Hmm. It looks like the Discovery Institute’s efforts to overthrow the scientific method and “replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions” took a couple of steps backwards yesterday, when a federal judge ruled that it is unconstitutional to teach so-called “Intelligent Design” in public schools as science, calling it “creationism in disguise.”
“U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
The ruling was a major setback to the intelligent design movement, which is also waging battles in Georgia and Kansas. Intelligent design holds that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by some kind of higher force.
Jones decried the “breathtaking inanity” of the Dover policy and accused several board members of lying to conceal their true motive, which he said was to promote religion.
…
“We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom,” he wrote in his 139-page opinion. […] “It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.”
Here’s a copy of the judge’s 139-page ruling (PDF) for all those interested, but at first glance it looks to be an overwhelming defeat for ID. The following passage is getting particular play in the media, and for good reason:
The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from “creation” to “intelligent design” occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court’s important Edwards decision. This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs’ assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled.
The Discovery Institute has issued a scathing press release attacking Jones as an “activist federal judge,” but then, isn’t that the right’s usual response to losing a court case… attacking the judge? (Especially Republican, church-going judges like Jones?) The fact is, religious activists are getting ahead of Discovery’s marketing plan, and that’s beginning to hurt their cause.
I’ll say it again: Any student coming from a biology studies course polluted by ID can pretty much kiss any serious consideration by a legitimate med school good-bye.
Don’t forget to flush after each act of intelligent design.
Sunday’s Doonesbury strip also took a dig at creationism/intelligent design.
1
Any nation that even seriously considers ID to be a subject worthy of classroom study has little real interest in education.
From the Discovery Institute press release:
“In the larger debate over intelligent design, this decision will be of minor significance,” added Discovery Institute attorney Casey Luskin. “As we’ve repeatedly stressed, the ultimate validity of intelligent will be determined not by the courts but by the scientific evidence pointing to design.”
…but, but, but, the Institute spends all its resources on propaganda, and does not one iota of scientific investigation. There are no labs, no journal articles, not even a theory, but yes, they do have attorneys. There is no “scientific evidence” pointing to design. For a good read on the trial see “Darwin in the Dock” in the Dec. 5, 2005, New Yorker magazine.
5
Discovery Institute doesn’t need scientists, because ID isn’t a scientific theory. It’s a legal theory invented by lawyers to get around the constitutional separation of church and state.
If the Christian Taliban get their way with intelligent design, they’ll soon be burning scientists at the stake for saying the earth revolves around the sun, instead of the other way around. They want to live in the 14th century.
“Judge Resigns From Secret Court Over Spying
“WASHINGTON (Dec. 21) – A federal judge resigned from a special court to protest President Bush’s secret authorization of a warrantless domestic spying program, The Washington Post reported Wednesday.
The action by U.S. District Judge James Robertson stemmed from deep concern that the surveillance program that Bush authorized was legally questionable and may have tainted the work of the court that Robertson resigned from, the newspaper said.
…
Quoting colleagues of Robertson, the Post said the judge had indicated he was concerned that information gained from the warrantless surveillance under Bush’s program could have then been used to obtain warrants under the FISA program.
…
It is kind of amazing that there are still Federal judges who look out for the Constitution and law, what with the number of appointees the Reagan and Bush Royal Family got on the courts, don’t you think?
Maybe the judiciary is more resistant to ideology than I thought.
Even Republican judges know a tyrant when they see one.
Even Republican senators are getting nervous about the nutjob running our country:
“Republicans said Congress must investigate whether Bush was within the law to allow the super-secret National Security Agency to eavesdrop – without warrants – on international calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the United States with suspected ties to al-Qaida.
“‘I believe the Congress – as a coequal branch of government – must immediately and expeditiously review the use of this practice,’ said Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. Snowe joined three other members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, including Nebraska Republican Chuck Hagel, in calling for a joint inquiry by the Senate judiciary and intelligence committees.”
(From an Associated Press story) http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/new.....0009990003
ID will invariably make its way to the Supreme Court. How do you think that will turn out, particularly if Alito is confirmed? Judging from a new opinion poll, Dems don’t seem to be getting their message out about Alito’s extremism.
You gotta love it. The extreme righties keep getting their ass kicked! Maybe there is hope for this country after all! My favorite part of the judge’s decision comes where he points out that these so-called “Christians” constantly lied about their program in order to promote religion. ONLY in the sick, cowardly, twisted world of a republican could that even begin to make sense.
Anyway, hoooray for the good guys! We won ANOTHER one. Take that you right wing inbred scum! You’ll have to teach your inbred children about God on your own time. Right between pig-fucking and banjo lessons!
That’s “mule fucking” according to that Senator. Or was it a preacher? But even A liberal like me can believe they be so depraved as to make kids play the banjo.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (“Act”) (50 U.S.C. 1801,
et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for
the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.
Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney
General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain
orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign
intelligence information.
Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or
defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section
303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical
searches:
(a) Secretary of State;
(b) Secretary of Defense;
(c) Director of Central Intelligence;
(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;
(e) Deputy Secretary of State;
(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and
(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.
None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications,
unless that official has been appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 9, 1995.
By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and
104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act (this
chapter) for the authorization of electronic surveillance for
foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General
is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order, but only if the
Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
1-102. Pursuant to Section 102(b) of the Foreign Intelligence Act
of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(b)), the Attorney General is authorized to
approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under Section
103 of that Act (50 U.S.C. 1803) to obtain orders for electronic
surveillance for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence
information.
1-103. Pursuant to Section 104(a)(7) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)), the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national
security or defense, is designated to make the certifications
required by Section 104(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications
to conduct electronic surveillance:
(a) Secretary of State.
(b) Secretary of Defense.
(c) Director of Central Intelligence.
(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(e) Deputy Secretary of State.
(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense.
(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.
None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above
certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
1-104. Section 2-202 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under
section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at
the end of that section: ”Any electronic surveillance, as defined
in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be
conducted in accordance with that Act as well as this Order.”.
1-105. Section 2-203 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under
section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at
the end of that section: ”Any monitoring which constitutes
electronic surveillance as defined in the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be conducted in accordance with that
Act as well as this Order.”.
Jimmy Carter.
and the Discovery Institute receives donations from…..Bill Gates
ID should definitely be taught in a classroom, just the same as all of the other moonbat feel good classes that are taught. It isn’t science based so it be taught in a biology class. It is a philosophy subject, along with all of the other religions in the world. The school board that did this was all voted out of office, so the board that sat in the courtroom didn’t have anything to do with this court case other than they are responsible for it.
18
I edited something out and now my post says should be taught in biology – that should be: “shouldn’t be taught in a biology class because it isn’t science based.”
I love the Discovery Intitute’s canned response about the activist judge. Judge Jones was a George W. appointee.
But what’s with all the copyright symbols every time the judge tries to parenthetically cite testimony by a witness with the first initial C? I think That’s intelligent design!
Who designed the intelligent designer? This is not a sophistry, but is a serious objection to intelligent design. I have Bertrand Russell, J.S. Mill and Thomas Hobbes quotes to back me up. Plus, there’s me . I am still holding out and the gin-soaked tears and love of Big Brother are just another Republican myth!
Liberals, pay attention for a minute and think about this. Say
you are walking down the street with your 5 year old daughter and
she loosens the grip on your hand and darts out into the street
only to be hit by a car. She is trapped under the car, head split open with gray matter poking out but still moaning and
slightly moving. All of a sudden you would automatically
be praying to GOD like a mother fucker and you know I am right.
Go over this in your mind a few times.
I pray to god like a mother fucker that Jerry Falwell, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson die of AIDS!
For Michael: Odd how poorly the reading comprehension of the wingnuts has become…
Found at KOS
Link in follow post so as not to annoy the filter.
CLINTON DID NOT ORDER WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
Here’s what Clinton signed:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand that Clinton allowed warrantless searches if and only if the AG followed section 302(a)(1). What does section 1822(a) require?
the “physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers.” Translation: You can’t search American citizens.
and there is “no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” Translation: You can’t search American citizens.
Moreover, Clinton’s warrant waiver consistent with FISA refers only to physical searches. “Physical searches,” as defined by 1821(5), exclude electronic surveillance.
