningham also demonstrates other egregious errors in the judge’s decision including ignoring contrary authority, appeals Court Cherry picking, selective reading “redux”, and trivializing the 1st and 4th Amendments.

This ruling is a perfect illustration of judicial activism- substituting personal preferences for a strict interpretation of the law. And it shows why elections matter (she was a Carter appointee) and why liberals despise Bush so much (among other reasons of course, but judicial reform was a top priority of the Bush admin- replacing judicial activists with strict constructionists and originalists in the mold of Scalia and Thomas).

Cunningham concludes:

Whatever Judge Taylor’s motives, it is critical to understand the impact of her decision, were it allowed to stand. Among many damaging results, the Terrorist Surveillance Program, publicly credited not 72 hours ago with helping to prevent the “9/11 Part 2” British airline bombings, will be shut down and our enemies will know it. Worse, neither politically accountable branch of government (even working together) would be able to modify FISA in a way that did not require prior judicial warrants based on probable cause and particularity as to the person targeted. In other words, there would be no lawful way, short of amending the Constitution, to ever collect catastrophic-terrorist-attack warning information unless we knew in advance it was coming, and the identities of the precise individuals who were going to communicate it.

As Judge Taylor’s new favorite justice, Robert Jackson himself, warned, the courts should not “convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.” I will put my daughters to bed tonight confident that the Court of Appeals and our Supreme Court will not allow Judge Taylor’s giant step in that direction to stand.

Yet another perfect illustration of why liberals cannot be trusted with national security. they appoint judges like Diggs-Taylor.

COMMENTS

1.

Mad. Simply insanity.

Now, OT. I sure do wish you would put your PHONE NUMBER in the part where you have, “What is Pundit Review Radio.” I wanted to ask him, “When are people going to get over the fact that people who play cover for terrorists is dangerous, they’re not innocent, and they are going to die?”

I am sick and tired of our men dying because some terrorists kid is standing by his side saying, “Death to America!” Die, you SOB. Are we at war or not? If we are, let’s kill people. If we are not, let’s get the heck out there. I’m tired of babysitting. That’s about all I have to say about it.

I’m sorry. I’m just so disgusted at the UN and the US for going there! Again! Argghhh!

Comment by Rosemary — August 20, 2006 @ 7:51 pm

2.

STOP WARNING PEOPLE YOU’RE COMING! Hey, Hitler. We were only kidding about that first report. We’re coming in over here. Huh?

Comment by Rosemary — August 20, 2006 @ 7:55 pm

3.

What arrant neocon tittle-tattle! A few questions. What would Bryan have us believe, that those countries which do not listen in to their citizens telephone conversations are deaf and dumb to those who would murder them en masse? So, how come they all enjoy the peace of their land and America does not? Who appoints the Attorney-General and to whom, by virtue of his appointment, will he show loyalty and gratitude?

“Whatever Judge Taylor’s motives, it is critical to understand the impact of her decision, were it allowed to stand. Among many damaging results, the Terrorist Surveillance Program, publicly credited not 72 hours ago with helping to prevent the “9/11 Part 2” British airline bombings, will be shut down and our enemies will know it. Worse, neither politically accountable branch of government (even working together) would be able to modify FISA in a way that did not require prior judicial warrants based on probable cause and particularity as to the person targeted. In other words, there would be no lawful way, short of amending the Constitution, to ever collect catastrophic-terrorist-attack warning information unless we knew in advance it was coming, and the identities of the precise individuals who were going to communicate it.

