Ok, Republicans, please explain why the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to this US Citizen.

Voters shouldn't expect Hillary or Barack to drop the suit either. Or spearhead any
changes to the Nazi Patriot Act.

The ever-craven Dems are turning out to be as warlike and privacy-invading as the Repubs with respect to privacy rights and the Patriot Act in general--
if not more so.

And now we know that Barack is in regular communication with the Deity, well, I guess it's ok.

With a conservative Supreme Court, it will be overturned. They don't care about our Constitution. Only loyalty to party line. . .

Will the dog bite the hand that feeds him? I think not.

The "federal judge in Portland" who issued the Mayfield opinion was as you might expect a Clinton appointee and, prior to her appointment, a Dem Party activist. As you also might expect, Swamp/Trib reporter Andrew Zajac doesn't inform readers of that fact.

So the opinion could be predicted simply by who issued the opinion.

The opinion should be taken as a political statement by a politicized Liberal judge. Nothing more.

Bruce-

Should we expect politicized Bush appointees to ignore the Fourth Amendment?

"So the opinion could be predicted simply by who issued the opinion.

The opinion should be taken as a political statement by a politicized Liberal judge. Nothing more.

Posted by: Bruce | October 10, 2007 12:43 PM"

So, according to Bruce, simple justice had nothing to do with the decision?

Lou,
Right you are; the Supremes will overturn it. We are in for some real eye poppers coming out of this court.

Bruce -

Have you read the opinion? I have. They violated the 4th amendment clear as day. Next time it might be you. Maybe when those "dems" get in power and want to supress conservative comments.

Enjoy it while it leans in your favor. It doesn't look like that will last long!

"Enjoy it while it leans in your favor. It doesn't look like that will last long!

Posted by: Cogent | October 10, 2007 3:31 PM"

Wish I could agree with you, but the Supreme court has gone right wing, perhaps for a decade or two.

"BUSH LETS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SPEAK"

Just not about Caging of the black Voters and black military members serving in Iraq. THAT HAS AN EXECUTIVE ORDER SEAL.

Just not about which telecommunication company in America eavesdropped, wiretapped and datamined american citizens without a warrant or probably without probable cause.

Just not why Harriet Meirs hasn't answered a CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA.

Just not about why Alberto Gonzales attempted to roll over form Attorney General Ashcroft while being legally recused.

Just not about why Brent Wilkes is not lying about his dealing with VP Cheney.

Just not about how many times Jack Ambrahoff entered the White House and whom he saw.

No the Justice Department is allowed to speak when legal exposure insist IMPEACHMENT OF THE ENTIRE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, CABINET AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

SO THANK YOU CONGRESS, THANK YOU HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO NOT GIVING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION...

Retroactive Liability Protection, aka Immunity from prosecution for breaking federal wiretapping, eavesdropping and data mining of American people on American Soil.

WHEN DID AMERICA NEED A NEW ACT TO PROTECT US.

THE CONSTITUTION ALREADY DOES.

Protect America Act is an adhesion clause to CONTINUE I REPEAT CONTINUE to circumvent the law!

Why not go to jail then post a bond like every criminal. THEN ARGUE YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS!

Cogent wrote:

"Have you read the opinion? I have. They violated the 4th amendment clear as day."

______________________________________________________

Cogent, who is "they"? How did "they" violate the Fourth Amendment clear as day? You understand that the judge invalidated the Congressional law itself (FISA) as opposed to any conduct of the Administration or the FBI, don't you? Then who is "they"? Congress?

I've read the opinion too. The feds thought this guy was involved in the Madrid bombings. They got a warrant under FISA and searched him. Evidently, they had the wrong guy, and he has already been compensated to the tune of 2 million bucks. But the conduct of the FBI is not what is at issue. The judge is saying that FISA itself is Unconstitutional because it fails to distinguish between foreign intelligence gathering and routine criminal investigations. In reaching her decision, the judge ignored the Foreign Intelligence Court of Review's decision on this precise issue (see 310 F.3d 717), and also ignored the will of Congress and the Executive who passed and signed this bill into law, respectfully. She is a hand picked judicial activist who will be slapped down in the appeals process, if not by the unpredictable 9th Circuit, then definitely by the Supreme Court.

He should be thankful that he was even able to get any settlement money without a long lengthy fight, let alone a $2 million dollar one.

This "IS" the United States Government we are talking about. It is not often they admit that they make any type of mistake!

Although I totally agree with this decision, because if you research the "bivens" theory of law, you will surely discover that first and foremost they need to have "probable cause" to have proceeded with all the atrocities that were perpetrated against not only Mr. Mayfield, but against his family as well.

As I see it...they (the U.S. Government agencies, (in their individual capacities of course) subsequently missed the "probable cause" part of their actions.

It's not about the Judge, it's about the process!!!!!

...or I should say, "Lack of Such"

So when/if Blackwater is charged with keeping order at the next party convention and
several demonstrators are shot dead, who -- besides one of a few judges -- will rule that
tjat demonstrators constitutional rights have been violated ?