Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Patriot Act Renewal rejected by the Senate
|
|
| Re: Patriot Act Renewal rejected by the Senate [message #183984 is a reply to message #183896] |
Wed, 28 December 2005 17:11   |
 |
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
| glyde51 wrote on Wed, 28 December 2005 01:00 |
OH NO! THE TERRORISTS! AIEE!
Look, for all you people that hugged this act, I've got a message for you:
TERRORISTS ARE IN YOUR BACKYARD, PLANT LANDMINDS THERE BEFORE THEY GET INTO YOUR GODDAMN BACKDOOR.
For anyone who are sane (opposed it, or disagreed with parts of it) let's all go for a cup of tea.
How about instead of supporting this tragically faulty bill, you go and support making a NEW bill that works for the CITIZENS and for getting rid of TERRORISTS.
With everyone running around going "omg terrorists on the bus omgomgomg the US is the new middle east save us plz goverment plz take my privacy omgomgomg i dunt care about ma layfe i want teh terrorists gone!" then, uhh...
You need a deep breath, a glass of water, and a 2*4 over the head.
For all of us who know that terrorists aren't big huge boogy men that live around every single corner, let's just uphold the fact that the goverment should pass laws that help THE PEOPLE while GETTING THE JOB DONE.
Saying "BIBI PRIVACY PWNT!" isn't GETTING THE JOB DONE because it's not HELPING THE PEOPLE. Innocent people can be suddenly investigated out of nowhere! YAY!
Anyways kids, remember to check your closet for Osama.
|
Stay out of American politics. Thanks.
whoa.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Patriot Act Renewal rejected by the Senate [message #183996 is a reply to message #183984] |
Wed, 28 December 2005 20:22 |
runewood
Messages: 138
Registered: October 2005
Location: SE Michigan
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
So your law would be something like this.
"We, the people of the us, the ones who give a damn and have my view point, do establish this paper as law. We think that the mean people with bombs, guns and other things should plz stop. If they don't then action will be taken. First we will ask them to stop. Then leave a message on their machine. Then call their parents. Then finally, if we must, we will revoke their drivers licenses. We are sorry we would even think of going that far but desperate times call for desperate measures. Thank you for your time."
"Don't try to be a great man, just be a man. Let history make it's own judgments."
"Maybe its not the destination that matters, but the journey."
"How many people does it take before its wrong? A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million?"
"Im not here to tell you how it is going to end, Im here to tell you how it is going to begin."
"Its not the end or even the beggining of the end, mearly the end of the beggining."
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end."
[Updated on: Wed, 28 December 2005 20:23] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Patriot Act Renewal rejected by the Senate [message #184027 is a reply to message #183984] |
Thu, 29 December 2005 10:57 |
 |
glyde51
Messages: 1827
Registered: August 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| j_ball430 wrote on Wed, 28 December 2005 19:11 |
| glyde51 wrote on Wed, 28 December 2005 01:00 |
OH NO! THE TERRORISTS! AIEE!
Look, for all you people that hugged this act, I've got a message for you:
TERRORISTS ARE IN YOUR BACKYARD, PLANT LANDMINDS THERE BEFORE THEY GET INTO YOUR GODDAMN BACKDOOR.
For anyone who are sane (opposed it, or disagreed with parts of it) let's all go for a cup of tea.
How about instead of supporting this tragically faulty bill, you go and support making a NEW bill that works for the CITIZENS and for getting rid of TERRORISTS.
With everyone running around going "omg terrorists on the bus omgomgomg the US is the new middle east save us plz goverment plz take my privacy omgomgomg i dunt care about ma layfe i want teh terrorists gone!" then, uhh...
You need a deep breath, a glass of water, and a 2*4 over the head.
For all of us who know that terrorists aren't big huge boogy men that live around every single corner, let's just uphold the fact that the goverment should pass laws that help THE PEOPLE while GETTING THE JOB DONE.
Saying "BIBI PRIVACY PWNT!" isn't GETTING THE JOB DONE because it's not HELPING THE PEOPLE. Innocent people can be suddenly investigated out of nowhere! YAY!
Anyways kids, remember to check your closet for Osama.
|
Stay out of American politics. Thanks.
|
Noes, your country controls too much of the current world for me to stay out of your pants. Uhh... politics. Pants too, if you'd rather me stay out of there...