As Judge Taylor’s new favorite justice, Robert Jackson himself, warned, the courts should not “convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”

That is exactly what the Constitution demands must be done and , ridiculously as only a neo-con can be, such freedoms and liberties granted in trust and love to the America people by their founding fathers of blessed memory does not and CANNOT amount to a suicidal pact. What infamy! What the likes of Bryan seek is a political short-cut that circumvents the Constitution of the United States of America! A short-cut by which the President and his neo-con clique can evade upholding that same constitution which conveyed to him the powers to become President. 9/11, part1, is still an unfolding scenario to which George Bush may yet be complicit. ‘9/11, part 2′ is without doubt an ongoing political charade designed to manipulate the gullible into a sense of insecurity that permits the shoring-up of dubious political ‘profit’ and exactly the kind of abuse that the Diggs Taylor ruling seeks to eliminate ie. the wilful curtailment of citizens’ freedoms and liberties coupled to constitutional degradation.

What point is Bryan Cunningham trying to make? That Americans should shove their rights of privacy and free speech aside in preference for security parameters defined by the likes of George Bush and his neocon oil-and-contract-gluttons?

It isn’t Justice Jackson that is relevant here but Justice Warren:

“Implicit in the term ‘national defense’ is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this Nation apart… it would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense we would sanction the subversion of… those liberties… which make the defense of the Nation worthwhile”
U.S Vs Robel

Comment by Egoigwe — August 20, 2006 @ 8:43 pm

4.

And here is where “Egoigwe” in the nonsensical rambling post above leads me to conclude that he is another moonbat conspiracy thoerist.

“9/11, part1, is still an unfolding scenario to which George Bush may yet be complicit. ‘9/11, part 2′ is without doubt an ongoing political charade designed to manipulate the gullible into a sense of insecurity that permits the shoring-up of dubious political ‘profit’ and exactly the kind of abuse that the Diggs Taylor ruling seeks to eliminate ie. the wilful curtailment of citizens’ freedoms and liberties coupled to constitutional degradation.”

OK, no coherent analysis of the NRO article I blogged about by Bryan Cunningham who served in senior positions in the CIA and as a federal prosecutor under President Clinton, and as deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council under President George W. Bush, just a vapid screed with no thesis or supporting argument.

Yes “Egoigwe”, Bush knew about 9-11, the war on terror is a made up bogey man of the Bush “neo con conspiracy” intended to “scare gullible people”, “Hallburton,” “blood for oil,” blah, blah, balh. You are a walking talking leftist bumper sticker- a living breathing shibboleth.

Doesn’t it ever get tiring for you lugubrious Bush haters?

Try specifically detailing “the wilful curtailment of citizens’ freedoms and liberties coupled to constitutional degradation” to which you refer. I look forward to the specific list you provide. Although I won’t hold my breath.

Gregg

Comment by Administrator — August 20, 2006 @ 9:47 pm

5.

These so-called 9/11 conspiracy theorists are growing in number and voice because the government and the 9/11 Commission have not been straightforward with the American public. Too many questions regarding that day remain unanswered, and this is inexcusable given that 9/11 is used as the chief justification for the administration’s aggressive and disastrous foreign policy. Gregg, a smart guy like you shouldn’t be so dismissive of such people unless you work for the NSA, CIA, Defense Department or Mossad…which I’m starting to think you might at this point. At the very tail end of your radio show last night you basically said Rummy was doing an excellent job, and even Kevin had to set you straight. Oh well, you’re fun to converse with either way, Gregg.

Comment by John — August 21, 2006 @ 7:42 am

6.

John,

Your suggestion that “a smart guy like (me) shouldn’t be so dismissive of such people unless you work for the NSA, CIA, Defense Department or Mossad…which I’m starting to think you might at this point.” is absurd.

Think about how nonsensical that statement is John. That I am not allowed to analyze a ruling from a federal court judge because I am not in the “NSA, CIA, Defense Department or Mossad?” By that reasoning none of us can discuss or criticize any govt policy unless we ourselves serve in government. You should really try to give more thoughtful consideration to what you say. You are probably a fairly intelligent (albeit misguided person) but when you make such idiotic statements it makes you seem really ignorant and does not alter the perception that all you are is a conspiracy theorist.

But John your inability to answer any of the questions posed in our last interaction regarding Jimmy Carter adn Israel and admit that you could not substantiate your claims is evidence to me that your ego inhibits you from acknowldeging your ignorance on virtually every issue we discuss. After facts are raised which rebut your fallacious assertions you say “we’ll just agree to disagree.” Part of engaging in a rational honest discourse John is for each party to demonstarte a certain level of intellectual candor. I asked you to substantiate your claim that “war crimes” were committed by both Hezbollah and israel and “innocent people on both sides died”. I pointed out the documented war crimes committed by Hezbollah and you could not provide one committed by Israel with sourced documented evidence. Where I come from, when you are incorrect, you check your ego at the door and admit that you were wrong. That is how mature men communciate with one another. I cannot persoanlly engage in conversations with you in the future John about your inane conspiracy theories unless you acknowledge that you could not answer my questions and that you were wrong in claiming that “war crimes were committed by both Hezbollah and Israel”. Are you man enough to admit that John?

Gregg

Comment by Administrator — August 21, 2006 @ 2:20 pm

7.

You misunderstood me, Gregg. My quip about you working for the agencies was tongue-in-cheek and meant to insinuate that your dismissive attitude towards so-called conspiracy theorists must be the result of your employment with one of these agencies. Of course you can analyze the latest ruling. I wasn’t even referring to that as I stray off topic quite a bit.

The murder of civilians in Qana constitutes a clear breach of the Geneva Conventions and an obvious Israeli war crime. Civilians have been targeted as a report from the Human Rights Watch mentions:

“Israeli forces have fired with warplanes and artillery on dozens of civilian vehicles, many flying white flags…”

Moreover, former NSA agent Wayne Madsen has reported that Israel used banned chemical and biological weapons against the Lebanese. Banned chemical and biological weapons! I posted the link to his report in a previous post. Have him on the show and debate it with him.

750 Lebanese civilians have died and Beirut has been leveled. These are the facts, and Israel and Hezbollah have both played a role in this massacre.

I’m assuming you now accept that the British airline plot was overhyped for obvious political purposes as you had no response to the MSNBC piece in which a senior British official was quoted as saying the threat was not imminent. You also had no response to the fact that many of these alleged plotters hadn’t even purchased plane tickets or obtained passports. I’ll also assume you were humbled by the FOX News series on Israeli spying in the US before 9/11 as you made no mention of it either.

Gregg, the 9/11 cover up is slowly falling apart as the calls for a real investigation into government involvement grow louder and louder. The complicit mainstream media is covering for the government by slandering 9/11 “conspiracy theorists” on a more regular basis. It will be devastating to you when you learn the truth, and I will have nothing but compassion for you in those trying days. It is going to be a very difficult time for America, but the truth has to be known and this administration has to be removed before peace can be attained.

Comment by John — August 21, 2006 @ 3:34 pm

8.

John,

Human Rights Watch? Are you kidding me? That is who you are citing? You can’t be serious. one of the most left wing partisan anti-Israel organization in the world? Come on John. If you want to quote a reputable non-partisan human rights orgainzaiton that is fine. But I didn’t just fall of the turnup truck.

So when you say:

“The murder of civilians in Qana constitutes a clear breach of the Geneva Conventions and an obvious Israeli war crime. Civilians have been targeted as a report from the Human Rights Watch mentions:

“Israeli forces have fired with warplanes and artillery on dozens of civilian vehicles, many flying white flags…”

You are quoting a partisan organization with a long history of anti-Israel bias.

Why has the UN not acknowledged that Israel committed any war crimes in Qana John? Until you can answer that, you really don’t have a leg to stand on. But don’t give me some report from some left wing anti-semitic organization like human rights watch. Now I will ask you again. Has Israel been accused or found by the UN or any other world governing body to have committed any war crimes in Qana? Simple question. Please answer yes or no and if yes please provided documnted evidence.

Stay focussed john.

