<p>I see. Everyone who disagrees with you has a “political agenda.” No, I’m not a lawyer. I’m a person who pays lots of lawyers to handle my business affairs, though. And if I found that any of them had as much trouble reading the law as you, Calmom, I’d fire their #sses faster than you can say “Calmom.” No, I’m not a lawyer. John Hinderaker is, though, and you couldn’t possibly have evaluated his lengthy and well-researched article in the time that’s elapsed since I posted it. So, who are you–running away spewing insults–to be calling anyone a hack?</p>
<p>
For the law being so clear, there certainly seem to be a lot of lawyers who know a lot more about it than you and who do not have a political agenda who disagree with you. As far as having a political agenda, how does one who admits to being far left politically (which in California is saying a lot) and who throws around allegations of fascism claim purity on that issue?</p>
<p>Driver–not a lawyer, just a lowly writing and reading instructor, but it s eems to be that the statute clearly says that any US citizen or permanent resident is a “United States person”, thus excluded from the definition of “foreign power.” Like Calmom says, I don’t get what about that is not clear.</p>
<p>1801(b) contains two categories. Only the first one makes any exception for a “United States person.” The second (the one Bandit noted) does not. It is indeed just as clear as can be. </p>
<p>Has anyone gone through the Hinderaker analysis yet?</p>
<p>I would feel better about Hineraker’s analysis if he wasn’t a professional conservative. Or is it a professional republican? Whatever.</p>
<p>He’s a professional lawyer who happens to have a different point of view than yours, and who, much to his surprise, rode to the top of the brand-new blogosphere a year ago. Why hold that against him? Why not critique his analysis? If he’s just a conservative hack you should be able to make mincemeat of him. <a href=“http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012631.php[/url]”>http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012631.php</a></p>
<p>1) He’s biased.</p>
<p>2) The cases he cited don’t seem similar to Bush’s case.</p>
<p>3) Although I can’t stand Bush, I haven’t come to a conclusion. I would like to read more opinions from people who don’t have an axe to grind. Of course, that may be impossible. :)</p>
<p>that GW has gotten better at extemporaneous speeches. Although probably not truly impromptu, his delivery is getting better; Which with additional practice and performance will get better. GW should not fall into the trap of “practice makes perfect” but strive to make “perfect practice makes perfect.”</p>
<p>His speech writers and coaches should avoid cliches, especially political ones. Condi Rice used the “trust” word in Europe a couple of weeks ago, and when GW used the “trust” it appeared that he was following Rice’s lead. Not good.</p>
<p>“Trust Me” and its variations, was also part of a very popular book, typically found in the throne room. Mine was thrown out when my wife couldn’t find the proper paper for the reading materials. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.webcom.com/jrudolph/joke_3lies.html[/url]”>http://www.webcom.com/jrudolph/joke_3lies.html</a></p>
<p>He continues to dress well.</p>
<p>dstark, since I love ya, here’s a thoughtful piece by Cass Sunstein: <a href=“http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2005/12/presidential_wi_1.html#more[/url]”>http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2005/12/presidential_wi_1.html#more</a></p>
<p>It’s an interesting constitutional issue…too bad the New York Times dorks messed it up again. I repeat: there is no legitimate reason to read the NYT these days except for the arts and crossword puzzles.</p>
<p>Driver, I read it and I am not in a rush to form a judgment. I want to see how it plays out.</p>
<p>itstoomuch, great list.</p>
<p>Calmom, there is a #1 and a #2 in that section of the law. The #2 carries just as much wait as the #1, and it says “any person…”</p>
<p>Just advise your college kids to be very careful about what courses they sign up for or what books they check out from the library, especially if they happen to be attending college in Massachusetts. The Bush administrations’ definitions as to what activity constitutes a “threat” is very broad:
<a href=“http://insidehighered.com/news/2005/12/20/mao[/url]”>http://insidehighered.com/news/2005/12/20/mao</a></p>
<p>That’s one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever read…watch for it to appear at snopes.com before too long. Notice that the only source is a professor who cites an “anonymous” student. Absolutely no other corroboration (is it because of “the terror” or is it just really, really bad/gullible reporting?) I was reminded of the Claremont professor (now in prison) who faked an anti-semitic incident by vandalizing her own car, setting off a wave of “peace and tolerance” vigils. Leaving aside the obvious absurdity–why would HSA care about mao’s motheaten old maunderings?–you can read the Little Red Book anywhere, including Borders, Barnes and Noble, or even the Internet. I clicked the link below, and will keep you all posted as to what happens next. If I suddenly stop posting, you may assume that the NSA data-mining operation has identifified me and Bush-Hitler’s goons have carted me away. Although perhaps they’ll cut me some slack, since they must monitor CC, and would thus be aware that I’m one of the good guys?
<a href=“http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/[/url]”>http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/</a></p>
<p>Well, apparently Alberto Gonzales believes that the wiretapping most likely violates FISA, and has said so. They’re not basing their legal standing on that. So let’s move on.</p>
<p>
I dont know driver
be careful.
This was the unabriged version of Maos game-plan, wherein all the bits and pieces have not been blacked out by the covert ops deep in the bowels of #1 Observatory Circle (i.e. Adolf and Lynn Cheney). </p>
<p> actually I couldnt resist
and Im left wondering whether Howard Dean already knows about this site could be troubling propaganda in Baghdad.</p>
<p>This is a very interesting interview…two constitutional law professors with extensive experience in government; one conservative (Hugh Hewitt), one liberal (Cass Sunstein), having a non-contentious dialogue on the issues involved in the NSA surveillance case. I highly recommend it to anyone sincerely interested in understanding what it’s all about.
<a href=“http://www.radioblogger.com/#001248[/url]”>http://www.radioblogger.com/#001248</a></p>
<p>Great article. But, now I’m confused … I thought the law was clear on this and Bush was a fascist felon?</p>
<p>PS - I especially loved that the topic of the media coverage of this and how bad it is was brought up.</p>
<p>re: post 178
Funding Father for the first time, that I can recall, you thought right. Congratulations!</p>
<p>There was no good reason not to follow the law, I wonder how many congressmen had thier phones tapped?</p>