No. Seriously. No.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Patriot Act Renewal rejected by the Senate [message #184028 is a reply to message #182418] |
Thu, 29 December 2005 11:03 |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I think that if the President takes away enough of our freedoms, then the terrorists will stop hating us for them. It's probably his secret plan.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Patriot Act Renewal rejected by the Senate [message #184282 is a reply to message #182418] |
Sat, 31 December 2005 09:14 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Well, for one, there is the freedom to the right of privacy that the President has taken away with secret, illegal warrantless wiretap authorizations.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/17/113212/10
In true Nodbugger fashion, the argument he obviously copied and pasted from some other website in response to this actually proves him wrong.
http://www.democrats.com/node/7192
That's how you copy from a website, Nodbugger, not by pretending it's your own thought.
One last thing: Who knows how many terrorists have been succesfully prosecuted and brought to justice by President Bush?
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Patriot Act Renewal rejected by the Senate [message #184308 is a reply to message #184282] |
Sat, 31 December 2005 12:51 |
 |
Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi wrote on Sat, 31 December 2005 11:14 |
Well, for one, there is the freedom to the right of privacy that the President has taken away with secret, illegal warrantless wiretap authorizations.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/17/113212/10
In true Nodbugger fashion, the argument he obviously copied and pasted from some other website in response to this actually proves him wrong.
http://www.democrats.com/node/7192
That's how you copy from a website, Nodbugger, not by pretending it's your own thought.
One last thing: Who knows how many terrorists have been succesfully prosecuted and brought to justice by President Bush?
|
They aren't illegal, I had already proven that.
And no, it isn't wrong. That idiot on that website isn't reading the right parts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Patriot Act Renewal rejected by the Senate [message #184337 is a reply to message #184283] |
Sat, 31 December 2005 15:59 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| j_ball430 wrote on Sat, 31 December 2005 11:20 |
| SuperFlyingEngi wrote on Sat, 31 December 2005 10:14 |
One last thing: Who knows how many terrorists have been succesfully prosecuted and brought to justice by President Bush?
|
Who cares?
|
Think reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal hard about this one, and the answer might come to you.
| Nodbugger |
They aren't illegal, I had already proven that.
|
What you proved is that you don't know very much about how the government works.
| Nodbugger |
Additionally the FISC may be unconstitutional, because it may be a attempt by congress to impose restrictions on the executive Branch of the governement outside of the constitutional admendment process.
|
This just makes no sense. Congress can impose restrictions on the Executive without amending the Constitution. Ever heard of the War Powers Act?
| Nodbugger |
Based on this ruling, the President may have the authority to use warentless wiretaps on Foreign National even if it involves US citizens, regardless of the FISC act.
|
This, of course, is not what the ruling says at all. And isn't the issue at hand either, oddly enough.
President Bush is illegally authorizing the NSA to spy on American citizens inside America without warrants. Skipping warrants, the NSA isn't even supposed to spy inside the U.S.
| Nodbugger |
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/NSA.htm
| Quote: |
December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.
|
|
Oddly enough, that's not even the situation at hand. Nice try at using a meaningless statistic to bolster your argument, though.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Re: Patriot Act Renewal rejected by the Senate [message #184343 is a reply to message #184337] |
Sat, 31 December 2005 17:09 |
|
Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi wrote on Sat, 31 December 2005 17:59 |
| j_ball430 wrote on Sat, 31 December 2005 11:20 |
| SuperFlyingEngi wrote on Sat, 31 December 2005 10:14 |
One last thing: Who knows how many terrorists have been succesfully prosecuted and brought to justice by President Bush?
|
Who cares?
|
Think reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal hard about this one, and the answer might come to you.
| Nodbugger |
They aren't illegal, I had already proven that.
|
What you proved is that you don't know very much about how the government works.
| Nodbugger |
Additionally the FISC may be unconstitutional, because it may be a attempt by congress to impose restrictions on the executive Branch of the governement outside of the constitutional admendment process.
|
This just makes no sense. Congress can impose restrictions on the Executive without amending the Constitution. Ever heard of the War Powers Act?
| Nodbugger |
Based on this ruling, the President may have the authority to use warentless wiretaps on Foreign National even if it involves US citizens, regardless of the FISC act.
|
This, of course, is not what the ruling says at all. And isn't the issue at hand either, oddly enough.
