Bronco Forum - Full Size Ford Bronco Forum banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
o[|||]o
Joined
·
11,147 Posts
Just one question for you...

Are you more concerned with protecting the liberties of the citizens of this country, or more worried about protecting Republican politicians? If our civil liberties continue to erode... we have already lost the war on terror, by letting them reshape the very rights and freedoms that make this country what it is (becoming WAS), and has been for over 200 years.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,198 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I am most interested in maintaining our security during a time of war. This action was obviously and blatantly illegal on McDermott's part, whereas the President's action was arguably quite legal.

Clearly, McDermott's crocodile tears were politically motivated, or he, and those of his view, would have blown a gasket when Clinton engaged in the same kind of activity. Instead, he seems to have used it as an example of how HE should act... again, for his own partisan, political gain.

Hatred from the left is a powerful force for change. But it needs to avoid the type of nonsensical irresponsibility that can, and certainly in the case of revealing this program, has, strengthened and emboldened the enemies of this country... Enemies that would cheerfully kill you, JW.... and me.... and everyone on this board, if they could figure out a way to do it.

We are in a war. Clearly, far too many seem incapable of understanding what, exactly, that means. Nevertheless, we will continue to sit back and watch as the left allows hatred to guide their actions... no matter how much blood, particularly American blood, is spilled as a result of their efforts to weaken the President, weaken our government... and weaken our country.

Thanks for asking.
 

·
o[|||]o
Joined
·
11,147 Posts
95 BXL said:
when Clinton engaged in the same kind of activity.
Already disproved. See RNC Misinformation thread. Sorry. :shrug

As for the rest, I still stand behind the words of Ben Franklin, and I'll take my freedoms before this false sense of security. For some reason, this act just doesnt make me feel any safer. Beyond that, laws already exists to allow him to do exactly what he is doing (as far as what is supposed to make us safer), just not without Judicial oversight. What is he trying to hide that he can't let a Judge know about?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,373 Posts
JahWarrior said:
... we have already lost the war on terror, by letting them reshape the very rights and freedoms that make this country what it is (becoming WAS), and has been for over 200 years.


yep, they already won. even if they dont kill us all off, they still won.



and even if clinton did it, who the hell cares?
since when do two wrongs make a right?
 

·
My Ass Is A...
Joined
·
986 Posts
JahWarrior said:
...we have already lost the war on terror, by letting them reshape the very rights and freedoms that make this country what it is (becoming WAS), and has been for over 200 years.
So you are saying, in essence, we lost the American Revolution, The war of 1812, The Civil War, WW1 & WW2???

The reason I say this is because no rights have been violated that were not voted on by Congress (Patriot act passed by 98-1 Senate and only 64 Nays in HOR)

Using your example, we lost all previous conflicts... how many people have been interred in camps (against their will), where is the martial law (restrictions of time and travel), where is the draft (INvoluntary servitude), Where are the INvoluntary rationings, the forced cancellation of trips outside a 50 mile radius of home, the removal of automobiles from your home for military transport, forced housing of troops in your home...

C'mon, spying on those whom OUR representatives said we COULD spy on is not a violation of law...the Congress allowed it BY LAW. Get rid of your representative that voted for it, if it bothers you...I have a clear conscience and am not harboring, aiding or abetting terrorists...no worries for me...LOL
 

·
Try it now!!
Joined
·
9,125 Posts
JahWarrior said:
Already disproved. See RNC Misinformation thread. Sorry. :shrug

As for the rest, I still stand behind the words of Ben Franklin, and I'll take my freedoms before this false sense of security. For some reason, this act just doesnt make me feel any safer. Beyond that, laws already exists to allow him to do exactly what he is doing (as far as what is supposed to make us safer), just not without Judicial oversight. What is he trying to hide that he can't let a Judge know about?
I dont really care about people listening to my calls, since I dont have anything to do with terrorism they won't listen long.
But I disagree with the principle of it. I understand there are people out there that do, and perhaps one day I won't want anyone but ther person I'm talking to in on my conversation.
Its hard and inefficient for FBI investigators to keep having to wait and go before a judge to get warrents and whatnot, but then again, thats the check and balance of the system. It takes time. In a time of War, certain liberties can be taken away. I'm glad the Patriot Act has a time limit. Once Congress feels that the threat level has dropped enough to gain our former freedom back, they will not vote for the Patriot Act again.

