TD_washingtonredskins Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 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? That is immaterial and a totally different debate. You are acknowledging that having hijacked planes slammed into buildings on American soil constitutes a reason to go to war. Therefore, just because it's not an official war vs. a nation doesn't mean the president shouldn't be afforded special powers to protect the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 That is immaterial and a totally different debate. You are acknowledging that having hijacked planes slammed into buildings on American soil constitutes a reason to go to war. Therefore, just because it's not an official war vs. a nation doesn't mean the president shouldn't be afforded special powers to protect the USA. Nothing against Congress recognizing the War on Terror as WAR and giving President special powers. Everything against President declaring a War on Terror and grabbing those powers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinDan0557 Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 That is immaterial and a totally different debate. You are acknowledging that having hijacked planes slammed into buildings on American soil constitutes a reason to go to war. Therefore, just because it's not an official war vs. a nation doesn't mean the president shouldn't be afforded special powers to protect the USA. As I stated before, they had this program running before 9/11 and it didn't help. Why don't they want to go before the court? They get 72 hours after the fact to inform the court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 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. Dan with all due respect, if you choose to engage in a philosophical debate by including quotes from Ben Franklin you should do more than simply pull it from a book because it sounds good to you. In fact the quote is found on the Statue of Liberty. His wording was not just "liberty"... it was essential Liberty. It was not "security"... it was temporary Safety. This is not semantics. If you choose to ignor the meaning of the quote that is to your detriment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted February 7, 2006 Author Share Posted February 7, 2006 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? Oh, I firmly believe Saudi Arabia's regime needs to go too. Iraq and Hussein supported terrorism, but they didn't have anything to do with 9/11. Stop making assumptions about what you think people believe. Iraq was invaded because Saddam Hussein was a punk ass ***** that needed to be put in his place. More importantly though, it gives us a military presence right in the middle of the Middle East. You don't think Iran has been thinking twice about their shenanigans recently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 As I stated before, they had this program running before 9/11 and it didn't help. Why don't they want to go before the court? They get 72 hours after the fact to inform the court. No, don't get me wrong, I see your point. I just took exception with the idea that the war that is being waged right now to fight terrorism shouldn't be treated the same as the Vietnam or Iraq War. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 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?) I asked you earlier to tell me what country do we send our declaration of war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinDan0557 Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Dan with all due respect, if you choose to engage in a philosophical debate by including quotes from Ben Franklin you should do more than simply pull it from a book because it sounds good to you. In fact the quote is found on the Statue of Liberty. His wording was not just "liberty"... it was essential Liberty. It was not "security"... it was temporary Safety.This is not semantics. If you choose to ignor the meaning of the quote that is to your detriment. What is the meaning then? You would rather live under totalitarianism than freedom is that what you are saying. That quote has been used in many different ways, long before I posted here. You can argue semantics all you want. Freedom from Tyranny is Freedom from Government spying on innocent Americans. Period. With all due respect make a logical argument without using republican spin, halftruths, and out right lies. Support the Constitution above political partisanship. Country and Constitution before political party. They don't need this new program to protect America, the Law on the books is perfectly capable, or make a new law. You still have not told me how Ben Franklin's quote is not applicable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 What does that have to do with laws passed in the 1970's on this current topic? It was probably not legal to open those letters in the 1940's. Roosevelt kept it completely secret, probably because he knew that Congress would disapprove and because he didn't want to tip the Germans off. My point is that our Country has been faced with threats before and Presidents have takend the law into their own hands, right or wrong. You have to consider the dilemma faced by Bush. We are fighting a very frustrating enemy because the traditional tools of war are not effective against them. He is presented with some options that are available because of new technology. The technology doesn't fit the definitions of surveilance that were in place when the 1970 law was written. He didn't want to tip off the enemy, so he made a decision, justifying it by assuming a broad war powers authority. What would anyone here have done? The problem with the Secret Court and getting warrants lies in the technology itself. From what I understand computers are scanning millions of phone conversations every day in search of certain key words and phrases. This may also be happening to e-mails (not sure). The Court has no authority to approve this mass surveilance. The Court can only approve surveilance of individuals or specific phones when probable cause has been shown. So the Bush Administration went to the Congressional Intelligence Committee and outlined the