On CHOW: This beer is perfect
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 4 of 12:
Next »
« Previous
What is less amusing is your...
...chronic need to defend the indefensible.

((( "Your opinion aside, I believe that responsibility resides with
the Supreme Court." )))

The Supreme Court has spoken. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the
high court found that neither the Authorization for Use of
Military Force passed in the wake of 9/11 nor the inherent
powers of the Commander-in-Chief can be used to justify
circumventing existing law. In the Hamdan case, the existing law
was the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but the precedent
applies equally to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

The Bush Administration broke the law -- it's as simple as that.
As a secondary argument, consider the fact that the rubber-
stamp Republican Congress is busy trying to change the FISA law
to accommodate the Administration's desire to wiretap
Americans without a warrant or judicial oversight. If Bush didn't
break the law, what would be the purpose of changing the
existing law?
Posted by: buddhistMonkey   Posted on: 07/18/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Repeat after me...  Cardinal_Bill | 07/18/06
I find the lack of outrage over this highly amusing...  Confused by religion | 07/18/06
What is more amusing is your ...  ShadeTree | 07/18/06
What is less amusing is your...  buddhistMonkey | 07/18/06
Hamdan versus Rumsfield has ...  ShadeTree | 07/19/06
president's precedent  buddhistMonkey | 07/19/06
Its called privacy  csa0307 | 07/19/06
Prove it wise guy!  ShadeTree | 07/19/06
Whistle-Blower Outs NSA Spy Room  Nigel Johnstone | 07/19/06
hmm but  angst22 | 07/19/06
That 's what the spin machine says  skeptic tank | 07/18/06
What's happening in Mexico?  Nigel Johnstone | 07/19/06

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement