Thursday, March 16, 2006
Holy Elephant Ears, Batman!
I don't comprehend. If you haven't read my post "Political 'Heuvos'" yet, you should.
I don't get it.
Why isn't some Republican member of Congress standing on the floor of their respective House with a print out of this article and shouting down any and all Democratic adversaries of the President's NSA eavesdropping program?
Byron York, of the National Review, uses FISA court proceedings to shoot holes in every argument against the NSA program that exists!
Some interesting things in this article:
The FISA court, in it's entirety, has only met once in it's 28 year history. It met in 2002 to review the legality and the FISA court's jurisdiction in regards to the NSA program that is, now, such a political issue.
That meeting, in secret, as all FISA proceedings are supposed to be, was, basically, Congress taking the President to Court.
Our government has three branches, and three branches, only: the legislative (Congress), the executive (Presidential, and his Cabinet agencies), and the judicial (the Courts, in this case FISA, with the Supreme Court at the top of the ladder).
So, let me restate:
Congress took the President to the FISA Court to see if the FISA court had jurisdiction.
Quick sidenote:
This article made me laugh.
Let me tell you why.
Re-read that part about the court proceedings.
Congress (the government) took the President (the government) to Court (the government) is, basically, what I said ... and Mr. York writes.
So, what is Mr. York's conclusion from what happened?
(this is a straight "copy and paste".)
it was a slam-dunk win for the government.
I feel, almost, like a Pentecostal preacher ... can I have a "Duh"?
The government took the government to the government for a decision about the government, and Mr. York says that it was a "slam-dunk win for the government"?
You think, Einstein?
Your conclusion, genius, tells me nothing. Better yet, by itself, it says nothing.
Luckily, as I pointed out earlier, Mr. York has done some wonderful research into some real obscure stuff that blows any credible argument against the NSA surveillance program out of the water.
In fact, it takes every argument against the NSA surveillance program and turns it back on itself.
Remember when Senator Arlen Specter asked the Attorney General, earlier this year, to bring recommendations to Congress from the FISA court to make the NSA program legal, and that Congress would consider it? (I remember blogging that.)
In this court brief, the FISA court, itself, said that current law in 2002 needed no addition or subtraction to make the NSA program legal.
Not only that, but it was put before the Supreme Court, and they refused to review the case.
Keep in mind, that the Supreme Court, the highest Court in the land, the only experts on what is truly Constitutional (and therefore, legal), refused to spend their time on this, they were satisfied with the FISA court's (a lower court) ruling, one way or another.
I don't get it.
Why isn't some Republican member of Congress standing on the floor of their respective House with a print out of this article and shouting down any and all Democratic adversaries of the President's NSA eavesdropping program?
Byron York, of the National Review, uses FISA court proceedings to shoot holes in every argument against the NSA program that exists!
Some interesting things in this article:
The FISA court, in it's entirety, has only met once in it's 28 year history. It met in 2002 to review the legality and the FISA court's jurisdiction in regards to the NSA program that is, now, such a political issue.
That meeting, in secret, as all FISA proceedings are supposed to be, was, basically, Congress taking the President to Court.
Our government has three branches, and three branches, only: the legislative (Congress), the executive (Presidential, and his Cabinet agencies), and the judicial (the Courts, in this case FISA, with the Supreme Court at the top of the ladder).
So, let me restate:
Congress took the President to the FISA Court to see if the FISA court had jurisdiction.
Quick sidenote:
This article made me laugh.
Let me tell you why.
Re-read that part about the court proceedings.
Congress (the government) took the President (the government) to Court (the government) is, basically, what I said ... and Mr. York writes.
So, what is Mr. York's conclusion from what happened?
(this is a straight "copy and paste".)
it was a slam-dunk win for the government.
I feel, almost, like a Pentecostal preacher ... can I have a "Duh"?
The government took the government to the government for a decision about the government, and Mr. York says that it was a "slam-dunk win for the government"?
You think, Einstein?
Your conclusion, genius, tells me nothing. Better yet, by itself, it says nothing.
Luckily, as I pointed out earlier, Mr. York has done some wonderful research into some real obscure stuff that blows any credible argument against the NSA surveillance program out of the water.
In fact, it takes every argument against the NSA surveillance program and turns it back on itself.
Remember when Senator Arlen Specter asked the Attorney General, earlier this year, to bring recommendations to Congress from the FISA court to make the NSA program legal, and that Congress would consider it? (I remember blogging that.)
In this court brief, the FISA court, itself, said that current law in 2002 needed no addition or subtraction to make the NSA program legal.
Not only that, but it was put before the Supreme Court, and they refused to review the case.
Keep in mind, that the Supreme Court, the highest Court in the land, the only experts on what is truly Constitutional (and therefore, legal), refused to spend their time on this, they were satisfied with the FISA court's (a lower court) ruling, one way or another.
