Majority of Americans believe surveilling terrorists in USA is a good idea - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Majority of Americans believe surveilling terrorists in USA is a good idea (Page 2 of 9)

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:21:50 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
I'm one of them.

Me, too!

Or is it, 'I, also'?

Well, +1, anyway.

Eric The(EnglishAsASecondLanguage)Hun

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:21:51 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll sum up the whole thing this way.

"Consider the source."

These allegations of Bush violating the law are from the SAME people who've been trying to destroy him since the day he announced for office.

They lack credibility.

So I'll not extend their latest smear campaign any.

What part of "he admitted it" don't you understand?

He admitted what he did.

He did NOT admit breaking the law, which is the allegtion I was referring to.

DOn't worry, dude, you can still toke up, Bush isn't monitoring your over the phone pot deals. Well, unless you are calling al Queda, tring to score a dime bag.

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:22:19 AM EDT

[#3]

It's fun watching people reconcile diversity, terrorism, freedom, and security. Diversity is ahead by a length, followed by security and terrorism. Freedom dropping back ....

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:25:48 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Newsflash - We are at WAR!

In WWII we rationed oil, gas, sugar, copper, rubber - and froze workers wages too. We censored the news, burned up japs alive in foxholes and even racially-profiled Americans of Japanese descent at home. We even pulled out all stops as fast as we could and nuked two entire cities.

And we fucking WON that goddamn war and then went back to "normal" American life with no rations, no wage-freezes, no news censorship and no internment camps - AND with a civilized Japan and Germany as our partners rather than our enemies... all in less than four years.

When did Congress make the declaration of war? And against whom?
Where in the Constitution does is dictate HOW Congress must "declare" war for us to BE at "war"?

Answer: It doesn't.

So by Congress authorizing the President to use the full force of the United States military to fight terrorist states and organizations, and providing the funds to do so sure sounds like they "declared" war.

It doesn't sound like it to me. If it doesn't say "we declare war" (or something similar) then it isn't a declaration of war. It is just a declaration of extra effort to get some really bad criminals.

And I guess, under your reading of the Constitution, they wouldn't have to declare who they were going to war against, either. They could just declare war in general and pick out the enemies as it suited them later, right?

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:26:26 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Point is, they are being monitored for communicating with the enemy.

The military cannot monitor US citizens inside the US. Therefore, this does not fall under the War Powers Act. Therefore, FISA must be followed.

I'm not arguing against the wiretaps, I just want it done within the law.

Quoted:
You want to fight a war against an international enemy using Constitutional constraints?

When US citizens are involved...yes. If the President can arbitrarily violate laws under the auspicies of the War Powers Act, we are awfully close to living in an authoritarian regiem.

Lord knows that the President gets pissy when you "wave the goddamned Constitution" in his face.

Quoted:
YOu need to read a little history of the 1940's. LOTS of REAL Constitutional rights were temporarily violated.

FDR gave us all kinds of fun little unconstitutional toys that we are still playing with. Therefore, I would not hold FDR up as the paragon of virtue based on his wartime decisions. Two wrongs did not make a right.

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:28:34 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted: War on poverty: Poor people do not deserve any rights, lets kill all the poor people in the world.

Actually, poor people are very good at killing themselves. The War on poverty is a socialist program 'gubment uses to take resources from productive people and give it to the dregs of society. So the best way to fight the war on poverty is for 'gubment to do nothing about poverty and save the taxpayers lots of money.

War on drugs: Anyone associated with any type of drugs does not deserve any type of rights, lets kill them all.

Druggies are good at killing themselves, too. We should spend the money in the War on drugs by attacking foreign drug lords in enemy territory to give our military real practice. Foreign drug lords know their products deprive Americans of their lives and money so let's drop some bombs and paratroopers on them.

War in illiteracy: lets kill everyone who can't read.

If you can't read, you're probably doing to die in an accident too! So that war should be easy to win.

There can be no war against a word, only against a nation.

Political correctness is a war against words.

