Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (748653)	9/5/2006 6:11:31 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

You are INCORRECT, Sir! Re: "You're against the Patriot Act," (Only parts of it... probably 80%+ or so can pass Constitutional muster, and is a useful update to the federal laws.... That has been my consistent position all along.) "you're against profiling," Nope. Never said anything of the kind. "you're against NSA eavesdropping," Only if they listen to US citizens, in the USA, WITHOUT review and approval by the Courts. (It's the Constitution, don't 'cha know! What makes us great and keeps us FREE!) (PS --- you DO KNOW, don't you, that the F.I.S.A. court has never in it's entire HISTORY, turned down a wiretap request made by the government... and that the Gvt doesn't even NEED to ask for advance permission, they can go ahead and listen in for up to 48 hours before they must request approval... [and that can be 24 hours a day, at ANY time in the night, for example]?) "... you're against anything the government does to protect its citizens..." Against ANYTHING??????? Nope, that's just SILLY.

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (748653)	9/5/2006 6:18:57 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

IN THE NAME OF NATIONAL SECURITY A landmark 1953 U.S. Supreme Court ruling which affirmed the government's use of the "state secrets" privilege to withhold information is the focus of a new book called "In the Name of National Security" by constitutional scholar Louis Fisher. The 1953 case, United States v. Reynolds, revolved around a request by three widows for access to an accident report about a military plane crash in which their husbands died in 1948. The government refused to release the requested report. Confronted by this dispute, Fisher writes, the Supreme Court had at least two valid options. It could have ruled in favor of the widows, granting their claims for damages in full, as lower courts had done. Or it could have subjected the disputed document to in camera review to determine whether withholding was justified on security grounds. But the Court did neither. Instead, it upheld the government's denial of the document without bothering to review it, establishing an unfortunate precedent that would resound throughout the coming decades up to the present day. Fisher traces the fateful Reynolds case from its inception throughout the litigation process to its final resolution. And he considers the ramifications of this frequently cited case for current national security policy. Richly detailed, the new book combines legal scholarship, critical analysis, and even some "Law and Order"-style suspense. See "In the Name of National Security: Unchecked Presidential Power and the Reynolds Case" by Louis Fisher, University Press of Kansas, September 2006: kansaspress.ku.edu (PS... FYI: it has since been determined [admitted by the government] that the government LIED TO THE COURTS in this case, back in 1953. Told them things that weren't true. The Air Force officials asserted that 'national security secrets' were 'involved' in this case, and would be 'revealed' if they told the widows how their husbands died. Now the government ADMITS [and released documents prove] that that was a lie they told back then... there were NO 'national security secrets' at all that would have been revealed if they had answered the widows requests... just some bureaucrats who would have been embarrassed. So this ENTIRE LEGAL CONCEPT of a 'state's secrets privilege' was created out of thin air by the Supreme court in 1953... and was based upon a government lie.)