What they SHOULD do, is give us our freedoms back, and let the public own and carry guns to protect themselves.

Right now, gun ownership is like getting your pilots license. Its SO much of a PITA that many people who would benefit from this do not.

The 5-6 minutes it takes for poice to respond to a call, is the 5-6 minutes I cannot protect myself with equal force if I am not carrying a gun.
 

·
Master of the Estate
Joined
·
3,789 Posts
JahWarrior said:
Already disproved. See RNC Misinformation thread. Sorry. :shrug

As for the rest, I still stand behind the words of Ben Franklin, and I'll take my freedoms before this false sense of security. For some reason, this act just doesnt make me feel any safer. Beyond that, laws already exists to allow him to do exactly what he is doing (as far as what is supposed to make us safer), just not without Judicial oversight. What is he trying to hide that he can't let a Judge know about?
Maybe you should read the wiretap thread Jah. The courts have upheld wiretaps numerous times.

How does spying on suspected terrorists and finding out what they're up to NOT make you feel safer? Should the gov't wait until something happens? Then you'd all be complaining the gov't didn't do enough. Can't have it both ways.
 

·
o[|||]o
Joined
·
11,147 Posts
PaulT said:
Maybe you should read the wiretap thread Jah. The courts have upheld wiretaps numerous times.

How does spying on suspected terrorists and finding out what they're up to NOT make you feel safer? Should the gov't wait until something happens? Then you'd all be complaining the gov't didn't do enough. Can't have it both ways.
Its the part that you keep missing that scares me Paul. Bush ALREADY had the LEGAL power to do these Domestic wiretaps.. he EVEN had the power to start doing it BEFORE getting the courts approval, but it had to be approved through the court within 72 hours. Now, what is he hiding? In over 15,000 requests made to the court, only FOUR have been denied, EVER. So its not like he has to worry about getting turned down by the court? UNLESS he is doing something that he knows damn good and well that the court would NEVER approve. Make sense? Why do something illegal, if you already had the means to accomplish the same goals legally, unless you are hiding something? A first grader could understand that, so I'm quite sure everyone here can understand it as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,470 Posts
ScorpionBoy said:
prolly has a couple of wiretaps on the DNC or something. Republicans would never do such a thing, must be something else.
Maybe, or maybe not, but we DO know which party has gone that far....:popc1: :toothless
 

·
o[|||]o
Joined
·
11,147 Posts
Blue'87GT said:
Maybe, or maybe not, but we DO know which party has gone that far....:popc1: :toothless
Which time do you want to talk about? The Nixon Administration, or when Karl Rove had his own office bugged (with a device that needed the batteries changed every 3 hours or so :doh0715: ) and tried to blame the Dems for it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,470 Posts
'Ol Tricky Dick! ;) :toothless
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,198 Posts
Discussion Starter #17 (Edited)
Well, JW, I appreciate your reliance on the words and thoughts of a Founding Father whose wildest dreams didn't include the basest concept of "electronic surveillance," or weapons of mass destruction or the Wahabbi Sect of Islam or any of the other practical realities of the year 2005.

That YOU "don't feel safer" us purely and actually because you choose not to. After all, if you DID feel safer, it would only be a result of the Administrations efforts to make us safer, and those of you on the left are genetically incapable of giving him credit for anything.

We ARE safer. Or have there been any more terrorist attacks in this country that I'm unaware of?

So, continue to be afraid, JW. Actually, most Americans don't have time for it.

Merry Christmas.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1135216505226540.xml&coll=7

WARRANTLESS SURVEILLANCE
Thursday, December 22, 2005
David Reinhard

Do the ends justify the means?