program. According to the Bush Administration they asked the Committee if a new law needed to be written and the Committee recommended that a new law was not needed. So Bush went ahead with the surveilance. That is my understanding right now of what happened. I am not a fan of George Bush but I'm not so sure that he has broken a law. Our system of laws leaves it to the courts to decide on the legality of our actions. One interesting twist here is that even if Congress believes that Bush broke the law their only recourse is to either make the law more specific (only affecting future action) or to impeach Bush. They cannot take the Administration to court because Congress has no legal standing in our courts of law. The only way that the legality of this type of surveilance will be ruled on is if a convicted terrorist, or one on trial, brings up the issue in court. They will have to make a reasonable case that mass surveilance led to their arrest, which will be next to impossible. So the bottom line here is that Bush will never be found to have broken the law. A Republican Congress will not impeach him (unless he lies about a blowjob). Even if a court did rule in favor of a terrorist on trial, that is not the same thing as finding the Administration guilty of breaking a law, because the Administration would not be on trial. If Congress changes/clarifies some laws, it still doesn't go as far as finding Bush guilty of breaking a law. This falls between the cracks of our legal system. Roosevelt knew it and so does Bush. In my opinion any discussion of Bush having broken the law is just academic. I would prefer that some sort of oversight be put in place, but our methods and technology need to be kept secret and entrusted to the people that we have elected. A broad-based oversight group that encompasses both parties and all three branches of government would work best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 I can't believe this is still going on. After what Henry posted pages ago, you'd think people would get the point. seems that we have two different arguments here. One group is arguing that 1 civil liberty is too many to wreck, the other group is arguing that isn't not illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 I asked you earlier to tell me what country do we send our declaration of war? There is no precedent for officially declaring war on something that is not a country. If this is something that America wants to do then we have to set rules for doing so. I cannot say "what do we do" because these rules do not exist at this point. Does this War on Terrorism fall under whatever Congress approved already? Or do you think the President has the right to declare war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 What is the meaning then? You would rather live under totalitarianism than freedom is that what you are saying. That quote has been used in many different ways, long before I posted here. You can argue semantics all you want. Freedom from Tyranny is Freedom from Government spying on innocent Americans. Period.With all due respect make a logical argument without using republican spin, halftruths, and out right lies. Support the Constitution above political partisanship. Country and Constitution before political party. They don't need this new program to protect America, the Law on the books is perfectly capable, or make a new law. You still have not told me how Ben Franklin's quote is not applicable. I refuse to give you my opinion until you answer my reasonable question. I have asked to you to tell me what "essential liberty" means. Why did he not just say liberty. I also have a hangup where you missed "temporary safety" and replaced it with "security". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinDan0557 Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 So introduce a new law in Congress instead of breaking the current one. There are ways to safe guard our freedoms and still protect against terrorism. I am reminded of the story of the old bull and the young bull standing on top of a hill looking down at a herd of cows. The young bull says lets run down there **** one of those cows. The old bull says, no, I'm going to walk down there and **** them all. This admistration seems like a bull in china shop sometimes. All I want is what is right and for them to clean up their mess as they make it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinDan0557 Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 I refuse to give you my opinion until you answer my reasonable question. I have asked to you to tell me what "essential liberty" means. Why did he not just say liberty. I also have a hangup where you missed "temporary safety" and replaced it with "security". Semantics--the onis is on you to disprove me, since you think you are so smart and can use google. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Semantics--the onis is on you to disprove me. Then you will have to go away dissatisfied, because the ONLY way you play the "semantic" card in this instance is if you are in a corner with your argument and you can't do any better. If you can't use Franklin's words in context of why he was saying it then the LEAST you could do is take a neutral philosophical stance and take literal meanings of the words "essential" and "temporary". Of course you can't do that because this whole wiretapping deal is of no essential consequence to our permanent individual freedoms EVEN IF you do prove that this type of wiretapping is against the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinDan0557 Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 I refuse to give you my opinion until you answer my reasonable question. I have asked to you to tell me what "essential liberty" means. Why did he not just say liberty. I also have a hangup where you missed "temporary safety" and replaced it with "security". Your quote is wrong, the exact quote from Ben Franklin as stated in his almanac is: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." OWNED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinDan0557 Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Then you will have to go away