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:30:34 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted: Uh, no. The Constitution defines the separation of powers, which we are talking about here. We're also talking about the fourth amendment, so I'll give you partial credit for being pendantic.
Wrong again man, sorry. The CiC isn't usurping the powers of the Congress and the Supreme Court by monitoring terrorists and their supporters on US soil. Anti-terror operations don't fall under the Legislative or Judicial branches, that's an Executive job.

If he isn't getting the warrants required by law then he is definitely usurping powers.

I'm sorry to point out the obvious, but the CIA/FBI/NSA chain of command goes to the CiC. Congress can call hearings or run oversight commitees, but day to day operations go through the Executive branch. Nobody reports to the Supreme Court and they have no command authority.

They have the authority to approve wiretaps.

But they will fall under Executive command when fighting non-state entities like terrorists. If those terrorists are being backed by foreign 'gubments, that's even more reason for the CiC to get on top of them.

It may be, but that doesn't eliminate the legal requirements for pursuing criminals.

Based on how the operators are acting on the field, it's too hard to get one in light of tracking shadowy terror cells. If it was easy, the Bush administration would have truckloads of warrants.

Baloney. In the entire history of those requests for warrants, something like two or three have ever been denied when requested. If they wanted truckloads of warrants, all they have to do is file the proper papers and odds are about 1,000 to one that every one will be approved.

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:31:33 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll sum up the whole thing this way.

"Consider the source."

These allegations of Bush violating the law are from the SAME people who've been trying to destroy him since the day he announced for office.

They lack credibility.

So I'll not extend their latest smear campaign any.

What part of "he admitted it" don't you understand?

He admitted what he did.

He did NOT admit breaking the law, which is the allegtion I was referring to.

DOn't worry, dude, you can still toke up, Bush isn't monitoring your over the phone pot deals. Well, unless you are calling al Queda, tring to score a dime bag.

I have been familiar with that area of law for about forty years -- since I worked in those areas myself. What he admitted is illegal, pure and simple.

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:32:46 AM EDT

[#9]

How many of you use wireless phones? And you are worried about someone tapping your call? Please.

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:33:40 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
The military cannot monitor US citizens inside the US. Therefore, this does not fall under the War Powers Act. Therefore, FISA must be followed.

I'm not arguing against the wiretaps, I just want it done within the law.

We are not talking bout teh military.

Again, (according to my understanding) these wiretaps have ALWAYS been done, only now that there's a groupo with a "hate Bush" agenda is it a problem.

This whole thing is a big "Gotcha" game. With teh 9/11 Commission it was "YOu should have known. You didn't do everything to protect us."

Now its "You did too much to find out. Your not allowed to do this to protect us. "

Further, its my understanding Congress authorized him. If you don't like it, your beef is with Congress.

When US citizens are involved...yes. If the President can arbitrarily violate laws under the auspicies of the War Powers Act, we are awfully close to living in an authoritarian regiem.

Relax, Chicken Little.

FDR gave us all kinds of fun little unconstitutional toys that we are still playing with. Therefore, I would not hold FDR up as the paragon of virtue based on his wartime decisions. Two wrongs did not make a right.

The point being, we not only survived it, we've thrived.

IF, and that a big IF anything wrong is being done, its necessary to fight this war, and it will be corrected in a few years.

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:34:01 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted: War on poverty: Poor people do not deserve any rights, lets kill all the poor people in the world.
Actually, poor people are very good at killing themselves. The War on poverty is a socialist program 'gubment uses to take resources from productive people and give it to the dregs of society. So the best way to fight the war on poverty is for 'gubment to do nothing about poverty and save the taxpayers lots of money.
War on drugs: Anyone associated with any type of drugs does not deserve any type of rights, lets kill them all.
Druggies are good at killing themselves, too. We should spend the money in the War on drugs by attacking foreign drug lords in enemy territory to give our military real practice. Foreign drug lords know their products deprive Americans of their lives and money so let's drop some bombs and paratroopers on them.
War in illiteracy: lets kill everyone who can't read.
If you can't read, you're probably doing to die in an accident too! So that war should be easy to win.
There can be no war against a word, only against a nation.
Political correctness is a war against words.

