Not Letting Freedom Ring

John McCain's May 6 statement on the role of judges in our constitutional system might very well qualify as one of the most ignorant statements ever made by a presidential candidate on this most important subject.

At one point, McCain complained that sitting judges and justices systematically "abuse" the federal judicial power by issuing "rulings and opinions on policy questions that should be decided democratically."

My Comment here:

As well as the rights of several in violations of their rights and freedoms of all.

To a crowd in Texas McCain said that he was abandoning his long-time support for a federal moratorium on drilling along the nation's coastlines in favor of allowing states to decide for themselves.

1st Statement:

"Abuse" the federal judicial power by issuing "rulings and opinions on policy questions that should be decided democratically." Being relating to, appealing to, or available to the broad masses of the people.

My Comment here:

McCain believes the world oceans are in fact small chunks of areas that the state nearest them owns. When in fact its part of a whole environment in which we all live and depend on so it’s not just up to them.

Also of way of passing the buck.

Now link the first statement to the second.

2nd Statement:

McCain is apparently blissfully unaware that the vast majority of current federal judges were appointed by Republican presidents and that seven of the nine sitting Supreme Court Justices and twelve of the last fourteen Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republicans.

Whole Statement together

McCain's May 6 statement on the role of judges in our constitutional system sitting judges and justices systematically "abuse" the federal judicial power by issuing "rulings and opinions on policy questions that should be decided democratically."Linked to the fact of vast majority of current federal judges were appointed by Republican presidents and that seven of the nine sitting Supreme Court Justices and twelve of the last fourteen Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republicans

This is not a lone example about our justice system.

There are several right violation cases due to go before the Judiciary Committee for which there seems to be no reply.

Now from another view .

Other statements show the rolling over of our rights as citizens of this nation.

McCain: I'd Spy on Americans Secretly, Too

If elected president, Senator John McCain would reserve the right to run his own warrant less wiretapping program against Americans, based on the theory that the president's wartime powers trump federal criminal statutes and court oversight, according to a statement released by his campaign Monday.

More FBI Privacy Violations Confirmed

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/wireStory?id=4393074

Note here:

McCain’s not talking about spying on other countries terror cells or groups but Secretly on Americans.

McCain's new tack towards the Bush administration's theory of executive power comes some 10 days after a McCain surrogate stated, incorrectly it seems, that the senator wanted hearings into telecom companies' cooperation with President Bush's warrant less wiretapping program, before he'd support giving those companies retroactive legal immunity.

To stop and look here at this statement: before he'd support giving those companies retroactive legal immunity. Meaning to lock out any means of what they might have done by breaking the law being investigated.

As first reported by Threat Level, Chuck Fish, a full-time lawyer for the McCain campaign, also said McCain wanted stricter rules on how the nation's telecoms work with U.S. spy agencies, and expected those companies to apologize for any lawbreaking before winning amnesty.

Remember this statement by McCain You will see it later in this posting

“No matter what the situation is”

Expected those companies to apologize for any lawbreaking before winning amnesty.

Could be new game show Wheel of Justice.

If we were to follow this line of thinking, I wonder if the terrorist can apologize for any lawbreaking before winning amnesty?

On 2 points I would like to point out.

What kind of image are we putting out to other nations about being a nation based on the rights and freedoms of all?
When we are not applying it with in our own country.

Putting out we are tough not coming to the table to talk out issues.
Only unless they agree to all are views or threat of war. But them seeing issues like these. What would they have to gain? So what not continue their path they have taken currently at the cost of lives and the economy of our nation?

Based from a history send point from our past to present events McCain wanting to Spy on Americans Secretly is not unlike another this nation we went to war with.

But Monday, McCain adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin, speaking for the campaign, disavowed those statements, and for the first time cast McCain's views on warrant less wiretapping as identical to Bush's.

[N]either the Administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the ACLU and the trial lawyers, understand were Constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001. [...]

Here it’s hard to tell if another flip or another attempt at re writing our Constitution to meet their agenda.

McCain's new position plainly contradicts statements he made in a December 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe where he implicitly criticized Bush's five-year secret end-run around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

We do not know what lies ahead in our nation’s fight against radical Islamic extremists, but John McCain will do everything he can to protect Americans from such threats, including asking the telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution.

The Article II citation is key, since it refers to President Bush's longstanding arguments that the president has nearly unlimited powers during a time of war.

