LOG OFF AND CRACK THE BOOKS, YOUNGSTER.

Arresting someone isn’t “arbiting a crime,” as you phrased. Law enforcement officers don’t have the power to decide guilt or innocence. At the same time, law enforcement officers can’t just enter my house without probable cause. If they make a determination of probable cause on the spot — they here gunshots coming from my home — that determination still has to be approved by a jugde retroactively. If a judge determines that probable cause was not warranted then any evidence discovered as a result of the officer’s decision is inadmissable. Again, it’s called checks and balances.

“When the law enforcement agency arrests you for probable cause, then the judge sees you& get it?”

Not in cases of electronic surrveilance which is the issue here you idiot. You need probably cause BEFORE you get a search warrant and a wiretap, probable cause which only a judge can give. If you wiretap someone without a judge’s expressed authorization any evidence obtained by through that wiretap is inadmissable in a court of law.

“The Constitution gives the president very broad powers in times of war. Further, intelligence from enemy combatants doesn t fall under ANY sort of Constitutional protection.”

The Constitution does not give the President unlimited powers and it certainly doesn’t give the President the power to make laws or skirt the law even if we are at war. If the person in question is a US citizen they are entitled to all the same Constitutional protections as you or I.

Are you for real? Is this a joke?

“a person or agency having the power of deciding”

When was the last time a judge came to your house and arrested you? Ok, how about the FBI?

When the law enforcement agency arrests you for probable cause, then the judge sees you…get it?

The Constitution gives the president very broad powers in times of war. Further, intelligence from enemy combatants doesn’t fall under ANY sort of Constitutional protection.

You wrote this: “Luckily the press is not the arbiter of crimes& .the Justice Department is.”

The Justice Department is not an arbiter of crimes. Here’s a definition of arbiter:

1 : a person with power to decide a dispute : JUDGE
2 : a person or agency having the power of deciding

No one in the Justice Department can decide whether someone is guilty of a crime. It’s lawyers bring charges but a judge and/or jury decide whether the charges are a) valid b) true.

Then you wrote this: “They [the justice dcepartment] will make functional decisions regarding what they believe is constitutional.”

Wrong again. Do you know that we have three branches of government and that each one does different things? Since it looks like you don’t, here’s a crash course:

Congress makes the laws.
The Judicial branch interprets them.
The executive branch carries out the laws

The Justice department has no power to determine which laws are constitutional and which aren’t. It’s lawyers may advise the president about the Constitutionality of a law but only the judicial branch can make the binding interpretation of the law’s Constitutionality. The attorney general has no power whatsoever to overturn a law based on its constitutionality. Period.

Another example of how little you know about the Constitution and our system of government is this statement: “It is about actionable intelligence regarding our countries security involving foreign terrorists.”

No it isn’t. It’s about who gets to determine what probable cause exists to warrant spying on an American citizen. Not one of the agencies or officials mentioned by Bush in his radio speech as having reviewed the secret spying operation have the legal authority to determine and act on probable cause when it comes to eletronic surrveilance of US citizens, not NSA agents or officers, not justice department lawyers, not Congressmen, White House lawyers or anyone else beyond an FISC judge. Only a judge can determine whether the intelligence on hand provides probable cause under FISA. No one else. When the president decided that NSA agents could decide probable cause for themselves he crossed over the separation of powers and violated the Constitution.

You just have no idea what you’re talking about.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007800.php#more

I do have something invested in the idea of “innocent until proven guilty”.

If this story was about the cell phones of anti-war activists being hacked and then their phones being tapped by the NSA, I would be right there with you. But it isn’t. It is about actionable intelligence regarding our countries security involving foreign terrorists.

For the record I didn’t pile onto Bubba’s BJ lie until he was impeached and then disbarred. I was one of the first to say he should have told the independent council to mind his own business when it came to affairs of his Willy.

That’s the difference….impeached and convicted of perjury and disbarred vs a bunch of malcontent leftists screaming about all sorts of stuff, making statements without evidence and then expecting everyone to get in lock-step right behind them.

The irony is delicious, thank you.

Barbaria Illuminati? ’nuff said.

So let me get this straight, the Justice Department is nothing but a patsy for the evil Bush-Rove machine?

No, you retard, they are co-conspirators. Christ on a stick, man, you are dense.

Their enablers are desperate in much the same way. They, along with their role models, cannot be seen by History as so completely wrong on so many levels, and therefore justify behaviors they would quickly condemn in others. They will trample on any ‘fine line’ that impedes their objectve; winning at all costs.

Truly, they cannot afford to lose. And that makes them potentially dangerous

The Administration views the domestic political struggle as synonymous with their war of choice. We can t afford to lose (codeword for winning no matter who or what is sacrificed)

Yes, I am questioning your character and integrity you gutless weasels.

JK

Their problem is they have so much invested in AWOL George, they can’t turn back. I suspect a few of them understand how bad this criminality is; I honestly believe some of them really find it hard to type excuses such as ‘we’re not as bad as the Soviet Union’ and the like.

But they can’t find the moral strength to cut that tie–to admit they were wrong.

Not only have they defended AWOL George and his rampant criminality, corruption, and incompetence but they’ve made a mockery about what conservatism professes to be about.

I’ve never been through a 12-step program but I understand the first step is admitting you have a problem. I’d imagine for anyone who has an addiction problem, this is a daunting step. There’s a lot of pride that has to be swallowed. For most addicts, however, the number of people who know about the problem is relatively small. For our AWOL George cultists, however, their addiction is out there for everyone to see. And unlike the addict, the AWOL George cultists are very likely to have their problem thrown at them in mean-spirited ways.