Not to hijack the thread, but just a quick factual question that will demonstrate you really don't know what you are talking about here.

You said "druggies are good at killing themselves." So tell us how many people are killed by drugs in a typical year?

You don't have to really answer. I know you don't really have a clue so there is no need to hijack the thread to another subject. Just note that you are spouting off without any knowledge of the facts here.

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:34:29 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
I have been familiar with that area of law for about forty years -- since I worked in those areas myself. What he admitted is illegal, pure and simple.

So is your pot habit.

Seems only CERTAIN laws really matter to you.

Hypocrite.

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:35:15 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Not to hijack the thread, but just a quick factual question that will demonstrate you really don't know what you are talking about here.

You said "druggies are good at killing themselves." So tell us how many people are killed by drugs in a typical year?

.

The Caped Pot Crusader is here to save the day!!!!!!!!!

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:35:31 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Newsflash - We are at WAR!

In WWII we rationed oil, gas, sugar, copper, rubber - and froze workers wages too. We censored the news, burned up japs alive in foxholes and even racially-profiled Americans of Japanese descent at home. We even pulled out all stops as fast as we could and nuked two entire cities.

And we fucking WON that goddamn war and then went back to "normal" American life with no rations, no wage-freezes, no news censorship and no internment camps - AND with a civilized Japan and Germany as our partners rather than our enemies... all in less than four years.

When did Congress make the declaration of war? And against whom?
Where in the Constitution does is dictate HOW Congress must "declare" war for us to BE at "war"?

Answer: It doesn't.

So by Congress authorizing the President to use the full force of the United States military to fight terrorist states and organizations, and providing the funds to do so sure sounds like they "declared" war.
It doesn't sound like it to me. If it doesn't say "we declare war" (or something similar) then it isn't a declaration of war. It is just a declaration of extra effort to get some really bad criminals.

And if it's not a musket or flintlock then it's not a firearm.

Mmkay.

The concept of "declaring war" only works when the enemy is another country. It fails where the enemy is a well-funded, well-armed NGO.

The FFs had not the foresight to anticipate such an enemy.

Quoted:
And I guess, under your reading of the Constitution, they wouldn't have to declare who they were going to war against, either. They could just declare war in general and pick out the enemies as it suited them later, right?

Like they did in WWII.

Do you think we declared war against "France"? Well then why did we bomb France's cities and invade Normandy?

Answer: We "picked out" our enemies wherever (and whomever) they were regardless of what country they were in.

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:36:13 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I have been familiar with that area of law for about forty years -- since I worked in those areas myself. What he admitted is illegal, pure and simple.
So is your pot habit.

Seems only CERTAIN laws really matter to you.

Hypocrite.

Ouch.

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:37:32 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The military cannot monitor US citizens inside the US. Therefore, this does not fall under the War Powers Act. Therefore, FISA must be followed.

I'm not arguing against the wiretaps, I just want it done within the law.

We are not talking bout teh military.

Again, (according to my understanding) these wiretaps have ALWAYS been done, only now that there's a groupo with a "hate Bush" agenda is it a problem.

I can confirm that surveillance of US citizens has been done for a long time. (forty years that I can confirm). But it never was legal.

This whole thing is a big "Gotcha" game. With teh 9/11 Commission it was "YOu should have known. You didn't do everything to protect us."

Now its "You did too much to find out. Your not allowed to do this to protect us. "

Further, its my understanding Congress authorized him. If you don't like it, your beef is with Congress.

Not according to the members of Congress who were in the intelligence briefings.

FDR gave us all kinds of fun little unconstitutional toys that we are still playing with. Therefore, I would not hold FDR up as the paragon of virtue based on his wartime decisions. Two wrongs did not make a right.

The point being, we not only survived it, we've thrived.