Gregg

Comment by Administrator — August 21, 2006 @ 4:32 pm

9.
And you quoted National Review, a strongly conservative publication. You also regularly cite the WSJ editorial page, another conservatively biased outlet. The vast majority of the blogs you quote are from right leaning sources. You can’t have it both ways. If you’re simply going to label anything I post as biased, I will do the same to you. And just so you know, I hate having to mention this left vs. right bias because it’s terribly tiring and unproductive.

It has been reported by several sources that Israel has used banned weapons against the Lebanese.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MAS20060813&articleId=2950

This is a heinous war crime, and I don’t need to wait for the UN to formally condemn it before doing so myself.

As for Qana, I don’t believe the investigations have been completed, though there is a good bet that John Bolton will strongarm the UN into remaining silent.

At the end of the day, I’m trying to get you to understand that Muslims deaths are never “collateral damage” and should be mourned in the same manner as Israeli deaths. I may be wrong, but I think Muslim deaths are rationalized and excused away (i.e. Fallujah) on this site, and I find that profoundly unfortunate. We’re all humans and we all mourn the loss of our family members. Please remember this.

Comment by John — August 21, 2006 @ 6:31 pm

10.

Gregg,
You either don’t want to get it, don’t get, can’t get it or need a new pair of glasses. When you stand me in line, make me sleep at the airport, listen in on my telephone conversations without my permission or judicial oversight, harass my peace of mind with ever-changing terror threat levels occasioned by unverifiable government claims (most probably manufactured under the cover of TSP), dictate who i can and cannot have a transcontinental telephone conversation with, command what i can or cannot say ( a la politically incorrect speech), compel me to lose valuable time, income and opportunities via delayed flights and unsubstantiated closures premised on suspicions-what does that amount to in your neocon vocabulary? What you have done without constitutional sanction, is to deny me my God-given rights to oxygen and clean air! You subvert my freedom of free speech, locomotion and liberty: to choose, labor and excel. To indulge in my peace of mind and live my life as i deem fit within the construct of the constitution. If you still don’t get it , try this:

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
James Madison

Comment by Egoigwe — August 21, 2006 @ 7:23 pm

11.

I repeat egiugwe:

Try specifically detailing “the wilful curtailment of citizens’ freedoms and liberties coupled to constitutional degradation” to which you refer. I look forward to the specific list you provide. Although I won’t hold my breath. YOur having to stand in line or have the govt tap your phone line if you are talking to an Al qaeda terrorist doesn not violate you constitutional guarantees. You know that. authoriazaton of military force and executive presidential war powers gives the executive the power to use “all necessary force…in thwarting a terrorist attack.” There is legal precedent.

Comment by Gregg Jackson — August 21, 2006 @ 7:45 pm

12.

Judge Diggs-Taylor just ruled the NSA wiretap program unconstitutional, so there’s your first example of “the wilful curtailment of citizens’ freedoms and liberties coupled to constitutional degradation”.

Comment by John — August 21, 2006 @ 8:02 pm

13.

How specific do you want me to get gregg? The legal precedent is, as John so easily put it, Judge Diggs Taylor’s ruling. In the face of that ruling , you may not sit in your neocon chambers and tell me they do not violate my “constitutional guarantees” and subverting the Constitution of the United States does not and cannot amount to “all necessary force…in thwarting a terrorist attack.”

Comment by Egoigwe — August 21, 2006 @ 8:41 pm

14.

Can either of you conspiracy theorists/Bush haters cite any pertinent legal precedent that demonstrates that her “opinion” justifies her decision? That is the who point of the Cunningham piece. There is absolutely no constitutional basis for her activist/groundless ruling as he explains with numerous examples of legal precedent which rebuts the central argumens posited by the judge. That is the point. Her decision is not prima facia evidence that the NSA wiretapping program was unconstitutional. Her case is not “precedent” especially since nither neither of the two higher courts have heard the case (both of which are likely to reverse it)CAn you please cite any relevant legal precedents that would lead anybody to believe that her decision is grounded in solid legal case law/precedent. that is the question neither of you two gentlemen can answer. And please, the “neocon” references make you sound like an idiot and an anti-Semite. Can you engage in civil discourse without going to the “neocon” card? Elevate your argument with factual evidence not ad hom vitriol.

