American Bar Association smacks down BushCo

[Jesterhole]

OK, it's getting serious for BushCo now. The Bar Association isn't something they can dismiss or claim partisanship. Can't wait to hear the defense on this one. When an entire body made up of lawyers says it's against the law, you have no ground to stand on.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021406R.shtml

Chicago - The American Bar Association told President George W. Bush on Monday to either stop domestic eavesdropping without a warrant or get the law changed to make it legal.

Grecco told the group the issue is not whether the President can conduct surveillance but whether he can do it unilaterally.

The association's resolution calls on Bush "to abide by the limitations which the Constitution imposes on a President" to make sure national security is protected in a way that is consistent with constitutional guarantees.

It opposes "any future electronic surveillance inside the United States by any US government agency for foreign intelligence purposes that does not comply with provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."

If Bush believes that law is inadequate, then he should ask Congress to change it or enact new legislation, it added.

The resolution also called on the US Congress to affirm that the post September 11 law on the authorization of military force did not give the White House an exemption from the requirements of the 1978 law.

[Spider]

well since Cheney shot Wittington , it is safe to say Cheney is pro gun anti lawyer ........

[Pendejo]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

well since Cheney shot Wittington , it is safe to say Cheney is pro gun anti lawyer ........

HAHAHAHA!!!!!

[baja]

"Either you are with us or you are against us'

looks like the lawyers are out, huh Dick.

[Spider]

the new Cheney color code alert system in Action

[SoCalBronco]

Originally Posted by Jesterhole

OK, it's getting serious for BushCo now. The Bar Association isn't something they can dismiss or claim partisanship. .

Your joking, right?

Im not going to comment on the merits of what they are saying, because I dont know enough about it either way, but the statement above re: "The ABA isnt partisan" is a joke.

[loborugger]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

the new Cheney color code alert system in Action

Whats that old Aerosmith tune...

Cheney's got a gun.
The whole things come undone
What will Dubya do?
His VP is shooting up laws (and lawyers) too.

Ok, enough of that.

If the dude was a friend of Cheney's, Dick must feel awful. Imagine shooting your friend and putting him in hospital. I think I would rather put my live's fortune on 'black' at the roulette wheel and lose it than give a friend a heart attack.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by loborugger

Whats that old Aerosmith tune...

Cheney's got a gun.
The whole things come undone
What will Dubya do?
His VP is shooting up laws (and lawyers) too.

Ok, enough of that.

........

If the dude was a friend of Cheney's, Dick must feel awful. Imagine shooting your friend and putting him in hospital. I think I would rather put my live's fortune on 'black' at the roulette wheel and lose it than give a friend a heart attack.

I would think so .........

[Spider]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

The ABA isnt partisan" is a joke.

Not as funny as the ones I tell though

[Antilles]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

"The ABA isnt partisan" is a joke.

The ABA is most assuredly partisan, but the actual task force that the ABA assembled to look at the constitutionality of the wire-taps looks pretty bi-partisan to me. Only a couple of nut-jobs that I know about.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Antilles

The ABA is most assuredly partisan, but the actual task force that the ABA assembled to look at the constitutionality of the wire-taps looks pretty by-partisan to me. Only a couple of nut-jobs that I know about.

I don't see anything "partisan" about finding what Bush is doing is sh*tting on the constitution and breaking our laws.
Who would know better?

[Play2win]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

I don't see anything "partisan" about finding what Bush is doing is sh*tting on the constitution and breaking our laws.
Who would know better?

Basically BUSH is ****TING on the Constitution, and telling us to wipe our CLEAN ASSES with it...

[Antilles]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

I don't see anything "partisan" about finding what Bush is doing is sh*tting on the constitution and breaking our laws.
Who would know better?

Agreed, although I think SoCal's point is that, as an organization, the ABA is left-leaning. IMO, he is correct. My only point was that the actual task force created by the ABA to examine the consitution sh*tting looks to me to be politically "fair and balenced," at least based on what I know about the names I recognize.

[Rohirrim]

If you've got half a brain you don't need a lawyer to figure this one out. All you have to do is read the 4th amendment. Anybody who reads that and believes there's a right to any kind of warrantless search anywhere in America is either a fool, an idiot or a Republican.

[baja]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

If you've got half a brain you don't need a lawyer to figure this one out. All you have to do is read the 4th amendment. Anybody who reads that and believes there's a right to any kind of warrantless search anywhere in America is either a fool, an idiot or a Republican.