Again they are suggesting is not wire taping on foreign threats but to the United States citizens.

If we were in time of war than why did Bush not put a cap on gasoline?

If not than now we still have ones giving their life.

Just because Bush said mission complete we are still at war.


AN UN DECLARED ONE.


War being any large scale, violent conflict. By extension, the word is now used for any struggle, as in the war on drugs or the war on terror following this line of thought. It was started based on lies and half truths.

I include this terms only for those that would think water boarding not torture and in the end would save lives.

The Article II citation

That the president has nearly unlimited powers during a time of war.

By not putting on cap on gasoline shows he did not think we where at war and unlimited powers was not meant as ok to break and bind the laws and rights to uphold their views when in position of representing our country.


While rewriting our Constitution to beat us with it instead of the protection is was written for to protect the rights and freedoms of all.

I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is," McCain said. Ops theres that staement.

The Globe's Charlie Savage pushed further, asking , "So is that a no, in other words, federal statute trumps inherent power in that case, warrantless surveillance?" To which McCain answered, "I don't think the president has the right to disobey any law."

So how about just rewritting them ?

McCain's embrace of extrajudicial domestic wiretapping is effectively a bounce-back from Fish's comments, made at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference in Connecticut last month. When liberal blogs picked up the story that McCain had moved to the left on wiretapping, the McCain campaign issued a letter insisting that he still supported unconditional immunity, as well as new rules that would expand the nation's spy powers.

The campaign's response was consistent with McCain's past positions and votes. But it riled Andrew McCarthy at the conservative National Review Online, who read the campaign's position as a disavowal of Bush's warrant less wiretapping program, and a wimpy surrender of executive power to Congress.

"What does it mean when he says Sen. McCain does not want the telecoms put into this position again?" McCarthy asked. "Is he saying that in a time of national crisis, the president should not be permitted to ask the telecoms for assistance that is arguably beyond what is prescribed in a statute?"

That's when the campaign issued the letter explaining McCain's new views of executive power, and revealing that McCain would, in certain future circumstances, rely on the same theory of executive power in wartime.

A spokesperson for McCain's camp did not respond to a request Monday for an explanation of the difference between the new policy and the December interview.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/mccain-id-spy-o.html

When a law passed to make you immune from punishment. . What the hell happened ? Have we been retroactively separated from my rights.

On Feb. 1, the Bush administration’s broad expansion of its surveillance powers in the hastily-passed Protect America Act are set to expire. Facing a confrontation in the Senate over the inclusion of retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has said he “is likely to push for a one-month extension of the existing law to give Congress and the White House time to work out a compromise.”

But the White House is balking at Reid’s approach, stoking fears of a terrorist attack if it does not get everything they want on a permanent basis.

Spokesman Tony Fratto told Congressional Quarterly yesterday that without the immediate passage of legislation, “terrorists” will soon “be free to make phone calls without fear of being surveilled“:


“We’re exactly three weeks away,” he said, “from the date when terrorists can be free to make phone calls without fear of being surveilled by U.S. intelligence agencies”.
Fratto’s contention is flat-out misleading. As CQ’s Keith Perine notes, “intelligence agents would not be instantly hobbled if the law were to expire Feb. 1.”

In fact, surveillance authorizations would still “remain in effect until a year after they were issued”:


The existing law allows the National Intelligence director and the attorney general to authorize surveillance aimed at people outside the United States — even if they are communicating with people inside the country — for up to one year, subject to some conditions.

Even after Feb. 1, any such surveillance authorizations would remain in effect until a year after they were issued.

My comment:

Here's yet another examply of putting out false information to the public playing on their fears.

One would have to ask what would be next retroactive legal immunity for his entire administration .


Based on the president has unlimited powers in time of war.

That which he's stated mision accomplised for something that was never declared.

While rewritting the Constitution to beat us with and protecting his past actions, was to busy to have put a cap on the price of gas.



Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who favors denying retroactive immunity, says the White House is creating a “false choice” by claiming that “if you want to give all the power to the president, you’re in favor of America” and if not, you’re “in favor of the terrorists.”

UPDATE: In a statement, People for the American Way say Fratto’s claim is “a bold-faced lie.”

Tell The Senate Judiciary Committee: No More Bush Judges

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/no_more_bush_judges/

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/15/fratto-on-fisa/