President Bush is illegally authorizing the NSA to spy on American citizens inside America without warrants. Skipping warrants, the NSA isn't even supposed to spy inside the U.S.
| Nodbugger |
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/NSA.htm
| Quote: |
December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.
|
|
Oddly enough, that's not even the situation at hand. Nice try at using a meaningless statistic to bolster your argument, though.
|
Grasping at straws now?
I don't even think you live in the US and it is quite obvious you have never taken a class or read a book about the US government.
This is a court case that says the president can do this. It isn't very hard to understand.
And no, Congress cannot impose restrictions on the executive Branch, ever hear of Separation of powers? The War Powers act doesn't limit what the president can do, it isn't a presidential power to wage war. The war powers act gives them that ability.
The NSA, lets break that Acronym down. National Security Agency. Not international, but national. While they are specializing in foreign activity, they can spy domestically when it involves foreign citizens.
I think you might also like to take a look at this.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/information/eo12333.html
| Quote: |
2.5 Attorney General Approval. The Attorney General hereby is delegated the power to approve the use for intelligence purposes, within the United States or against a United States person abroad, of any technique for which a warrant would be required if undertaken for law enforcement purposes, provided that such techniques shall not be undertaken unless the Attorney General has determined in each case that there is probable cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Electronic surveillance, as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be conducted in accordance with that Act, as well as this Order.
|
Like I said, the attorney General can authorize a warrant less wiretap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Patriot Act Renewal rejected by the Senate [message #184350 is a reply to message #184347] |
Sat, 31 December 2005 17:45 |
runewood
Messages: 138
Registered: October 2005
Location: SE Michigan
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Ok listen carefully. Who here likes old Honest Abe? I do. Under the precedents he set up, the President can remove your rights if you commit treason. If you are a terrorist then you have committed treason. Thus if they think you are a terrorist, you HAVE NO RIGHTS. These people are involved in questionable things dealing with treason so they CAN be searched, checked, spy-ed upon.
"Don't try to be a great man, just be a man. Let history make it's own judgments."
"Maybe its not the destination that matters, but the journey."
"How many people does it take before its wrong? A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million?"
"Im not here to tell you how it is going to end, Im here to tell you how it is going to begin."
"Its not the end or even the beggining of the end, mearly the end of the beggining."
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end."
|
|
|
|
| Re: Patriot Act Renewal rejected by the Senate [message #184400 is a reply to message #184343] |
Sun, 01 January 2006 10:06 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Nodbugger wrote on Sat |
Grasping at straws now?
I don't even think you live in the US and it is quite obvious you have never taken a class or read a book about the US government.
|
Well, not any books written by Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coulter.
| Nodbugger |
This is a court case that says the president can do this. It isn't very hard to understand.
|
But it does not say this.
| Amendment IV |
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
|
The Constitution itself expressly says that warrants based on probable cause are required for all cases of domestic searches. (This extends to electronic surveillance as well.) (So you know, they didn't have wiretaps back when this was written.)
| Nodbugger |
And no, Congress cannot impose restrictions on the executive Branch, ever hear of Separation of powers? The War Powers act doesn't limit what the president can do, it isn't a presidential power to wage war. The war powers act gives them that ability.
|
...
The War Powers Act was created in response to troops being sent into Vietnam by a President without the approval of Congress. So Congress declared that the President may only deploy troops if he reports to Congress within a certain amount of time after deployment. Thus, Congress is saying "The President must do this."
| Nodbugger |
The NSA, lets break that Acronym down. National Security Agency. Not international, but national. While they are specializing in foreign activity, they can spy domestically when it involves foreign citizens.
|
These are AMERICAN citizens. AMERICAN NOT FOREIGN.
I think you might also like to take a look at this.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/information/eo12333.html
| Quote: |
2.5 Attorney General Approval. The Attorney General hereby is delegated the power to approve the use for intelligence purposes, within the United States or against a United States person abroad, of any technique for which a warrant would be required if undertaken for law enforcement purposes, provided that such techniques shall not be undertaken unless the Attorney General has determined in each case that there is probable cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Electronic surveillance, as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be conducted in accordance with that Act, as well as this Order.
|
Shall be conducted in accordance with that act [FISA]. The end.
| Runewood |
Ok listen carefully. Who here likes old Honest Abe? I do. Under the precedents he set up, the President can remove your rights if you commit treason. If you are a terrorist then you have committed treason. Thus if they think you are a terrorist, you HAVE NO RIGHTS. These people are involved in questionable things dealing with treason so they CAN be searched, checked, spy-ed upon.
|
These people haven't been convicted of ANYTHING. So they cannot legally be viewed as being guilty of treason. Of course, legality never stopped President Bush, but that doesn't mean you should follow his bad example. I highly suggest you give up political science in favor of being a waitor or something.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Re: Patriot Act Renewal rejected by the Senate [message #184411 is a reply to message #182418] |
Sun, 01 January 2006 11:53 |
|
Nodbugger
Messages: 976
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
You realized you didn't prove anything?