IF, and that a big IF anything wrong is being done, its necessary to fight this war, and it will be corrected in a few years.

Uuuuuh, yeah. If I wasn't ready to give up my constitutional rights to fight some terrorists then I should be comforted by the fact that we have thrived even though the government is doing things that are illegal.

Yeah, that makes a good moral justification for everything.

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:38:11 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Freedom dropping back ....

...amist the cheers of the masses.

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:38:19 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I have been familiar with that area of law for about forty years -- since I worked in those areas myself. What he admitted is illegal, pure and simple.

So is your pot habit.

Seems only CERTAIN laws really matter to you.

Hypocrite.

You are confused and got into the wrong thread again.

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:38:49 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted: The military cannot monitor US citizens inside the US. Therefore, this does not fall under the War Powers Act. Therefore, FISA must be followed. I'm not arguing against the wiretaps, I just want it done within the law.

Yeah, so if a US citizen collaborating with terrorists walks back across the border with a brand new disposable cell phone, our boys have to file for another warrant? Yeah right, that's just not how the real world works. Any US citizen who assists foreign terrorists is no longer protected by the Bill of Rights and it doesn't matter which side of a mapline they are on.

When US citizens are involved...yes. If the President can arbitrarily violate laws under the auspicies of the War Powers Act, we are awfully close to living in an authoritarian regiem. Lord knows that the President gets pissy when you "wave the goddamned Constitution" in his face.

President Bush isn't acting arbitrarily. If he was, there would be a lot more searches on people that can clearly show they aren't involved with terrorism. Arbitrary means they are searching whoever they feel like it and that just isn't happening because there just aren't enough complaints! It's a big country with a lot of people can the media is having trouble finding concrete examples.

FDR gave us all kinds of fun little unconstitutional toys that we are still playing with. Therefore, I would not hold FDR up as the paragon of virtue based on his wartime decisions. Two wrongs did not make a right.

Wasn't FDR a Democrap?

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:39:15 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have been familiar with that area of law for about forty years -- since I worked in those areas myself. What he admitted is illegal, pure and simple.
So is your pot habit.

Seems only CERTAIN laws really matter to you.

Hypocrite.
Ouch.

Like your average puppy, the wolfman needs to be swatted in the nose with a news paper from time to time to keep him in line.

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:40:20 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have been familiar with that area of law for about forty years -- since I worked in those areas myself. What he admitted is illegal, pure and simple.

So is your pot habit.

Seems only CERTAIN laws really matter to you.

Hypocrite.

You are confused and got into the wrong thread again.

I'm spot on.

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:43:09 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted: Not to hijack the thread, but just a quick factual question that will demonstrate you really don't know what you are talking about here. You said "druggies are good at killing themselves." So tell us how many people are killed by drugs in a typical year?

A lot of people die from drugs each year. More would die if it wasn't for 'gugment programs that taxpayers pay for. Do you think druggies can afford the expensive medical care to save them from the life-threatenings effects of substance abuse on their own? Of course not! So the 'gubment should cut back on spending money on people who CHOOSE to ruin their bodies with life-threatening substances and use the military to attack foreign drug lords that deliver those substances to our shores.

You don't have to really answer. I know you don't really have a clue so there is no need to hijack the thread to another subject. Just note that you are spouting off without any knowledge of the facts here.

Gee, look at that. I did have an answer. Maybe you should stop spouting off with silly statements in the first place.

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:44:25 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Yeah, so if a US citizen collaborating with terrorists walks back across the border with a brand new disposable cell phone, our boys have to file for another warrant?

No. Check the latest version of the laws. The tap applies to the person, not a line.

Yeah right, that's just not how the real world works. Any US citizen who assists foreign terrorists is no longer protected by the Bill of Rights and it doesn't matter which side of a mapline they are on.

Where in the Bill of Rights does it say that they are no longer protected by th BOR if they are suspected of some crime?

President Bush isn't acting arbitrarily.

If he didn't follow the law and get the warrants that are routinely granted every time they are requested then he is clearly acting arbitrarily.