CARTER DID NOT AUTHORIZE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
And now, Carter’s turn:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
Here, Carter refers to “electronic surveillance,” rather than “physical searches” like Clinton. But again, Carter limits the warrantless surveillance to the requirements of Section 1802(a). That section requires:
the electronic surveillance is solely directed at communications exclusively between or among foreign powers. Translation: You can’t spy on American citizens.
there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party. Translation: You can’t spy on American citizens.
Section 1803(a)(2) requires that the Attorney General report to Congress (specifically, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees) about whether any American citizens were involved, what minimization procedures were undertaken to avoid it and protect their identities, and whether his actions comply with the law. Hot damn, that sounds like a check and balance to me!
BUSH’S ORDER IS UNPRECEDENTED AND ILLEGAL
In stark contrast to the Clinton/Carter orders, Bush’s order marks the first time that an American President has unilaterally turned our nation’s massive spying apparatus against its own citizens. Unlike the Carter order, Bush has not followed the check-and-balance requirements of FISA. And unlike Clinton, his order allows the government to spy on communications of ordinary Americans. We learn this morning that Bush’s haphazard approach of “screw the law and the spy at will” has resulted in the interception of purely domestic communications. We also learn that Judge Robertson, who is one of only 11 judges appointed to the secret FISA court, has resigned in protest of Bush’s policy. Republicans are calling for inquires into the matter. This is a grave matter. Do not let the apologists on the right use illogic and outright lies to defend the violation of our constitutional rights.
As this investigation proceeds, defenders of the President will grow more and more shrill. They’ll hiss, they’ll attack, they’ll fight like a wounded and dying animal to protect their Dear Leader. But the law doesn’t lie: Bush’s order is unprecedented. And no amount of spinning can change that fact.
link to KOS debunk
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/21/8157/6595
People who are rational, 1
People who govern by examining goat entrails, 0
Don’t Willie Horton us, Mom. Nobody’s saying god doesn’t exist here. Just that judges who know their business understand the establishment clause better than disingenuous evangelical school board memebrs do.
By the way, Mom, how exactly does a mother fucker pray? You’ve got me all confused.
p.s. god doesn’t exist.
Speaking in my science mode (as oppose to my political one), the
Scientific Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)has a precise system to determine if any new kowledge is worth further investigation. It has served us well these past 300 years, and has allowed us to further improve the humen condition thru advanced technology, while rejecting quackery.
The Discovery Institute, Thomas Moore Center, and other similar organizations want the schools to acknowledge a set of ideas that has been rejected by the mainstream scientific community. Since the nonsence that is intelligent design can not stand by its own under strict scientific scrutiny, the TDI and TMC are now using the courts force this idea down the throats of Acedemia. This is wrong.
Science is not a Democracy, and is not political. Resources are limited. If your ideas do not past the tests, go back and redo the assignment.
Why does ‘Mom’ justify AID by linking it to God? I thought ID was non-religeous?
Alas, ID is now unvailed as what it is; warmed over creationism.
not AID, ID
She lived by the way, thank ID!
Nope – thank the doctors who learned real science in high school, college and med school.
Mom re prayer. Perhaps I missed something. What part of believing in God requires the total shutdown of the brain? I must have missed that part in Sunday school.
“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.”
— George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
“There is a reason that churches want your children, and it’s not because they’ve already fully developed their reasoning skills.”
— Michael Wong
We’ve arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.
— Carl Sagan
I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudo-science and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us — then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls.
— Carl Sagan
“She is trapped under the car, head split open with gray matter poking out but still moaning and
slightly moving. All of a sudden you would automatically
be praying to GOD like a mother fucker and you know I am right.”
The first thing I’d do is go get some help, not pray to a diety that may or may not exist and hope that a miracle happens.
This one is on topic…
Some say being thoughtful is old fashioned. If so then I guess I’m just a caveman, if they existed – which they didn’t!
— Ned Flanders
I posted this in another HA comment thread where it was off-topic. Since it’s on topic for this posting, here you go:
— START QUOTE —
WASHINGTON – Conservative Christian televangelist Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting “intelligent design” and warned them Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.
