Are Soros or the ACLU helping with the costs of their legal defense?

Brierpatch-

As in Brie cheese? Or did you mean Briar as in rabbit?

Personally I think the Briepatch would be more original...

"..NSA surveillance/wiretapping, etc. -- into their rightful perspectives."

Actual it does not. The NSA wire tapping program had nothing to do with these cases. These guys were offered up by an informant. It sounds like they arrested a couple wanna be's or at worst this was entrapment.

Poor old Barney. What will it take? The death of his entire family at the hands of terrorists? That probably wouldn't effect him either as he's now in the class with the nut that hit the RNC office in Vegas. BDS to the max without committment to a facility. One attack by a terrorists and Barney and his ilk will immediately scream, Bush did it.

They sound more like terrorist wannabes than the real thing. Still, I am all for locking up aspiring terrorists as well as the real ones.

Patriot Act, NSA surveillance/wiretapping, etc. -- into their rightful perspectives.

Well, yeah, it shows just how unnecessary they are, given that law enforcement has always been allowed to do surveillance, set up wiretaps, and infiltrate suspected criminal organizations. This bust has no more to do with the programs you are defending than the infiltration and takedown of John Gotti's crew.

And hmmm, I wonder who it was who was ridiculed for saying that terrorism would be stopped primarily by law enforcement...?

There is no terrorist threat.

"Unless, of course, you're a walking zombie."

... or a traitorist democrat.

Guess what, guys? Law enforcement officials have been able to get wiretaps backed up by WARRANTS since before there were wires. Bush or the NSA could get themselves an instant warrant to wiretap anyone they wanted to. It's the abuse of and wiping of the administration's ass with the constitution by conducting illegal monitoring that is the issue. Horse, I really wish you were here to call me a traitor to my face..

This case does absolutely nothing to justify non-warrant wiretapping of Americans on American soil. It does nothing to justify the suspension of long-held codes of LE conduct, rules of law and other problems inherent in *some* of the PATRIOT act. It does nothing to justify the massive Executive power grab - making an effort to cut the other two branches out of any and all decisions - of the last 6 years.

Bush isn't evil or Hitler or a fascist; he's a civil servant in the British sense of Civil Service. Meaning he's only interested in accumulating power and control for it's own sake, not for any real purpose. Just so he can be the decider - literally.

If you think for one instant I'm a foaming-at-the-mouth liberal...I can prove you mistaken for trying to paint me with that brush. I suggest you stop name-calling and discuss the issue at hand.

It does nothing to justify the massive Executive power grab - making an effort to cut the other two branches out of any and all decisions - of the last 6 years.

How precisely does broadening the scope with which the exceutive could cunduct actions that they have been able to conduct for a long time constitute a power grab in any fashion? A power grab implies that someone else had the power to begin with which isn't the case.

Braaaaaaiiins!

Yes, wannabe's, that's all they are.

There are hundreds of wannabe's wandering the streets of the Middle East, asserting their willingness of spirit.

They're called suicide bombers.

Coming to a shopping mall near you!

There are only two types of people anymore. Pre 9/11 and post 9/11. The dimmers are definitely living in the pre-9/11 world. Just close your eyes and wish the bad men away. ww

"Law enforcement officials have been able to get wiretaps backed up by WARRANTS since before there were wires."

Now that makes a lot of sense. How is it possible to get a warrant for something that doesn't exist? I know, petty, but just more proof of the libs talking out their ass.

How precisely does broadening the scope with which the exceutive could cunduct actions that they have been able to conduct for a long time constitute a power grab in any fashion? A power grab implies that someone else had the power to begin with which isn't the case.
Taltos

The Judicial Branch had the authority to issue warrants by determining if there was sufficient evidence prompting the need for surveillance. This Administration has attempted to grab that power by cutting the Judiciary out of the process and determining on their own who is worthy of surveillance.

QED

There is no terror threat. And even if there is, Guantanamo Bay! Abu Gharib! Torture, torture, we really are the terrorists, they are just freedom fighters. Release all the political prisoners! ACLU forever! No blood for oil! Chavez is a great dictator! Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink for peace!

The Islamo-Nazis really are just joking about killing every Jew in sight! They mean us no harm. Free Palestine!

Sincerely,
Michael Moore
Medea Benjamin
Dick Durbin
And the rest of the treasonous fifth column

Nobody is against surveillance; we just want the Executive Branch to get a warrant for a court.

FROM a court.

Jesus H. Christ. Are Wizbang commenters foaming-at-the-mouth Freepers now? Is this what passes for "debate" around here?

Fucking shameful. On ALL sides.

Hey assholes, put down the "Talking Points memo" and talk to me man-to-man on this. D-Hoggs, i was being ironic, what I meant was that law enforcement has needed a warrant to spy on people since the constitution was ratified, and now this president 230 years later decides that doesn't really apply to him, right, he's "the Decider", not the United States constitution. But I guess that's just me living in my "pre 9/11 world" when Americans weren't willing to fork over their civil liberties for a feeling of "safety" spouted by a sorry excuse for a president.

9/11 changed the world Ryan, whether you like it or not. And the President IS authorized to do what he needs to do to protect our nation within certain limits. And as far as I'm concerned, if that keeps me and those I love from being turned into a crispy critter by some 10th century throwback of a cretinous yahoo wanting to kill me for his asinine religious faith, bring it on.

What part of THEY WANT TO KILL US do you people not understand? T-H-E-Y W-A-N-T T-O K-I-L-L U-S!

They wanted to kill us when James Earl Carter was in office. They probably wanted to kill us BEFORE that time but lacked the materials to do so. For sure they weren't too happy with us in 1948 when we enabled the tiny U.N. created State of Israel to be born. They wanted to kill us when Clinton was President. They tried - MULTIPLE TIMES. Of course, there was no retribution or response, so they were emboldened. Hence, 9/11.

They STILL want to kill us and the only thing that will stop THEM is if we make the price too high for them to be able to continue.