If he was, there would be a lot more searches on people that can clearly show they aren't involved with terrorism.

They do, and have done for decades that I can confirm. You have no idea.

Arbitrary means they are searching whoever they feel like it and that just isn't happening because there just aren't enough complaints!

Baloney. The person being monitored has no way of knowing they are being monitored. Anyone involved in the surveillance that complained would go to jail for a loooooong time for revealing secrets. Therefore -- no complaints -- even though I saw a big book full of research they did on law-abiding citizens.

It's a big country with a lot of people can the media is having trouble finding concrete examples.

It generally works that way when things are stamped "Top Secret: Eyes Only".

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:45:10 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
So is your pot habit.

Nice ad hominem and troll attempt.

I wonder why anyone bothers with you, gman, since you have absolutely no rhetorical skills. I guess that you just adhear to the aphorism that "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."

(oops, I cursed again)

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:45:18 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Freedom dropping back ....

...amist the cheers of the masses.

Your hyperbole aside, the fact remains there is NO COnstitutional "right to privacy" and private international tel cons with al Queda is NOT one of Franklin's "essential liberties."

The people making the accusation are agenda driven.

We ARE at war. There's a different set of rules.

If soldiers can temporarily risk their lives, I can temporarily surrender this bogus right to privacy of al Queda collaborators..

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:45:42 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted: Not to hijack the thread, but just a quick factual question that will demonstrate you really don't know what you are talking about here. You said "druggies are good at killing themselves." So tell us how many people are killed by drugs in a typical year?
A lot of people die from drugs each year. More would die if it wasn't for 'gugment programs that taxpayers pay for. Do you think druggies can afford the expensive medical care to save them from the life-threatenings effects of substance abuse on their own? Of course not! So the 'gubment should cut back on spending money on people who CHOOSE to ruin their bodies with life-threatening substances and use the military to attack foreign drug lords that deliver those substances to our shores.
You don't have to really answer. I know you don't really have a clue so there is no need to hijack the thread to another subject. Just note that you are spouting off without any knowledge of the facts here.
Gee, look at that. I did have an answer. Maybe you should stop spouting off with silly statements in the first place.

No, you didn't have an answer and obviously don't have a clue. The question called for a number, not "lots". Point made -- you are spouting off when you don't have the facts.

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:48:26 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
So is your pot habit.

Nice ad hominem and troll attempt.

I wonder why anyone bothers with you, gman, since you have absolutely no rhetorical skills. I guess that you just adhear to the aphorism that "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."

(oops, I cursed again)

Like I said, this whole thing is about the credibility of the accusers.

The people who first raised the issue are Bush haters, making issue of a non-issue, for political gain.

Wolfman made insinuations he is some kind of legal expert in this area, and wants to see the law followed.

WHILE he is persoanlly breaking the law.

That's not ad hominem. That's fact, and is a credibility test used in every court in teh land.

Sorry, but one dude backing your "rule of law" thread is an admitted law breaker.

I like your thread. I disagree with your conclusions. And your spelling. "Its "adhere."

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:53:52 AM EDT

[#28]

So this pamphlet doesn't bother anyone here in the least?

Buehler?

Anyone?

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:55:15 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
They are not allegations; it is black-and-white in FISA. Just follow the fucking law.

+1

That's what boggles my mind. Why would Bush want to bypass FISA? FISA has a nearly 99.99% approval rate on warrant requests, and the law allows us to get the warrant up to 72 hours after the wiretap takes place.

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:56:50 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
So this pamphlet doesn't bother anyone here in the least?

i10.photobucket.com/albums/a103/thedoctors308/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Front.jpg
i10.photobucket.com/albums/a103/thedoctors308/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Back.jpg

Buehler?

Anyone?

THAT bothers me. Warrantless wiretaps of international telcons with al Queda collaborators does not.

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:56:52 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So is your pot habit.

Nice ad hominem and troll attempt.