— END QUOTE —–
Pat Robertson’s reaction tells you everything you need to know: ID is nothing but thinly disguised creationism.
Aha,
proof you lefties really are pretty anti-religious…
righton @ 39
I don’t see your point at all. Those Christians who feel that science must be rejected because of the limitations of their own faith need to do some praying that their faith will become stronger. I’m a liberal because I’m a Christian. I have always had a great deal of difficulty understanding how some can express the commandment to take care of others through a right wing political agenda.
Michael – You’re right; Clinton followed FISA to the letter. Too bad about Bush. The hearings should be fun. And wait ’til Abramoff strts to sing!
As for ID, the New Yorker had a great article on the trial that showed how badly it went for the ID guys. Basically, the judge (a Bush appointee) brought in people from both sides to really go over what is and isn’t science. They had Michael Behe on the stand and the plaintiff’s attorney forced him to admit (a) that a definition of science that could include ID would also necessarily include astrology, and (b) that he could not name a single peer-reviewed study supporting any facet of ID. It was wonderful and good reading. The verdict does not surprise me.
18
Why should ID be taught in a philosophy class? It isn’t philosophy. It’s a legal strategy. If it’s taught anywhere, it should be taught in political science class, under the topic heading “contemporary examples of cynical Machiavellian ploys.”
21
“Who designed the intelligent designer?”
Oh, that’s easy! God simply reached into Her belly button and pulled Herself out! Pop! Just like that! Furthermore, She is a great big warm fuzzy Bunny.
44
I can’t empirically prove this, of course, but there are some things you just have to take on faith.
22
“you would automatically be praying to GOD like a mother fucker”
No, only Republicans pray to God like mother fuckers. The rest of us simply pray to God.
34, 35
I hear drums beating. I see shadows dancing around the fire. They have come.
@43
That sounds good too, as long as it isn’t taught in a science class.
roger and mom, actually I would be praying to Gaia.
roger, the word your looking for with the phrase ‘cynical Machiavellian ploys’ is realpolitik and it does belongs in a polisci class. However, a discussion of creationism belongs in a religion, philosopy, or ethics of philosophy class.
BTW, happy Yule, y’all.
@42 Michael – You’re right; Clinton followed FISA to the letter.
I assume that you are referring to the thinkprogress etc. postings that are saying things like “The Clinton administration program, code-named Echelon, complied with FISA. Before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a FISA warrant was obtained.”
There are a couple of problems with your argument. Aldrich Aimes was not snared by Echelon. The government had surveilance and wiretaps on him that had nothing to do with Echelon. So your claim that because FISA signed off on Echelon, Clinton must not have been doing illegal wiretaps is a red herring.
The second problem is this: you must have no clue how Echelon works. Echelon is basically a system of data mining. You make it sound like 1) Government has probable cause 2) Government gets a warrant 3) Government sics Echelon on suspected target. It really doesn’t work like that at all. Echelon doesn’t “target” anyone, or conversely you could say that it targets everyone. Echelon could read any email it wants. It could read your email. And it wouldn’t care if it had a warrant or not, before or after.
Michael,
Now you’re arguing something different from what you originally claimed. Both the Clinton and Carter Executive orders you posted cite specific sections of law that both authorize and circumscribe their actions. In neither case does the law in question authorize search against US citizens without probable cause and usually only those who can be shown to be agents of a foreign power.`
This is off Drudge’s site, right? well, here’s another ,a href=”http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/”>citation on the subject.
So, just to inform you, Aldrich Aimes WAS acting as a agent for a foreign government. Therefore FISA authorized search and interecpt against him.
So, dude: Echelon was international, not domestic. Domestic communications were not monitored. This (Bush’s little program) is a felony under FISA. Get it?
`
Here’s another source on Echelon and FISA. I have not yet looked up tenet’s comments directly:
Before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a FISA warrant was obtained. CIA director George Tenet testified to this before Congress on 4/12/00:
I’m here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the National Security Agency…
There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department.
My emphasis in the quote.
Gee, I should have made this one bold:
We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law.
But regardless, if Echelon intercepts domestic communications without warrant, it must be shut down. Would you agree?