Apparently, the folks who leaked classified info on the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program thought so. They broke the law to blow the whistle on what they deemed a threat to civil liberties.

Apparently, The New York Times thought so. The paper that howled about the alleged outing of a CIA operative had its reasons for exposing a classified program that has stopped terror attacks. It thought the program violated the law and Constitution, it wanted to affect the Patriot Act debate, it had a reporter with a book coming out soon -- who knows?

President Bush certainly thought the ends justified the means in authorizing the NSA program, and it's easy to see why and why he calls the its disclosure "shameful." Not only do the ends justify the means, but the means are eminently justifiable.

The end is that we are at war. Some might not want to acknowledge this, but Bush has been consistent. That we are at war has been his presidency's organizing principle, and he's said he'll do everything in his power to stop another 9/11 in this war.

Bush says the NSA operation has prevented attacks in America and this wouldn't have happened save for the means of this program. But does a president have the legal power to intercept communications between people here and al-Qaida operatives overseas without a warrant? Is warrantless eavesdropping involving U.S. citizens on one end of the international chat an abuse of presidential power?

Whatever you may think of the NSA's limited warrantless surveillance, it's hardly beyond the pale historically, legally or constitutionally, particularly in wartime. Never mind the authority that Bush believes Congress gave him to fight al-Qaida in the September 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Act. He believes he has "inherent authority" under the Constitution, as commander in chief, to conduct specific kinds of warrantless surveillance. And this "inherent authority" isn't something Bush cooked up.

"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

That's from President Clinton's deputy attorney general's testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. National Review's Byron York unearthed this Jamie Gorelick quotation from a 1994 hearing on the president's "inherent authority" to order physical searches of homes of U.S. citizens without a warrant.

I know, Democrats can get away with this kind of thing, but Congress and the courts have also acknowledged any president's "inherent powers." Until Congress changed it in 1988, the U.S. Criminal code stated, "Nothing contained in this chapter . . . shall limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect . . . against actual or potential attack or other hostile acts of a foreign power . . ."

In Sealed Case No. 02-001, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review said in 2002: "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

If warrantless surveillance is so beyond the pale of presidential authority, why does FISA itself allow warrantless surveillance "during times of war"?

Are we at war? Again, Bush thinks so. Congress authorized the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against "nations, organizations, or persons" associated with al-Qaida, and the Supreme Court treated this as a declaration of war in the Hamdi case. Finally, events since suggest this didn't end with the Taliban's fall in Afghanistan. Beyond post-9/11 attacks in Bali, Madrid, London and elsewhere, authorities have recently busted up terror plots in Paris, Denmark, Italy and Australia.

And, add to all this a plan for another New York attack. The NSA's warrantless intercept program helped nab an Ohio man who was trying to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge in 2003.

A critical end. A constitutional means.

David Reinhard, associate editor, can be reached at 503-221-8152 or [email protected].
 

·
Cadillac of Men
Joined
·
3,787 Posts
95 BXL said:
We ARE safer. Or have there been any more terrorist attacks in this country that I'm unaware of?
hahahahahahahhaha...that was a good one. just because we threw a bunch of tax payer money down the drain doesnt mean we are any safer. homeland security is a mess, fema showed us that. and the war in iraq has just helped terrorists recruit new people for their jihad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
797 Posts
SquattyD said:
hahahahahahahhaha...that was a good one. just because we threw a bunch of tax payer money down the drain doesnt mean we are any safer. homeland security is a mess, fema showed us that. and the war in iraq has just helped terrorists recruit new people for their jihad.

Fema has been a joke for years, dont want to get on the New Orleans thing, but there was numerous things trhe local government refused to do, and msot of all, people refused to leave assuming it was going to be jsut another hurricane. Terrorism and the war on Jihad, HIGHLY arugable either way, I totally disagree, but Im not going to open the Iraq Yes iraq no debate
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top