Gregg

Gregg

Comment by Administrator — August 21, 2006 @ 9:48 pm

15.

John, by the way you still have avoided my previous question in post #8. I will assume you cannot answer it. I am glad you acknowldge the many war crimes committed by Hezbollah which I have cited and you have not rebutted and their terrorist sponsors (Iran and Syria). That is well documented. What is not documented by any reputable world body are the purported Israeli “war crimes” you allege. Sorry, the anti-Semititc/anti-American group “Human Rights Watch” doesn’t qualify for a non-partisan world body with any jurisdiction in judging these matters. But what do you expect from a moonbat who deludes himself into believing 9-11 was an “inside job” that we will “all find out soon enough about.” and that “the war on terror” is contrived bogeyman of the Bush admin. Time to start your own blog I think john. It is truly a waste of time talking to you.
Gregg

Comment by Administrator — August 21, 2006 @ 10:01 pm

16.

I was pleased to hear you again this evening..you are both terrific and made my night

I must admit I was stunned by Judge Taylor’s ruling..until I researched WHO APPOINTED HER! Her ruling was HOGWASH and showed Partisanship in a Very Un- Judge like manner. Even the Lunatic Judges letting child molesters walk or spend 60 days in jail have NOTHING ON HER RULING! What happened in this case is that she is so full of hate for Republicans and especially GWB that she is blinded to the DANGER she threatens us all with! Of course, she may feel it “doesn’t matter” since the NY TIMES exposed the program as well! But to me it does matter..Her ruling was so VILE and filled with Hate that I cannot imagine she could be a judge. A judge must use points of LAW to make decisions..not Feelings and blatant hatred. Of course, she has extra security since some of the lunatics judges like her let go..returned to kill judges… but I digress…between the ACLU and the Liberals..I have great fear for the future of our country! All who love this country need to realize that just a decade ago our then president allowed an assistant to Janet Reno FORBID our FBI, CIA and other security agencies from sharing information. This Blocking of “dialogue” (by libs who like “dialoging” was meant to MAKE SURE WE TOOK THE STEPS TO GO TO TRIAL..IF WE DIDN’T ADD TO THE TRIAL WORK..WHERE WOULD ALL THE ATTORNIES BE? Rather then keep us safe, this member later of the 9/11 commission..obviously put there to provide COVER..(Jamie Gorelick who made the rule in the 90’s)..raised the bar and PROBABLY HELPED THE TERRORISTS..perhaps unwittingly, but HELP THEM SHE DID! Personally, I fear the IRS more than the NSA and I always try to do my taxes correctly..so that SAYS a LOT! but when I heard the head of the ACLU say that the Warrantless wiretaps made his clients afraid and unable to do their work..I COULD ONLY THINK..WHAT WORK AND WHAT CLIENTS..WHEN I FOUND OUT WHO THEY WERE..lawyers and journalists ..lawyers for terror suspects..I ws amazed. Brings me back to my chidlhood when my mom was watching a UN meeting on TV and Kruschev was their pounding on his podum and telling us that HE WILL DEFEAT THE US FROM WITHIN…I was little and HE SCARED ME..my mother had grown up at the end of the depression and during WW2..she was SCARED TOO..but she knew what he meant..now I understand VERY WELL what he was saying..THAT SHOULD BE REPLAYED DAY AFTER DAY so that all Americans FIGURE OUT WHAT HE WAS SAYING…and the commercial time should be allotted to 9/11 replays and the reading of Jamie Gorelick’s memo…and everyone SHOULD read the congressional testimony by J F Kerry. The most interesting commentary was not his War Crimes Diatribe, but the comments by the Senator who asked Kerry if he thought the US GOVERNMENT was going to be taken over by the Anti War Crowd ..between the lines..it shows a Congress frightened by Kerry’s gang..most of whom were phonies and Commie supporters..or at least pushed to fury by certain operatives and sympathizers! May I suggest you research Hitler’s Aryan Myths..you know the GREAT Pure Germanic folks? These stories were for the most part taught to the youth in Germany during the lead up to WW2 and were actually Persian Lore (Iranian) .. check out Baathist party as well..a Socialist/Communist party…begun on the beliefs of Nazi hatred for Jews, added to later when Russian Commies had great influence on the Mid East..and Sadaam who is a hero due to the fact that he combined the Socialist view of NON VIOLENT take over with the communist VIOLENT over throw..Sadaam supported a WEAK candidate in Iraq..and shortly after (about 1 year) he killed him and TOOK OVER..He was a HERO to all Socialists …and that is why they all, including our liberal Dems who call themselves “progressives” cry so loudly today to STOP THE War! Deep Down, his downfall was a BLOW to The Socialists…you should also research the lead in to America’s joining in WW2. There were protest galore when Hitler and Stalin made a “peace” pact..protests that WE SHOULD IGNORE HITLER and stay out of the frey..but Suddenly Hitler attacked Stalin and all hands were aboard…the protestors did not like us aiding England..they thought Hitler ..the leader of the German Socialist party was a HERO and man of his WORD..sort of like Joe Kennedy and interstingly enough..Old Joe the ambassador to England, got Recalled (fired) for his support of HITLER.. FDR made a DEAL with the Communist during his first election..”The Farm Labor Socialist Dems..the ones who still use that name in Minnesota..his deal was SS and more..but the events abroad stalled some things and the Supreme Court and even then the Patriotic Congress saw the light and stopped many of his NEW DEALS..He did end up working on the WAR..against complaints from his Cohorts..but by then his speeches had won the hearts of most Americans and the Commie/Socialists couldn’t push further..I have read a lot of history and his Military landing in North Africa was a Farce ..he actually ordered the ships to announce their arrival to the Vichy French..we are here to RESCUE you and we are landing at Dawn..naturally the Vichy French shot at our landing parties and ignored the offer of Freedom…instead, the naval commanders took the time to DESTROY the French Navy which had been sent there for SAFETY..something they have held against us ever after! I think I will call the Judge a Vichy Judge..