So, just to inform you, Aldrich Aimes WAS acting as a agent for a foreign government. Therefore FISA authorized search and interecpt against him.
I didn’t say FISA didn’t authorize it. I would suspect that they did not, but I need to research that some more. However, it had nothing to do with Echelon, so don’t refer me to a site like thinkprogress.org that claims that since FISA signed off on Echelon, then Clinton broke no laws. The Aimes case had nothing to do with Echelon. You are talking apples and oranges.
Also, were the Japanese auto makers that Clinton had the CIA spy on agents for foreign governments? Did FISA authorize that?
My point about Ames is that he was an agent of a foreign government, and therefore FISA warrants would be easily available. If you have information about warratnless search in his case, please present it.
But the case we have before us is not Bill tell me:
1) You seem to think that warrantless searches against US citizens is bad. Do you?
2. Bush has admitted to ordering such searches when US laws forbids it. Do you consider him liable?
Stop trying to change the subject to the Clenis.
Thanks to a warrant authorized by Attorney General Janet Reno, a team of agents from the sprawling National Security Division had permission to enter the Ames home in Arlington, Va. There was only one minor problem. The attorney general of the United States does not have the authority to order a warrantless physical search of a citizen’s home, argued Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University National Law Center.
http://mediafilter.org/caq/Caq53.court.html
(I stipulate that mediafilter.org is not an unbiased source, however, they aren’t exactly sympathetic to Bush or the conservative cause).
In February 1994, CIA employee Aldrich Ames was arrested on various espionage charges. The FBI pursued an investigation regarding Ames that involved several certifications to the FISA Court that the purpose of electronic surveillance was for intelligence purposes.
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/0506/chapter2.htm
(A Review of the FBI’s Handling of Intelligence Information Prior to the September 11 Attacks
Special Report
November 2004 (Released Publicly June 2005)
Office of the Inspector General)
No warrants, only certifications from the FBI to the FISA court claiming that their wiretaps etc. were for intelligence purposes. This is the same process that Bush was using.
mom @ 22:
If your daughter hasn’t been taught street smarts by the age of 5, I see it as natural selection in action. Good riddance!
(hint: Take your kids to China and Italy on a regular basis. It’s not much more expensive than a week in Disneyland and keeps them from growing up like “mom”. When they hear a car or a motorcycle, they run towards the wall of the alley. That’s what you do if you don’t wanna wind up in a hospital. Mine learned to do this at the age of 2. Being in parking lots isn’t scary at all ‘cos they’re impeccably trained!).
More importantly…
If you actually READ the decision, there is something important that jumps out at me:
Page 13, bottom:
In Black Horse Pike, the Third Circuit clearly stated that
its duty was to “determine whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the
challenged practice conveys a message favoring or disfavoring religion.”
Read this VERY carefully. Note the wording about favoring or disfavoring religion. The mechanism we have now is set up to protect everybody by forcing the State to be neutral in matters of faith.
If you want to set up for a future of French-style lunacy where crucifixes and headscarves can be banned at schools and offices, just keep praying that this mechanism is chipped away at. It can and will cut both ways.
Freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
Who can argue with that?
Micheal
Wrong again, Micheal. Bush never recieved “certifications” (which are required in wiretaps requested “after the fact” from the FISA court. The FISA court was never a part of the process, and thus Bush performed an Impeacheable act.
@62 Freedom of religion means that I can practice whatever religion I choose, and you can practice whatever religion you choose, or either of us can choose not to practive any religion at all. Freedom from religion means that you can tell me how and when I can practice my religion. Really the two concepts are quite opposite.
@63 Certifications aren’t something you recieve from FISA, certifications are something you give to FISA. Read the EO again. Have you been listening to the news at all? They were being reviewed and recertified every 45 days.
The judge’s decision was a major blow to the ID publicity machine at the Discovery Institute, which has been caught by the Judge in its PR deceptions and outed within Seattle as less nothing about sience and all about PR, politics and religion.
