| |
|
This page contains all of the posts and discussion on MemeStreams referencing the following web page: Impeachment Nonsense. You can find discussions on MemeStreams as you surf the web, even if you aren't a MemeStreams member, using the Threads Bookmarklet.
|
Impeachment Nonsense
by Decius at 10:56 am EST, Dec 23, 2005 |
Administration critics, political and media, charge that by ordering surveillance on communications of suspected al Qaeda agents in the United States, the president clearly violated the law... It takes a superior mix of partisanship, animus and ignorance to say that. George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr finds "pretty decent arguments" on both sides, but his own conclusion is that Bush's actions were "probably constitutional."
!?@$#$!!??? Orin Kerr's exact words were "it seems that the program was probably constitutional but probably violated the federal law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act." What mix of partisanship, animus, and ignorance does it take to deliberately misrepresent that in an oped peice? Of course Krauthammer goes on to discuss FISA, but his position is that the law doesn't have force and Presidents obey it at their whim. He seems to think this conclusions is obvious and you'd have to be crazy to disagree, in spite of the extremely tenuous ground Kerr put that arguement on in the legal analysis Krauthammer references! |
| |
RE: Impeachment Nonsense
by Dagmar at 8:16 am EST, Dec 24, 2005 |
Decius wrote: Administration critics, political and media, charge that by ordering surveillance on communications of suspected al Qaeda agents in the United States, the president clearly violated the law... It takes a superior mix of partisanship, animus and ignorance to say that. George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr finds "pretty decent arguments" on both sides, but his own conclusion is that Bush's actions were "probably constitutional."
!?@$#$!!??? Orin Kerr's exact words were "it seems that the program was probably constitutional but probably violated the federal law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act." What mix of partisanship, animus, and ignorance does it take to deliberately misrepresent that in an oped peice? Of course Krauthammer goes on to discuss FISA, but his position is that the law doesn't have force and Presidents obey it at their whim. He seems to think this conclusions is obvious and you'd have to be crazy to disagree, in spite of the extremely tenuous ground Kerr put that arguement on in the legal analysis Krauthammer references!
Oh I think we'll see far more than this before things are over with. Quite a bit of questionable stuff has happened relating to Bush's "Open" Town Hall meetings where people who would normally have gotten in to ask pointed and uncomfortable questions were very carefully and forcefully screened out. Just *one* use of those "unlimited surveillance powers" to detetmine who was going to say unwelcome things at a Town Hall meeting would be the *utter end* of the Bush reign. |
|
Impeachment Nonsense
by k at 12:23 pm EST, Dec 23, 2005 |
Administration critics, political and media, charge that by ordering surveillance on communications of suspected al Qaeda agents in the United States, the president clearly violated the law... It takes a superior mix of partisanship, animus and ignorance to say that. George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr finds "pretty decent arguments" on both sides, but his own conclusion is that Bush's actions were "probably constitutional."
!?@$#$!!??? Orin Kerr's exact words were "it seems that the program was probably constitutional but probably violated the federal law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act." What mix of partisanship, animus, and ignorance does it take to deliberately misrepresent that in an oped peice? [ No way dude. Selective quotation is a time honored and completely legitimate way of eviscerating your opponents. HONESTY has nothing to do with winning, after all. -k] |
|
|