dissatisfied, because the ONLY way you play the "semantic" card in this instance is if you are in a corner with your argument and you can't do any better.If you can't use Franklin's words in context of why he was saying it then the LEAST you could do is take a neutral philosophical stance and take literal meanings of the words "essential" and "temporary". Of course you can't do that because this whole wiretapping deal is of no essential consequence to our permanent individual freedoms EVEN IF you do prove that this type of wiretapping is against the law. Who's in the corner with a bad argument? I have the Law and the Constitution on my side. What do you have? Spin, Spin, and more Spin. You would have made a great defender of Clinton, who also lied and broke the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Your quote is wrong, the exact quote from Ben Franklin as stated in his almanac is: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."OWNED OWNED? What are you twelve or something? :laugh: NUMBER: 1056 AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706–90) QUOTATION: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. ATTRIBUTION: BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755.—The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Leonard W. Labaree, vol. 6, p. 242 (1963). This quotation, slightly altered, is inscribed on a plaque in the stairwell of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Your quote is wrong, the exact quote from Ben Franklin as stated in his almanac is: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."OWNED But I will play........ What Power is purchased at the expense of what Liberty. Please be specific to the topic at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinDan0557 Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 OWNED? What are you twelve or something? :laugh: NUMBER: 1056 AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706–90) QUOTATION: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. ATTRIBUTION: BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755.—The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Leonard W. Labaree, vol. 6, p. 242 (1963). This quotation, slightly altered, is inscribed on a plaque in the stairwell of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document. Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson to be the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin Twelve huh? At least I put Country & Constitution before party---not that I claim any party these days anyway. I have to go now, I have enjoyed this debate, and hopefully the quote and link doesn't break any rules. Please don't where your heart on your sleeve and take this too personally. Thanx Portisizzle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 America is a very unique country in that it was founded by extremely smart and philosophically inclined men. It pains me to see what you fellas are doing to that one poor little quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 America is a very unique country in that it was founded by extremely smart and philosophically inclined men.It pains me to see what you fellas are doing to that one poor little quote. The internet is a beautiful thing....... :laugh: I am still right...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Twelve huh? At least I put Country & Constitution before party---not that I claim any party these days anyway. I have to go now, I have enjoyed this debate, and hopefully the quote and link doesn't break any rules. Please don't where your heart on your sleeve and take this too personally. Thanx Portisizzle. Heart on my sleeve??? :laugh: Not likely. You still have not answered my question of importance. And no we did not break any rules... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCRunner Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 .....The only way that the legality of this type of surveilance will be ruled on is if a convicted terrorist, or one on trial, brings up the issue in court. They will have to make a reasonable case that mass surveilance led to their arrest, which will be next to impossible... There are other ways to challenge Bush's actions in court. But, in a terrorist trial - or any other trial where the defendant alleges that the government violated his constitutional or even statutory rights in obtaining evidence against him - once a minimum allegation is made that unconstitutional or illegal acts were committed (and the allegation of a warrantless wiretap wold be sufficient) it is then the burden of the government to prove that it DID NOT act illegally. That's why in suppression hearings the government has to go first. So I'm not sure where you get the idea that some terrorist on trial would have to make the case that you seem to think they have to make. As for "essential" liberties. I think it's safe to assume that the Bill of Rights enshrine our essential liberties. That's why the colonies refused to ratify the Constitution until these were added as amendments. They weren't interested in our new form of government or its proposed "freedom" from England unless and until they were assured of these liberties (and they wanted them in writing) and, more importantly, that the new federal government would be reined in and not just be a carbon copy of the King's unfettered power against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 The internet is a beautiful thing....... :laugh: I am still right...... hmm I was going to pick on that "I am right" comment with a sexy quote suggesting that clinging to "being right" prevents one from considering alternative ideas and thus hampers progress... could not find a good one Sounds like something John Stuart Mill would say, but who knew he has so many quotes floating around?? :laugh: Anyways, here are some good ones I came accross while searching. He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative. "What good fortune for those in power that the people do not think." "It also gives us a very special, secret pleasure to see how unaware the people around us are of what is really happening to them. " "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.