Version: 2008

Comments on: Bush administration forced to turn over spying documents by Friday

Feds had claimed documents related to giving telecom companies retroactive immunity from spying-related lawsuits couldn't be ready until December 31, but a judge disagreed.

Add a Comment (Log in or register) (28 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
It Figures! Another Liberal Activist Judge Trying to Re-Write Laws
by WJeansonne November 28, 2007 3:27 PM PST
What a joke! Won't these terrorist hugging fools for judges go and try to save to some whales or something rather than interfere with the Bush Administration's attempt to thwart terrorism. It's totally disgusting and these creeps should be removed from office--ASAP! But fat chance in hell coming from San Francisco.
Reply to this comment
Quit living in fear, you neo-con(ned) fool!!!
by jimmyhoops November 28, 2007 3:37 PM PST
This is not a case of a judge trying to re-write the laws, it is a
case about finding justice with a White House that has sought to
immunize itself from the law and do what ever they please in the
name of national security. Well I have news for you. We are a
nation of laws and that law must be abided by, by everyone
including those in the oval office.

As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those willing to give up a little
liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty."

Quit living in fear, you neo-con(ned) fool! The fact of the matter
is that you are now living in a country that is LESS safe now then
it was before 911 but the difference now is that you have given
up your liberty for a false sense of security. To that, you
deserve neither!!!
View reply
*sigh*
by duerra November 28, 2007 3:56 PM PST
I wondered where my bottle of stupid pills went. Could you send them back, please?
View reply
couldn't have it more wrong
by Dalkorian November 28, 2007 4:51 PM PST
You have it totally backwards. The judge isn't trying to re-write
laws, she's trying to enforce them.

It's Bush who's trying to re-write the laws. Bush hates America
and all it stands for, so he's done everything he could to destroy
our great nation. Remember that he *KNEW* terrorists would
strike using commercial aircraft as weapons IN AUGUST 2001!
Why would he do this? $$$

I guess morons like you just won't accept the fact that the first
request the Bush administration made on a telecom to turn over
traffic records (Quest) happened almost a year BEFORE 9-11
HAPPENED!!

Bush has been trying to rewrite the laws so that his past actions
won't have been illegal. That's also why he insists on immunity
for the telecoms - both he and they knew they were breaking the
law.

At least you were right about one thing, these creeps should be
removed from office. You're just wrong about who those creeps
are.
View reply
Are you high?
by AgentSTS November 28, 2007 8:27 PM PST
If being 'safe' from future terrorism means that I have to give up my rights to privacy then I say let the bombs (or whatever) fall where they may. While I'm wholeheartedly against terrorists and quite frankly believe we should just nuke the area and let God sort it out, I'm not about to let a facist and deceitful administration trample to death 200 years of freedoms in a mere 8 years.

The senior administration has proven time and time again they are dishonest scum hellbent on world domination and American subjugation. To me, things have to make sense... eroding the very thing the administration claims to be fighting for all while making backroom deals and being caught with unclean hands in the name 'defeating terrorism' just doesn't.

You're a sheep. You're a lemming. You're thinking is defective.
View reply
Why is it..?
by Had_to_be_said November 28, 2007 11:54 PM PST
Im am trying to figure out, exactly, why...

...some of the people that post here appear to absolutely hate the U.S. Constitution, and virtually every basic American-right, so much.

One theory that might explain this, seriously, irrational-behavior is that they either, arent even Americans, or possibly, are simply well-under 18 (or both), and are therefore, simply immature "trolls", childishly trying to evoke the strongest-reactions that they can provoke. This would explain why they keep spewing the most cowardly, Anti-American, and utterly ridiculous RHETORIC (in defense of such criminal-actions). They actually are, intentionally, trying to be insanely-outlandish.

This would also explain why it is that they vomit hatred every single time there is even the slightest-hint that some powerful (and clearly corrupt/criminal) entity might be, in any way, held accountable for their-own actions (...when they are clearly shown to be violating the law, the U.S. Constitution, and/or the most fundamental-rights of others).

