Of cabbages and Kings
(ok, maybe more like shrubs and dictators...)
Federal judge Anna Diggs Taylor has had the unmitigated bravery to declare Bush's warrentless surveillance program unconstitutional. "There are no hereditary kings in America," said Taylor.
Not surprisingly, Bushco's attack dog Gonzalez is hammering his heels and threatening to appeal the decision, claiming that a) it is so constitutional,and b) it does work, so there!
Judge Taylor's ruling comes on the heels of the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdan v Rumsfeld, which pulled the Bush Administration up short and pointed out that contrary to their burning desire to circumvent the Constitution by declaring a broad war powers strategy (and note that Bush has since, almost gleefully, declared that we [and I use we rather loosely- I know I wasn't consulted]are engaged in a long, potentially endless war against whomever is the "fascist du jour" (no, not Cheney, sorry), the current administration is obliged to follow the Constitution, just like the rest of us, as terribly plebian as that may sound.
Judge Taylor's wording is rather interesting, in light of the fact there has been talk of running another Bush- Jeb Bush- for the Republican nomination.
But more important is the rejection of the Oliver North doctrine that one has to circumvent (or shred-depending on your definition) the Constitution in order to save it.
And that, coupled with the growing doubts over the "terrorirst threat" from Great Britain (you know- the one where few, if any, of the conspirators have passports, none had plane tickets, the "liquid explosives" are reportedly so unstable that any would-be bomber would probably blow himself up first, and the US pushed and pushed and got Pakistan to worm a confession out of one of the "suspects"-yep, looks like a threat to me...)- may well cut a few support beams out from under the endless war on endless hords of people who "hate us."
Democracy Now has an interesting analysis of Taylor's ruling. Listen up here
Federal judge Anna Diggs Taylor has had the unmitigated bravery to declare Bush's warrentless surveillance program unconstitutional. "There are no hereditary kings in America," said Taylor.
Not surprisingly, Bushco's attack dog Gonzalez is hammering his heels and threatening to appeal the decision, claiming that a) it is so constitutional,and b) it does work, so there!
Judge Taylor's ruling comes on the heels of the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdan v Rumsfeld, which pulled the Bush Administration up short and pointed out that contrary to their burning desire to circumvent the Constitution by declaring a broad war powers strategy (and note that Bush has since, almost gleefully, declared that we [and I use we rather loosely- I know I wasn't consulted]are engaged in a long, potentially endless war against whomever is the "fascist du jour" (no, not Cheney, sorry), the current administration is obliged to follow the Constitution, just like the rest of us, as terribly plebian as that may sound.
Judge Taylor's wording is rather interesting, in light of the fact there has been talk of running another Bush- Jeb Bush- for the Republican nomination.
But more important is the rejection of the Oliver North doctrine that one has to circumvent (or shred-depending on your definition) the Constitution in order to save it.
And that, coupled with the growing doubts over the "terrorirst threat" from Great Britain (you know- the one where few, if any, of the conspirators have passports, none had plane tickets, the "liquid explosives" are reportedly so unstable that any would-be bomber would probably blow himself up first, and the US pushed and pushed and got Pakistan to worm a confession out of one of the "suspects"-yep, looks like a threat to me...)- may well cut a few support beams out from under the endless war on endless hords of people who "hate us."
Democracy Now has an interesting analysis of Taylor's ruling. Listen up here