The constitution says against unreasonable search and seizures.
These are in no way unreasonable.
And what you don't realize is that that rule can be waived for something called probable cause.
If a cop has reason to suspect you are hiding something in your car, he can search it. If a cop hears gun shots from your house, he can run in. Warrants are bypassed all the time. Every time you ever told someone any personal information they couldn't find on public record you bypassed a warrant.
The constitution is meant to be vague and this is one of those situations. If I can't have my machine gun you can't have your warrants.
The Wars powers act was created to stop trading with the enemy and was passed 50 years before Vietnam.
According to the constitution ONLY Congress has the power to declare war. Now the president got around this by not declaring war. This is what they did. The president never supposed to be able to wage war, before war was only fought with a formal declaration. It was just the thing to do. They made the Wars Powers resolution to make this even more so, even though no president has ever been denied, it was a nice try.
And as I said, American citizens can be wiretapped when it involved foreign citizens. To say that they can't wire tap Bob smiths house in Connecticut , but we can wire tap Mohamed's phone in Bahrain , even though they constantly call each other is stupid.
If Bob smith has relations with Mohamed the terrorist, chances are Bob is talking to other terrorists. It is called common sense.
And according to FISA
| Quote: |
The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, the surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party
|
Now this will probably get amended, they did receive information on American citizens, but they could always say they didn't know.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Patriot Act Renewal rejected by the Senate [message #184422 is a reply to message #184400] |
Sun, 01 January 2006 13:45 |
runewood
Messages: 138
Registered: October 2005
Location: SE Michigan
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
[quote title=SuperFlyingEngi wrote on Sun, 01 January 2006 11:06]| Nodbugger wrote on Sat |
| Runewood |
Ok listen carefully. Who here likes old Honest Abe? I do. Under the precedents he set up, the President can remove your rights if you commit treason. If you are a terrorist then you have committed treason. Thus if they think you are a terrorist, you HAVE NO RIGHTS. These people are involved in questionable things dealing with treason so they CAN be searched, checked, spy-ed upon.
|
These people haven't been convicted of ANYTHING. So they cannot legally be viewed as being guilty of treason. Of course, legality never stopped President Bush, but that doesn't mean you should follow his bad example. I highly suggest you give up political science in favor of being a waitor or something.
|
Thats just it, if you commit treason you dont have the right to a trail. You dont need to be convicted. You have no rights as soon as you commit treason. Which means they can wire tap you, lock you in a box and throw away a key, ect. You are no longer protected by the constitution.
"Don't try to be a great man, just be a man. Let history make it's own judgments."
"Maybe its not the destination that matters, but the journey."
"How many people does it take before its wrong? A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million?"
"Im not here to tell you how it is going to end, Im here to tell you how it is going to begin."
"Its not the end or even the beggining of the end, mearly the end of the beggining."
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end."
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Patriot Act Renewal rejected by the Senate [message #184462 is a reply to message #184432] |
Sun, 01 January 2006 21:45 |
runewood
Messages: 138
Registered: October 2005
Location: SE Michigan
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Not during the civil war u moron. There were people acused of treason and they never got a trial. They said, you are a spy, get in jail. When they asked for a trial they got none. Bush is doing the same.
"Don't try to be a great man, just be a man. Let history make it's own judgments."
"Maybe its not the destination that matters, but the journey."
"How many people does it take before its wrong? A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million?"
"Im not here to tell you how it is going to end, Im here to tell you how it is going to begin."
"Its not the end or even the beggining of the end, mearly the end of the beggining."
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end."
