RedskinDan0557 Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 I don't want to mince words any more. Here is the law: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html You read it and tell me whether or not the executive branch has broken the law, think for yourself for once. And stop using security as an excuse, they were illegally spying before 9/11 and it didn't help. You want to stop terrorism, taking a look at Saudi Arabia would be a good start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinDan0557 Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 For you Dan.... The real enemy are those who would subvert the Constitution, foreign or domestic. Edited for clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 The real enemy are those who would subvert the Constitution. ...to provide for the common defense..... life, liberty,pursuit of happiness...... The terrorists, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinDan0557 Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 ...to provide for the common defense..... life, liberty,pursuit of happiness......The terrorists, right? "Those that would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" Ben Franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 I don't want to mince words any more. Here is the law:http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html You read it and tell me whether or not the executive branch has broken the law, think for yourself for once. And stop using security as an excuse, they were illegally spying before 9/11 and it didn't help. You want to stop terrorism, taking a look at Saudi Arabia would be a good start. I read it. The terrorist surveillance program operated by the NSA..........expired every 45 days...........reauthorized by intelligence officials.........Congressional intelligence committees have known about this program for years......."During the course of these briefings, no members of this Congress asked that this program be discontinued," Sounds like this was a program that Congress knew about. Democrats know about. The law you cite relates to this program in what way? --------------- "As the president has explained, the terrorist surveillance program operated by the [electronic-monitoring National Security Agency] requires the maximum in speed and agility, since even a very short delay may make the difference between success and failure in preventing the next attack." He also said the program expires every 45 days and is only reauthorized upon recommendations of intelligence officials and only if they determine that Al Qaeda continues to pose a threat to America. Gonzales also took aim at Democrats who say they were not sufficiently informed of the NSA activities. Congressional intelligence committees have known about this program for years, he said, as have other key lawmakers involved in intelligence activities; the administration says eight lawmakers know the ins and outs of the program. "During the course of these briefings, no members of this Congress asked that this program be discontinued," Gonzales added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeks Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Here is my question.Say that you do find an Al-Queda person in the U.S., planning something awful. You catch him....and when you get to court, they deem the taps unlawful. Then what? Without the secret court on your side, if this guy gets freed, who's it on? they wouldnt be freed its a matter of national security........ it doesnt matter how it was obtained its saving ur ass..(if ur in the us)....... my stand point is if ur not doin ne thing ileagel than y ***** an complain about this u dont have ne thing to hide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinDan0557 Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 "Those that would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" Ben Franklin You can argue about semantics if you want, but congress never passed a new law nor gave the executive branch authorization in any way shape or form for the current domestic spying program. Congress is controlled by the republicans, if the dems came out with this, they would have had their clearances revoked. You can try to obfuscate and twist the truth all you want, the law is the law. By the way, at one time I actually considered myself a republican, and voted that way for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 "Those that would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" Ben Franklin Get the quote right. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin ; Historical Review of Pennsylvania Now tell me what he was saying........ and why........ Spend a few minutes talking about the term "essential liberty".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinDan0557 Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Get the quote right."They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin ; Historical Review of Pennsylvania Now tell me what he was saying........ and why........ Spend a few minutes talking about the term "essential liberty".... Once again semantics. Essential liberty is freedom from government spying on innocent Americans. Thats about as essential as liberty can get. If you want to live under totalitarianism then leave, but I will die on American soil fighting for the Constitution and the Freedoms it guarantees me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 So long as he is prudent in his prosecution of our enemies during a time of war, he is not violating ANY law. If anything he is upholding his RESPONSIBILITY to protect and serve.Good grief Charlie Brown...... Speaking of the New York Times leak of this program, Valorie Plame anyone? We discussed the "we are at War" argument already. Do you still believe that War on Terror is a legitimate war authorised by Congress? I do not think so and I put forth reasons for that. Terrorism is a concept and you cannot be at war with a concept. War on Terror does not give President any more rights than War on Ignorance or War on Drugs. If you think War on Terror is a legitimate war that grants Pres all wartime rights then we should discuss that in another thread. I did not know that testifying under oath was a requirement during hearings......Do you think he is lying? If so where. And if where then why? And if why then tell me good sir how does lying NOT under oath matter differently in the eyes of public opinion? This hearing is a witchhunt over a New Your Times article that exposed what was likely an effective and relevant program that CONGRESS knew about and did not want to stop. A program that is under attack not for the relevence to the safety of our countrymen but instead on the basis of political opportunism. I do not know whether it is a requirement or not. I simply found it strange that Reps did not want him to testify under oath. I would think he has nothing to hide. It is not am implication of guilt