When will the Gates Foundation end its support for the Discovery Institute? While they say their money isn’t being used to fund the ID PR campaign, their name is being used by Discovery to advance its other fundraising (haven’t you received the letters?) and to provide legitimacy to an organization which is rapidly losing credibility in the world of scientific ideas and skilled PR (this ruling was a PR trainwreck for Discovery – just wait.) (And the Gates money pays a significant portion of Bruce Chapman’s salary – and he has been nowhere to be seen in transportation for over a year.) The judge in Pennsylvania did a public service by outing Discovery Institute’s duplicities and overall lack of integrity.
Fund science Bill and Melinda Gates Not anti-science PR. Turn kids on – to the future. Don’t turn them off by wasting their lives on ideology masking as science. This is about better biology – which can make lives better all over the planet.
Michael –
I think you’re getting it wrong. The way FISA works (and you saw the same “certification” language in your earlier posts) is that you “certify” that the conditions required by FISA are satisfied in your case, and the FISA court issues you the warrant (19,000 since 1979). This seems to be what happened with Ames, who, as I mentioned really WAS acting as “an agent of a foreign government” as FISA requires. I don’t think his case is a good example.
But what you seem to be doing is arguing that what someone else did may have been illegal. Hey, maybe it was. But you are NOT arguing that what THIS president has done is legal, are you? Or that lawbreaking should be countentnanced? Please answer:
1) You seem to think that warrantless searches against US citizens is bad. Do you?
2) Bush has admitted to ordering such searches when US laws specifically forbid it. Do you consider him liable?
Michael-
Wow. A little rsearch makes a lot of difference. You seem to be all exercised about Executive Order 12949, but it is not anything sinister. It merely provides the “presidential authorization” as require by FISA in what is now Section 1822(a)(1).
I’d like to contrast this with Bush’s actions which are ENTIRELY outside any legal framework.
Further on Clinton (Aldreich Ames physical search) v. Bush (thanks to Atrios–with minor paraphrasing):
[Re: Ames physical search] “…there was no specific statute covering such things. It led to the expansion of FISA to cover physical searches, and the Clinton administration never aruged that they were not bound by the requirements of the expanded FISA authority. They just argued that since there was a statutory gap the executive had the right. Once that gap was closed, they followed the law.
That is the fundamental issue here – not what the president should and shouldn’t be allowed to do with respect to searches, warrantless or not, but whether or not the Bush administration believes they have the right to explicitly break the law. They said they can, they have been, and will continue to do so. That’s the issue.
Shorter version:
Clinton said there’s no law covering this so we can do this. Congress passes law covering such circumstances. Clinton administration (presumably) follows law and never claims they have the right to not follow the law.
Bush administration situation covered by existing law. Decide they don’t want to follow it. Realize Congress won’t change law to make them happy. Decide they have Divine Right to explicitly break law. Gives speech saying how proud he was to have broken law.
That’s your boy.
You should keep searching. Ames was wiretapped too, I’m not just talking about physical searches here. And it was all approved specifically by Janet Reno. It was not approved by FISA, although they were notified, as required by law. Reno was required to “certify” to FISA that they were wiretapping Ames for the sole purpose of gathering intelligence (by the way, Reno never told FISA they were also preparing domestic criminal charges against Ames as well).
Aldrich Ames is not relevant to a discussion of Bush. Answer, Michael:
1) You seem to think that warrantless searches against US citizens is bad. Do you?
2) Bush has admitted to ordering such searches when US laws specifically forbid it. Do you consider him liable?
1) I think there might be cases where warrantless searches would be a good thing. There are very few things in the world that are always good or always bad.
2) Jamie Gorelick argued that Clinton had “inherent authority” based on the Constitution to do the same thing, but argued later that Congress changed the law after that. Apparently she, and you, don’t understand what inherent means. Congress can’t legislate away inherent rights. That is what inherent means.
Michael –
The executive will ALWAYS argue that it has broad inherent powers. That is why we regulate the powers of the executive.
The Clinton actions took place before the physical search provisions wer added to FISA. One could argue that in the abssence of a controlling legal authority that their actions were at leaast not specifically illegal, even if almost certainly not consitutional.
But Bush’s actions are being taken in the presence of well-defined laws that specifically outlaw his actions. Why don’t you want to talk about Bush? You aviod it like the plague. It looks to me like Bush has racked up something like 100,000 years of imprisonments in total FISA violations.