Most Repubs I know are fairly sharp people they are also not talking politics there days. The shear volume of information about the Bush administration that is coming to light almost daily now has them wondering what to do. Joining the democratic party is not an option so they are stuck for answers which is good for the country. There may be a way out of this mess yet.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

If you've got half a brain you don't need a lawyer to figure this one out. All you have to do is read the 4th amendment. Anybody who reads that and believes there's a right to any kind of warrantless search anywhere in America is either a fool, an idiot or a Republican.

Quoted for truth.

[SoCalBronco]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

If you've got half a brain you don't need a lawyer to figure this one out. All you have to do is read the 4th amendment. Anybody who reads that and believes there's a right to any kind of warrantless search anywhere in America is either a fool, an idiot or a Republican.

Actually you need to do FAR MORE than simply read the 4th amendment. That provides virtually no ground on which to base anything. There are at least six well recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement that exist in every single JDX in America. To say that every warrantless search violates the Constitution is absurd and factually incorrect.

In addition, not every "search" is an unreasonable one. The standard is whether the complaining party had a reasonable expectation of privacy. One category of activities for example that has been recognized by all JDX's as one where no one can reasonably expect privacy is when you hold something out to the public. For example, the sound of your voice in a public setting, the paint on the outside of your car, the smell of your luggage, your account records held by a bank, your car's movement on public roads and arrial at a private residence have all been held to be situations where you are holding something out to the public and therefore any surveillance or detection done by the government is not even an unreasonable search, thereby ending the issue before we even get to the second step of whether there was a valid warrant and if not whether the situation falls within an exception to the warrant requirement.

Whether what Bush did violates the basic rules of constitutional search and seizure jurisprudence is one thing (or whether he violated any specific anti-surveillance statute), but something that isnt in dispute is the issue of whether all searches require a warrant.

They dont.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

Actually you need to do FAR MORE than simply read the 4th amendment. That provides virtually no ground on which to base anything. There are at least six well recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement that exist in every single JDX in America. To say that every warrantless search violates the Constitution is absurd and factually incorrect.

In addition, not every "search" is an unreasonable one. The standard is whether the complaining party had a reasonable expectation of privacy. One category of activities for example that has been recognized by all JDX's as one where no one can reasonably expect privacy is when you hold something out to the public. For example, the sound of your voice in a public setting, the paint on the outside of your car, the smell of your luggage, your account records held by a bank, your car's movement on public roads and arrial at a private residence have all been held to be situations where you are holding something out to the public and therefore any surveillance or detection done by the government is not even an unreasonable search, thereby ending the issue before we even get to the second step of whether there was a valid warrant and if not whether the situation falls within an exception to the warrant requirement.

Whether what Bush did violates the basic rules of constitutional search and seizure jurisprudence is one thing (or whether he violated any specific anti-surveillance statute), but something that isnt in dispute is the issue of whether all searches require a warrant.

They dont.

All legal, double speak aside, it's obvious King George believes he's above the law.

[baja]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

All legal, double speak aside, it's obvious King George believes he's above the law.

He answers to a voice not of this earth

[Antilles]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

Actually you need to do FAR MORE than simply read the 4th amendment. That provides virtually no ground on which to base anything. There are at least six well recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement that exist in every single JDX in America. To say that every warrantless search violates the Constitution is absurd and factually incorrect.

My favorite is the automobile exception. That one cracks me up every time. "You made an illegal left and your responses are suspicious... pop the trunk son."

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

Actually you need to do FAR MORE than simply read the 4th amendment. That provides virtually no ground on which to base anything.

Spoken like Alberto Gonzales. Other than him, I think most Americans would assume their phone conversations are private communications.

[Antilles]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I think most Americans would assume their phone conversations are private communications.

Only because most private phone calls don't fall within the scope of the established exceptions to the warrant requirement. The domestic spying program may, depending upon the circumstances. Of course, we really aren't given enough details about the program to know, and I am aware of no exception that allows the Government to circumvent the warrant requirement entirely. Under all the well established exceptions, eventually the search must be subjected to judicial rewiew. That's where Bush is at best, skirting the law.

Still, your 4th Amendment rights, at least as they existed under the Rehnquist Court (and Roberts Court I imagine), are a lot less absolute than one might think.