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Patriot Act Renewal rejected by the Senate [message #184483 is a reply to message #184422] |
Mon, 02 January 2006 09:35 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| runewood wrote on Sun, 01 January 2006 15:45 |
| SuperFlyingEngi wrote on Sun, 01 January 2006 11:06 |
| Nodbugger wrote on Sat |
| Runewood |
Ok listen carefully. Who here likes old Honest Abe? I do. Under the precedents he set up, the President can remove your rights if you commit treason. If you are a terrorist then you have committed treason. Thus if they think you are a terrorist, you HAVE NO RIGHTS. These people are involved in questionable things dealing with treason so they CAN be searched, checked, spy-ed upon.
|
These people haven't been convicted of ANYTHING. So they cannot legally be viewed as being guilty of treason. Of course, legality never stopped President Bush, but that doesn't mean you should follow his bad example. I highly suggest you give up political science in favor of being a waitor or something.
|
Thats just it, if you commit treason you dont have the right to a trail. You dont need to be convicted. You have no rights as soon as you commit treason. Which means they can wire tap you, lock you in a box and throw away a key, ect. You are no longer protected by the constitution.
|
|
Only if they prove that you committed treason. When someone commits such an act, an alarm doesn't suddenly go off somewhere. There is that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, but, like I said, fortunately President Bush doesn't observe laws.
| runewood |
There were people acused of treason and they never got a trial. They said, you are a spy, get in jail
|
Not legally.
| runewood |
Bush is doing the same.
|
Not legally.
runewood, you are so deplorably unintelligent on the topic of what is and what is not illegal that I'm afraid to say I don't want to be bothered by you any more.
| Nodbugger |
These are in no way unreasonable.
|
That's not why these wiretaps are against the Constitution.
| Nodbugger |
And what you don't realize is that that rule can be waived for something called probable cause.
|
That doesn't apply to electronic surveillance. Duh.
| Nodbugger |
The constitution is meant to be vague and this is one of those situations. If I can't have my machine gun you can't have your warrants.
|
Great comparison.
| Nodbugger |
The Wars powers act was created to stop trading with the enemy and was passed 50 years before Vietnam.
|
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html
| Nodbugger |
According to the constitution ONLY Congress has the power to declare war. Now the president got around this by not declaring war. This is what they did. The president never supposed to be able to wage war, before war was only fought with a formal declaration. It was just the thing to do. They made the Wars Powers resolution to make this even more so, even though no president has ever been denied, it was a nice try.
|
Not really.
| Nodbugger |
And as I said, American citizens can be wiretapped when it involved foreign citizens. To say that they can't wire tap Bob smiths house in Connecticut , but we can wire tap Mohamed's phone in Bahrain , even though they constantly call each other is stupid.
|
Except that Bob has constitutionally-protected rights, and to say you can violate them because you really want to is just stupid.
| Nodbugger |
If Bob smith has relations with Mohamed the terrorist, chances are Bob is talking to other terrorists. It is called common sense.
|
Law works on facts, not common sense.
| Nodbugger |
Now this will probably get amended, they did receive information on American citizens, but they could always say they didn't know.
|
Which I suppose you would consider good?
EDIT: Errors with quotation system
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
[Updated on: Mon, 02 January 2006 09:37] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Patriot Act Renewal rejected by the Senate [message #184488 is a reply to message #184483] |
Mon, 02 January 2006 10:20 |
runewood
Messages: 138
Registered: October 2005
Location: SE Michigan
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
You don't get it. If you commit treason you don't get a trial. Im not saying its right but IT IS legal. You don't have to be proven guilty. Plus these people get military tribunals. Look, put it this way.
I am a terrorist. I am also am an American citizen. If I fund Bob's terrorist attack, I have committed treason, am no longer a US citizen protected by the constitution and am an enemy soldier on US soil. When they want to search my stuff they can. At the moment they think im a terrorist, I have no rights.
Now you may be saying, they don't know your a terrorist till they tap you, thats bs and you know it. The government is smart enough to search people who have connections to terrorism. They don't search the little old lady but they do search the 23 year old Syrian Radical Cleric who teaches "kill America."
"Don't try to be a great man, just be a man. Let history make it's own judgments."
"Maybe its not the destination that matters, but the journey."
"How many people does it take before its wrong? A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million?"
"Im not here to tell you how it is going to end, Im here to tell you how it is going to begin."
"Its not the end or even the beggining of the end, mearly the end of the beggining."
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Nov 11 17:28:53 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01630 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