sorry I strayed but some of the points may prove worth checking out for yourself…another intersting resource on understanding the background of the Terror movement is The crisis of Islam by Bernard Lewis..I note too that I think there were two very great men in the middle east..the King of Jordan who died and the leader of Egypt..Anwar Sadat..both men who wanted peace and did not worry about Their Futures! Brave men who saw value in making peace with Isreal and not afraid to Visit Israel either! To this day in Jordan there are many Jewish businesses operating and prividing a decent life for Joradanians who would otherwise be bereft of work and a decent life! To this day you can travel from and to Israel and Jordan..Brave Countries ..Palestine when given back settlement land and buildings chose through their sickness of hate to tear them down..even hydroponic farms which could have supplied jobs and food to their fellow citizens…were destroyed by the Lunatics! The middle east is such a sick area that I feel their is no hope…when an entire group of people are so filled with hatred they would teach their children to Blow themselves up and dress their babies in bomb belts..there is not much WORTH SAVING…

caron/Abington

Comment by caron Mc Carthy — August 21, 2006 @ 10:14 pm

17.

Ellsberg Vs Mitchell-privilege may not shield any material necessary etc.
709 F.2d@56&68

Presbyterian church Vs U.S Gov-870 F.2d 518, 522 (1989)

Ozonoff vs Berzak-744F.2d@228-229

friends of the Earth Vs Laidlaw Environmental Services-528 U.S@184

Jabara Vs Kelley Id. @561, 568 E.D Mich 1979
” It is within the court’s power to ensure that power is never condensed… into a single branch of government” Hamdi Vs Rumsfeld

“We must always be mindful that when the President takes official action, the court has authority to determine whether he has acted within the law”
Clinton Vs Jones
“It remains one of the most vital functions of this court to police with care the separation of the governing powers…”
Public Citizen Vs U.S Dept of Justice

U.S Vs U.S District Court ( the Keith case)… for lawful electronic surveillance even in domestic security matters, the 4th amendment requires a prior warrant.