I wonder why anyone bothers with you, gman, since you have absolutely no rhetorical skills. I guess that you just adhear to the aphorism that "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."

(oops, I cursed again)

Like I said, this whole thing is about the credibility of the accusers.

The people who first raised the issue are Bush haters, making issue of a non-issue, for political gain.

Wolfman made insinuations he is some kind of legal expert in this area, and wants to see the law followed.

WHILE he is persoanlly breaking the law.

That's not ad hominem. That's fact, and is a credibility test used in every court in teh land.

Sorry, but one dude backing your "rule of law" thread is an admitted law breaker.

I like your thread. I disagree with your conclusions. And your spelling. "Its "adhere."

Same old troll crap from Gman.

Just FYI, I used to be in military intelligence -- the section that did things like this. Unless you are quite a mature individual (doesn't seem like it) I was doing this stuff before you were born.

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:57:16 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
So this pamphlet doesn't bother anyone here in the least?

i10.photobucket.com/albums/a103/thedoctors308/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Front.jpg
i10.photobucket.com/albums/a103/thedoctors308/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Back.jpg

Buehler?

Anyone?

Not any more because it's invalid.

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:58:44 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
They are not allegations; it is black-and-white in FISA. Just follow the fucking law.

+1

That's what boggles my mind. Why would Bush want to bypass FISA? FISA has a nearly 99.99% approval rate on warrant requests, and the law allows us to get the warrant up to 72 hours after the wiretap takes place.

Yeah, man, lets get warrants for all battlefield actions....

I spoze you want al Queda tried in civil courts too?

Did you not beleive the Prez when he told us this would be a VERY different kind of war?? Did ya think he was just looking for a good soundbite?

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:59:45 AM EDT

[#34]

Learn the boardcode, please...

Quoted:
Yeah, so if a US citizen collaborating with terrorists walks back across the border with a brand new disposable cell phone, our boys have to file for another warrant?

Please google "Roving Wiretaps." If you are going to argue, it would be nice if you came armed with the facts.

Quoted:
President Bush isn't acting arbitrarily. If he was, there would be a lot more searches on people that can clearly show they aren't involved with terrorism.

FISA is a secret court. There are no public lists of people targeted. Everything is sealed. According to this link, the military has been gathering information on antiwar groups. Therefore, I would not put it past the administration to spy on anyone.

Quoted:
Wasn't FDR a Democrap?

Yeah.

Posted: 12/29/2005 6:59:52 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Same old troll crap from Gman.

Just FYI, I used to be in military intelligence -- the section that did things like this. Unless you are quite a mature individual (doesn't seem like it) I was doing this stuff before you were born.

Rule of law pot smoker.

Posted: 12/29/2005 7:00:28 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They are not allegations; it is black-and-white in FISA. Just follow the fucking law.

+1

That's what boggles my mind. Why would Bush want to bypass FISA? FISA has a nearly 99.99% approval rate on warrant requests, and the law allows us to get the warrant up to 72 hours after the wiretap takes place.

Yeah, man, lets get warrants for all battlefield actions....

I spoze you want al Queda tried in civil courts too?

Did you not beelive the Prez when he told us this would eb a VERY different kind of war?? Did ya think he was just looking for a good soundbite?

VERY different -- as in "I, GWB, don't think I have to follow any legal rules." Yeah, very different.

Posted: 12/29/2005 7:00:29 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
The only drawback of this is when the Dims get full control of the govt and declare us terrorists and use this type of stuff against us. My personal foil hat crapo I actually believe is possible,

They will anyway. Whether it's legal or not. Remember the FBI files? Or the targeted multi-year IRS audits of NRA, Cato Institute, Heritage, etc.?

GunLvr

Posted: 12/29/2005 7:00:45 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
So this pamphlet doesn't bother anyone here in the least?

i10.photobucket.com/albums/a103/thedoctors308/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Front.jpg
i10.photobucket.com/albums/a103/thedoctors308/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Back.jpg

Buehler?

Anyone?