by any means (just like refusing to take a polygraph is not an implication). It is simply a curious fact. I listened to his testimony and I do think he lied there. Most of the time he was slick enough to sidestep questions (or refused to answer them), but I thuoght he did slip several times. I am trying to find a transcript of the hearing to find those slips (dont wanna quote from audio). Not much of a witch hunt if the witch comes out and says: "Yeah I am a witch but whatchagonnadoaboutit??" :laugh: Anyways, hopefully I'll find that transcript soon. If anybody knows good places to look please help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCRunner Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183902,00.html What's raising the ire of many in Congress is that the program does not require warrants for such monitoring if terrorists are suspected of being involved. That means that the FISA court established to review such warrants under FISA is not consulted before the monitoring begins. "We are continuously looking at ways we can work with the FISA court in being more efficient, more effective in fighting the War on Terror," Gonzales said, repeatedly stressing that FISA is still being used and that its use actually increased 18 percent from 2004-2005. Gonzales and other administration officials argue that going through the FISA court would have been too cumbersome and slow; critics counter that even the FISA court allows an emergency, warrantless search so long as the government gets after-the-fact approval. But that still requires mountains of paperwork, signatures and time lost, Gonzales said. "All of these steps take time. Al Qaeda, however, does not wait," he said. "Just as we can't demand our soldiers bring lawyers onto the battlefield … we can't afford to impose layers of lawyers on top of career intelligence officers ... [who are] tracking secret Al Qaeda operatives in real time." But Specter said even the Supreme Court ruled that "the president does not have a blank check" and suggested that the program's legality be reviewed by the FISA court. "There are a lot of people who think you're wrong. What do you have to lose if you're right?" Specter asked Gonzales. Gonzales noted that Bush is not the first president to exert such authority and he pointed out Clinton administration Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified in 1994 that the president has inherent constitutional authority to conduct foreign intelligence searches of the private homes of U.S. citizens in the United States without a warrant, and that such warrantless searches are permissible under the Fourth Amendment. Jeez, stop citing that Clinton example. It is not analagous. The Clinton administration approved a physical break in for Aldrich Ames' house - a warrantless entry - and seized evidence. It was an illegal and unconstitutional act by the government. It never got challenged in court because Ames pled guilty to various offenses. When you plead guilty you rarely challenge any of the government's unconstitutional acts during the investigation or prosecution of your case. In fact, you waive these rights when you enter your guilty plea. The judge specifically makes an inquiry about whether the defendant understands what rights he is giving up by pleading guilty. If Ames had gone to trial and challenged these searches, the Clinton justice department might have totally blown that case. And the same risk of blowing potential terrorist trials exist now by virtue of Bush's failure to adhere to the law. The hearings about this matter where Gorelick and others testified about it and later wrote justifications for it in the media were simply the Clinton administration's attempts to justify what everyone knew full well were illegal acts. They were no way permissible under the Fourth Amendment. It was entirely intellectually dishonest to argue after the fact that it WAS legal and constitutional. It was not. Especially knowing that it never got to court. Clinton, howver, did not violate the FISA requirements. They never tried to argue that warrantless wiretaps were legal under the same arguments. The reason we know that the warrantless taps Bush is attempting to justify now are illegal is that this issue was decided by the courts long ago. That's why we have FISA. It was an answer to the fact that such warrantless wiretaps are illegal and a violation of the Fourth Amendment. It's pretty simple. Bush is refusing to go to the FISA Court because he knows that his taps are so far out of line that even the ever amenable FISA Court would not approve his request for these taps. Gonzales' arguments are lame and tired. Timing is not the issue. Paperwork is not the issue. There are lawyers at the ready who do nothing but this. The paperwork is ready for them to just fill in the blanks and the procedure is oiled and in place. These guys are just hoping the typical citizen doesn't know how it all works so these ridiculous arguments will sound "reasonable" on their face. If a seeker of a warrant to tap or search argues that it's request is "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment then that "reasonableness" has to be decided by an independent judicial officer. Always. The seeker of the warrant cannot be the one to determine if it really is reasonable or not. That's the checks and balances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Once again semantics. Essential liberty is freedom from government spying on innocent Americans. Thats about as essential as liberty can get. If you want to live under totalitarianism then leave, but I will die on American soil fighting for the Constitution and the Freedoms it guarantees me. You were caught red handed using a quote you know nothing about. You justification of your position is weak; your prosecution of our countrymen doing their duty moreso. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 "There are a lot of people who think you're wrong. What do you have to lose if you're right?" Specter asked Gonzales.Gonzales noted that Bush is not the first president to exert such authority and he pointed out Clinton administration Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified in 1994 that the president has inherent constitutional authority to conduct foreign intelligence searches of the private homes of U.S. citizens in the United States without a warrant, and that such warrantless searches are permissible under the Fourth Amendment. hahaha do you see the fallacy in this? Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified in 1994 that the president has inherent constitutional authority to conduct foreign intelligence searches of the private homes of U.S. citizens in the United States without a warrant, and that such warrantless searches are permissible under the Fourth Amendment. Yes he TESTIFIED that "the president has inherent constitutional authority." He was then SHUT DOWN and the court ruled that the President DID NOT have "inherent constitutional authority." Repeat after me and Fox News: Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified in 1994 that the president has inherent constitutional authority to conduct foreign intelligence searches of the private homes of U.S. citizens in the United States without a warrant, and that such warrantless searches are permissible under the Fourth Amendment. THE COURT DISAGREED AND FISA WAS AMENDED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinDan0557 Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 You were caught red handed using a quote you know nothing about. You justification of your position is weak; your prosecution of our countrymen doing their duty moreso. What in the hell are you talking about? Ben Franklin's quote is perfectly applicable to the current situation, the onis is on you to prove otherwise. You've been caught red handed supporting totalitarianism. Your ignorance of the facts and the Constitution is doing the country harm. Your position is weak because it subverts the constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted February 7, 2006 Author Share Posted February 7, 2006 "Those that would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" Ben Franklin Get the quote right."They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin ; Historical Review of Pennsylvania Now tell me what he was saying........ and why........ Spend a few minutes talking about the term "essential liberty".... :owned: Ok, so I broke the internet posting rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 What's the point of living if you're not free. What is the point of being free to die for a dead freedom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinDan0557 Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 :owned: Ok, so I broke the internet posting rules. Your ignorance is astounding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted February 7, 2006 Author Share Posted February 7, 2006 Your ignorance is astounding. Typical response from someone that got owned. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 We discussed the "we are at War" argument already. Do you still believe that War on Terror is a legitimate war authorised by Congress? I do not think so and I put forth reasons for that. Terrorism is a concept and you cannot be at war with a concept. War on Terror does not give President any more rights than War on Ignorance or War on Drugs. See, I absolutely disagree with this viewpoint. So just because we can't pinpoint a country to declare war on, we have to have our hands tied and cannot grant the commander in chief wartime rights?? So, all a nation or group of people have to do is find a loophole when they attack us and we can never grant the president with emergency wartime rights. I think the war on terror is a much more appropriate venue for this leeway than any other kind where we're fighting a known enemy in a known location. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Get the quote right."They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin ; Historical Review of Pennsylvania Now tell me what he was saying........ and why........ Spend a few minutes talking about the term "essential liberty".... Yeah that quote often gets hijacked and/or misinterpreted. I am actually reading an interesting book right now discussing how they viewed Liberty back then. Their understanding of liberty was actually pretty diffrent from ours. To make the long story short they viewed it in a communitarian way, sort of "liberty to do God's will" However, we are not discussing what we should and should not give up in order to have security. That discussion if for making NEW LAWS. That is down the road. Right now we just want to make sure the president did not break EXISTING LAWS. Breaking laws is illegal no matter who you quote. That is the main point here. Liberty vs security discussion is a philosophical one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinDan0557 Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Typical response from someone that got owned. :laugh: Explain to me how I got owned? Do an internet search on that quote and you will see it stated in many different ways, but the meaning is the same. Those that are willing to give liberty for security deserve neither. You seem to fall into that category, and, thus deserve neither. :owned: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted February 7, 2006 Author Share Posted February 7, 2006 We discussed the "we are at War" argument already. Do you still believe that War on Terror is a legitimate war authorised by Congress? I do not think so and I put forth reasons for that. Terrorism is a concept and you cannot be at war with a concept. War on Terror does not give President any more rights than War on Ignorance or War on Drugs. Wow, that is pretty scary that you actually think that. I'm sure the families of the 3,000+ Americans that were murdered in cold blood think terrorism is more than just a "concept". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Explain to me how I got owned? Do an internet search on that quote and you will see it stated in many different ways, but the meaning is the same.Those that are willing to give liberty for security deserve neither. You seem to fall into that category, and, thus deserve neither. Well, I wouldn't say the meaning is the same... definitely not the meaning you would categorize people on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinDan0557 Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 We discussed the "we are at War" argument already. Do you still believe that War on Terror is a legitimate war authorised by Congress? I do not think so and I put forth reasons for that. Terrorism is a concept and you cannot be at war with a concept. War on Terror does not give President any more rights than War on Ignorance or War on Drugs.QUOTE] Wow, that is pretty scary that you actually think that. I'm sure the families of the 3,000+ Americans that were murdered in cold blood think terrorism is more than just a "concept". Yeah, the war should have been with Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. You still believe the lie that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Ignorance is bliss isn't it? You guys are tearing this country and the Constitution apart. Who needs terrorists when we have you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Wow, that is pretty scary that you actually think that. I'm sure the families of the 3,000+ Americans that were murdered in cold blood think terrorism is more than just a "concept". I my opinion Ignorance is much more destructive... If you want to use "War on Terror" as a legal concept that gives President wartime rights, then surely you wouldn't mind defining what War on Terror is and how we will know that it is over. (is it ever over?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.