No one can take these posters seriously, because their tirades are complete nonsense to begin with... merely parodies of the actual issues.

However, in the end, I just wish that such posters (whether or not, they actually believe the unmitigated-crap that they keep coughing-up), could stop using the same-old standard, pedantic, and extremely-limited, vocabulary... of the very corrupt, totalitarian, and treasonous, propaganda-pushing CROOKS... that certain, well-known, posters keep defending... But, maybe, that is just asking too much.


Signed,

A Freedom-Loving, Constitution-Hugger.
View reply
why do you hate america
by deemzzzz November 29, 2007 1:25 AM PST
WJeansonne -
Why do you hate America and it's freedom so much?
I would be careful with this one - its people like you that hate our freedoms that perform terrorist attacks.
View reply
Yep, Appointed by Pre;sident Clinton
by markdoiron November 29, 2007 4:07 AM PST
Yep, it appears she was appointed by President Clinton. However, you'll have to explain something to me, please, WJeansonne: What law is she rewriting? It rather looks like she's simply trying to enforce the ones put into affect by congress, and signed into law by presidents prior to this one. I know, President Bush doesn't care for some of those laws--they get in the way of his idea of protecting America. But, those laws are there for good reason. Especially the ones in the constitution itself.

--mark d.
It Figures! Another Liberal Activist Judge Trying to Re-Write Laws
by Save_Me_from_my_Govt November 29, 2007 8:38 AM PST
If we didn't have a neocon Conservative Activist President who thinks that he is above the Constitution, we wouldn't need judges who BELIEVE in the Constitution's protections again "unwarranted search & seizures".

Thank heavens someone is finally saying ENOUGH!!!
Terroist hugging fools?
by awoody2 November 30, 2007 1:49 PM PST
wjeansonne: What you should be afraid of are all of the lies that Bush has saddled us with about terrorism. It was the same with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, all BS. If we would get our butts out of other people's countries and quit trying to jamb our form of govt down their throats, just maybe we could save a lot of money and American lives and let them run thier countries the way they have done for several thousand years.
View reply
Finally a little check on power
by deemzzzz November 29, 2007 1:20 AM PST
The Bush administration has had far too long with almost no checks on power. Thank you judiciary branch!

I know there are those who will say that if you are not a terrorist you should have nothing to hide. To those I would say that there are many reasons for keeping private data private until there is a subpoena.

To the nutjob with the first posting - why not have the FBI or NSA search through your house without a warrant or probable cause. These records are not for actual suspects but anyone that is in the extended social network of potential suspects. That why they can't get a subpoena. I'm sure you are somehow connected to a suspect a few degrees away (6 or 7? can't be too safe these days) so if you're not doing anything illegal you have nothing to hide.
Reply to this comment
I suppose we'll see
by suyts November 30, 2007 4:25 PM PST
about the breadth and width of the wire tapping but as I read the policy, it was confined to non-citizens' overseas phone conversations. If it was indeed only that, then fine, I don't have a problem with it. Please remember, we haven't had a repeat of 9/11 since. Do you think that it is true because a) the terrorists aren't that hateful anymore or b) we're really lucky c) the Bush administration has taken some extra-ordinary measures to keep us safe. or d) what ever it is that you imagine why we haven't had any re occurrences.
Who are these people anyway?
by tvstrategies November 29, 2007 1:35 PM PST
Who are these people that call patriots - such as the Judge, the EFF and the US (Democrat) congress - a bunch of liberal hacks?

Who hires these "conservative" flamethrowers to spew venom at the people who want to preserve the real America?

I can't imagine any of them thinking for themselves. They must be that 23% of people that can't be turned, once they make up their minds, fact or not.

I just don't get it
Reply to this comment
(28 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

15 sites that went kaput in 2009

Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.

Top 10 news stories of the decade

Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.

About Politics and Law

News at the intersection of technology, politics, and law, ranging from intellectual property to censorship to tech policy.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Politics and Law topics

advertisement
advertisement