THAT bothers me. Warrantless wiretaps of international telcons with al Queda collaborators does not.

They are not al-Qaeda collaborators.
They are terrorists suspects.
This is not a war on al Qaeda or Islamic fundies, it is a war on "Terrorism"
Do you see where I'm going?

Posted: 12/29/2005 7:02:27 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
According to this link, the military has been gathering information on antiwar groups.

I can confirm that from my own personal experience. They weren't interested in criminals as much as they were interested in people who opposed their policies.

Posted: 12/29/2005 7:02:43 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted: No, you didn't have an answer and obviously don't have a clue. The question called for a number, not "lots". Point made -- you are spouting off when you don't have the facts.

Actually I did have an answer. You just missed the obvious. If a lot of people didn't die from drugs, then how do politicians get the taxpayer money to combat it?

Oh wait, a lot of people do die so 'gubment has to step in and "save" their lives. If 'gubment stopped funding drug programs with taxpayer money, the death rate for druggies would rise higher because disease + addiction is a life-threatening combo. Obviously the druggies aren't paying for it out of pocket. The only problem with the War on Drugs is that we are spending our resources the wrong way. Why fight the drug war reactively (treatment) when you can fight it proactively (invasion)?

It's just like terrorism. We've got Chicken Littles who don't want the 'gubment to monitor US citizens on US soil proactively before attacks, but they're going to get mad/sad when the 'gubment puts more restrictions reactively after an attack. I choose to violate the few US citizens who are terrorists/sympathizers now instead of violating everyone in general afterwards. It's best to mount counter-terrorist operations behind the scenes rather than dog-and-pony shows for the public like the TSA.

Posted: 12/29/2005 7:02:48 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So this pamphlet doesn't bother anyone here in the least?

i10.photobucket.com/albums/a103/thedoctors308/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Front.jpg
i10.photobucket.com/albums/a103/thedoctors308/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Back.jpg

Buehler?

Anyone?

THAT bothers me. Warrantless wiretaps of international telcons with al Queda collaborators does not.

They are not al-Qaeda collaborators.
They are terrorists suspects.
This is not a war on al Qaeda or Islamic fundies, it is a war on "Terrorism"
Do you see where I'm going?

As was pointed out, that whole pamphlet is a non-issue now.

And no there is NO connection between wiretaps of international telcons with al Queda, and our RKBA.

Posted: 12/29/2005 7:04:21 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So this pamphlet doesn't bother anyone here in the least?

i10.photobucket.com/albums/a103/thedoctors308/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Front.jpg
i10.photobucket.com/albums/a103/thedoctors308/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Back.jpg

Buehler?

Anyone?

THAT bothers me. Warrantless wiretaps of international telcons with al Queda collaborators does not.

They are not al-Qaeda collaborators.
They are terrorists suspects.
This is not a war on al Qaeda or Islamic fundies, it is a war on "Terrorism"
Do you see where I'm going?

As was pointed out, that whole pamphlet is a non-issue now.

And no there is NO connection between wiretaps of international telcons with al Queda, and our RKBA.

How is it a non-issue

Wait until after the 2008 election.

Posted: 12/29/2005 7:04:57 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The only drawback of this is when the Dims get full control of the govt and declare us terrorists and use this type of stuff against us. My personal foil hat crapo I actually believe is possible,

They will anyway. Whether it's legal or not. Remember the FBI files? Or the targeted multi-year IRS audits of NRA, Cato Institute, Heritage, etc.?

GunLvr

Yup.

The "precedent" issue is a non-issue.

Posted: 12/29/2005 7:06:40 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

How is it a non-issue

As i recall, that was Janet Reno directive that was rescinded. More of a trial balloon really, that got gunned down.

Wait until after the 2008 election.

Democrats won't need to cite precedent "("Bush did it" ) to justify their unConstitutional actions. The ONLY time they care about the Constitutiona is when they can twist it sufficiently to beat up a political opponent with it.

Posted: 12/29/2005 7:07:50 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Actually I did have an answer.