U.S Vs Karo-”… a private residence is a place in which society recognizes an expression of privacy; the warrantless searches of such places are presumptively unreasonable…”

see also: Dombrowski v. Pfister, Zweibon ( bates v. City of little Rock.

Finally, Ex parte Milligan teaches that laws are for rulers and people, equally, in war and in peace.

Judge Anna Diggs is about the rule of law, civil liberties and true constitutionalism. She is the profile of courage, intellect and judicial competence. A portrait in dignity, wisdom and grace.

And finally, silence they say is the best answer for a fool. Period.

Comment by Egoigwe — August 21, 2006 @ 11:42 pm

18.

“Elevate your argument with factual evidence not ad hom vitriol.”

Yeah, Egoigwe, you moonbat, Bush hating, anti-Semite conspiracy theorist.

And I apologize for ever criticizing the state of Israel. They are without fault, and I should have known this. Those 750 Lebanese dead paid the just price for the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers.

George Bush is a well spoken American hero.

Comment by John — August 22, 2006 @ 7:56 am

19.

wow, this has been very entertaining. I am on pins and needles waiting for Gregg’s rebuttal to the cases cited above (of which I have no idea at all what they mean. I am too simple minded for legalese. Ask Kevin.)

This is going to be very good reading.

PS: I don’t have an opinion either way that I will share. I just love good discussions.

Comment by The Optimist — August 22, 2006 @ 5:06 pm

20.

Wow, this is simply amazing. The country has become so incredibly divided. I, for one, want to live and prosper, in relative safety.

Given that everyone wants to feel safe, I *REALLY* hope that no one exploits my desire to feel safe for their own goals.

Do you not realize that there are people that spend their entire careers studying the way to shape and mold phrases, images, and illustrations to literally *FORCE* a response from the audience..?

Imagine a room with 15 senior consultants with 20 years experience each. There are 300 years of knowledge and wisdom trying to get you to digest an advertisement..!

Only an advertisement? Why not a news story?
If I were crafting news, would I leave it up to amateurs, who might accidentally draw the wrong emotion from the reader/viewer?

No, I would control it, craft the news to bring forth the appropriate emotion, and use these tactics to achieve my goal.

Would you truly be so bold as to claim that there has never been a political motive behind news stories? Right or left, both have done it, depending on who’s in charge behind the scenes.

## A different note:
Did I really just hear someone say that 750 people dead is the ‘just price’ for 2 kidnappings? A *kidnapping*? They aren’t even dead..?
That is the EXACT type of thought process that leads to radical ethnic/religious vendettas. Look! You and the radical islamic/muslim have the same thoughts!

“My ______ belief is so strong I am willing to kill for it! Your ______ group hates my freedom and way of life so much that you want to kill all of us! My son/brother/father was killed by you and your _____ army!”
- Interchange the words ‘muslim’, ‘islam’, ‘jewish’, ‘american’, ‘christian’, ‘israeli’, etc as your grammar sees fit.

To blindly follow a leader because of political affiliation would be wasting our god given responsibility to question unjust use of authority.

## Another thought
If jesus lived today, wouldn’t you call him a ‘anti-semite liberal hippie’?

- He preached compassion, forgiveness, love. Yeah, that’s hippie.
- He ‘radically’ opposed the current religious leaders, who happened to be jewish. Yeah, that’s anti-semite.
- They were ultra orthadox, he was more … ‘liberal’?

Perhaps you will be more concerned with your civil liberties(like privacy, religion, free speech, etc) when they disappear, and you are completely helpless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Fascism

Comment by byte_off_more — August 23, 2006 @ 12:20 am

This article and commentaries were originally posted to this blog by Egoigwe on Saturday, October 28, 2006 under the header "One Grovelling Sycophant and his Discourse"