No, the question called for a number, not "lots" which indicates that you really don't have a clue and are hoping you can bullshit your way past your obvious lack of knowledge.

You just missed the obvious. If a lot of people didn't die from drugs, then how do politicians get the taxpayer money to combat it?

Simple enough. There are people out there like you who don't know the facts and don't bother to look anything up before spouting off. The whole policy is built on ignorance. But that's another thread. The only point relevant to this thread is that you once again demonstrated you are talking without a clue.

Posted: 12/29/2005 7:08:48 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted: Please google "Roving Wiretaps." If you are going to argue, it would be nice if you came armed with the facts.

It would be nice for you to realize that in the real world the ones who are working might not have the luxury of time. If you don't want to betray your operations, you might start the wiretap, find out it's a bum lead, and just not say anything afterwards.

FISA is a secret court. There are no public lists of people targeted. Everything is sealed. According to this link, the military has been gathering information on antiwar groups. Therefore, I would not put it past the administration to spy on anyone.

Then your problem is not with the law, it's with the man.

Well gee, thanks for clearing that up. Are you one of those Bush-haters who regret that he's actually doing the job we elected him for? Do you think that Americans are stupid? They voted for President GW Bush because they know in their gut that he would mount anti-terror operations like this, unlike the pansies running against him.

Quoted: Wasn't FDR a Democrap?

Yeah. Figures.

Posted: 12/29/2005 7:13:06 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
WHILE he is persoanlly breaking the law.

That's not ad hominem. That's fact, and is a credibility test used in every court in teh land.

Sorry, but one dude backing your "rule of law" thread is an admitted law breaker.

That is the very definition of an ad hominem attack. Attacking the credibility of the person, not the arguement. If we were talking about eye witness evidence, then I would agree, but these are statements of fact that can be googled. Wolfman's factual arguements is what I am agreeing with, not if he tokes up.

Quoted:
I like your thread. I disagree with your conclusions.

Let's step back and let me define my conclusions:

1. I don't care who is tapped as long as the FISA law is followed.
2. Since the domestic surveillance falls under the authority of the civvie government, FISA cannot be superseded by the War Powers Act (from the Youngstown SCOTUS ruling).

That is what I am arguing. Nothing more.

Quoted:
And your spelling. "Its "adhere."

Sorry, I'm on vacation and I don't have my normal PC setup with available spellchecker.

Posted: 12/29/2005 7:14:31 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted: No, the question called for a number, not "lots" which indicates that you really don't have a clue and are hoping you can bullshit your way past your obvious lack of knowledge.

Sure, keep telling yourself that! And the wiretaps keep going and Congress and the Supreme Court can't stop them. Why? If they do, the voters will just drop them and elect a Congress who will over-ride in favor of what the Bush administration policy.

Simple enough. There are people out there like you who don't know the facts and don't bother to look anything up before spouting off. The whole policy is built on ignorance. But that's another thread. The only point relevant to this thread is that you once again demonstrated you are talking without a clue.

Yes, America's drug policy in built on ignorance. We should let the druggies die and attack the drug lords. Why waste resources on druggies when you can just go for the source?

Posted: 12/29/2005 7:15:14 AM EDT

[#49]

Good when properly utilized. However, some folks at these agencies use taps to check up on their wives, girlfriends, the asshole neighbor next door, the guy that is boinking their daughter etc.

Posted: 12/29/2005 7:17:23 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
I think they need to step it up a bit - start doing it with more frequency.

What kind of person wants to advocate privacy protections for suspected Al Queda terrorists?

BTW, yes - Al Queda suspects. That's who they're defining as terrorists these days & that's who they're listening in on.

Bill Clinton felt that "domestic terrorists" like christians and gun were a greater threat than Al Queda, and he focused his anti-terrorist efforts accordingly. Would you supporters of this spying by the NSA feel the same way when if there were to be another President Clinton?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Majority of Americans believe surveilling terrorists in USA is a good idea (Page 2 of 9)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us