64% of Americans support phonecall tapping

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: OrByte
Along with what Todd and DH have already mentioned let me ask what does being an American mean to you? This has nothing to do with Al-Q or terra (But this Admin would LOVE for you to believe that) this has to do with the law of the land and American citizenship, do you remember what that means?

It seems your argument is that the Government ought to be running around to a court and a judge seeking permission for every wiretap and other surveillance used. If so, I find that ridiculous. Why on earth would you want to hamper the efforts of those working to protect you? If a relative of yours had died and you found out later the government had tried to find out information on the suspect (a wiretap, for example) that was held up by red tape and bureaucracy ... how would you feel?

Read the thread Pabsie, that red herring's already been refuted.

I want terrorists caught too, hell we ALL DO. But not at the expense of giving up our freedoms as Americans. Americans have things soooooo freakin good when it comes to civil liberties, you start taking those away, for whatever reason, you take away everything that generations of people have fought and died for to create this land.

The problem with that argument is ... what freedom(s) have YOU lost? There's absolutely no evidence to corrobate the notion that innocent Americans were robbed of civil liberties or, even, that any laws were broken.

There's actually considerable evidence. You might try getting your current affairs information from sources other than BushCo shills like Rush and Fox.

Wow Pabster where have you been? you are about a week late with your talking points. There are quite a number of threads that maybe you should start reading including this one.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
And I'm not entirely sure what I support. All I know is FISA is very liberal and hates Bush and that asking the courts for permission doesn't make me feel any safer knowing they can misinterpret the law and rule pretty much anything unconstitutional.

It is the court's job to interpret the law. Judges are experts on the law, whereas Bush is not.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
And I'm not entirely sure what I support. All I know is FISA is very liberal and hates Bush and that asking the courts for permission doesn't make me feel any safer knowing they can misinterpret the law and rule pretty much anything unconstitutional.

Without trying to be accusatory, can you explain where you got this idea that the FISA courts hate Bush?

just curious.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

What does scratching the warrent give us? You guys seem really in favor of it, but are unable to provide any particular reason.

'

Because it isn't going to affect me. I don't care if they are listening; I have nothing to hide. Do you?

You live completely legal? Never used Kazaa or Napster, never sped, never made an antiestablisment statement during a phone call, never stole a single thing in your life, never kicked a dog, never jaywalked, never cheated on your taxes, never lied under oath, never got into a fight, drank while underage, smoked a joint, nothing? God your life must be boring.

 

[Strk]

So do you kick dogs regularly, judasmachine?

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
And I'm not entirely sure what I support. All I know is FISA is very liberal and hates Bush and that asking the courts for permission doesn't make me feel any safer knowing they can misinterpret the law and rule pretty much anything unconstitutional.

Without trying to be accusatory, can you explain where you got this idea that the FISA courts hate Bush?

just curious.

Well, their 100% approval of warrents clearly illustrates a bias.....

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Strk
So do you kick dogs regularly, judasmachine?

Hehe no I actually volunteer at the Humane Society, and hear a lot of that, so it came out. I'm also a Vet Tech part time when I feel like it.

Well, their 100% approval of warrents clearly illustrates a bias.....

Yup that speaks for itself.

 

[BlancoNino]

I don't believe the courts should interfere with fighting a war.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I don't believe the courts should interfere with fighting a war.

Shouldn't interfere with that Constitution thing either, should they.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

What does scratching the warrent give us? You guys seem really in favor of it, but are unable to provide any particular reason.

'

Because it isn't going to affect me. I don't care if they are listening; I have nothing to hide. Do you?

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

-Pastor Martin Niemöller

This is the reason why we protect the rights of ALL our citizens and not a select few [white] ones.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I don't believe the courts should interfere with fighting a war.

Shouldn't interfere with that Constitution thing either, should they.

The executive branch has the constitutional power to be the sole power to wage war. The reasons for wiretapping are to gather information about terrorists. We are at war with terrorists. This action shouldn't even involve the courts.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I don't believe the courts should interfere with fighting a war.

Shouldn't interfere with that Constitution thing either, should they.

The executive branch has the constitutional power to be the sole power to wage war. The reasons for wiretapping are to gather information about terrorists. We are at war with terrorists. This action shouldn't even involve the courts.

That's if you assume that everyone, at every level of the executive branch, has only the best motives, and nothing but fighting terrorist in mind. If you do, you're simply stupid.

 

[BlancoNino]

This is the reason why we protect the rights of ALL our citizens and not a select few [white] ones.

Right...were you trying to make a point? Because it's not there.

 

[Jadow]

I 100% support what the pres is doing in this regard.

A known and legally wiretapped al queda agend in Saudi Arabia calls a mystery number in NY. 1 minute later the number he called in NY makes a call to a number in Seattle. According to some interpretations of the current rules, the feds can not wiretap the call from NY to Seattle because it is a domestic call without a warrant. Some warrants have taken over 3 MONTHS to get!

A little late after Safeco field is in flames and 70,000 people are dead.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

This is the reason why we protect the rights of ALL our citizens and not a select few [white] ones.

Right...were you trying to make a point? Because it's not there.

Yeah, I guess reading comprehension is way over your head.

 

[BlancoNino]

That's if you assume that everyone, at every level of the executive branch, has only the best motives, and nothing but fighting terrorist in mind. If you do, you're simply stupid.

Are you suggesting judicial involvement in this war and in every future war? That's probably how France fought the Germans in World War 2.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I don't believe the courts should interfere with fighting a war.

Shouldn't interfere with that Constitution thing either, should they.

The executive branch has the constitutional power to be the sole power to wage war. The reasons for wiretapping are to gather information about terrorists. We are at war with terrorists. This action shouldn't even involve the courts.

Tell that to the Constitution!

Did Congress "declare" war yet?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
And I'm not entirely sure what I support. All I know is FISA is very liberal and hates Bush and that asking the courts for permission doesn't make me feel any safer knowing they can misinterpret the law and rule pretty much anything unconstitutional.

Without trying to be accusatory, can you explain where you got this idea that the FISA courts hate Bush?

just curious.

I'm curious also.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Jadow
I 100% support what the pres is doing in this regard.

A known and legally wiretapped al queda agend in Saudi Arabia calls a mystery number in NY. 1 minute later the number he called in NY makes a call to a number in Seattle. According to some interpretations of the current rules, the feds can not wiretap the call from NY to Seattle because it is a domestic call without a warrant. Some warrants have taken over 3 MONTHS to get!

A little late after Safeco field is in flames and 70,000 people are dead.

Yet, they can get approval for the wiretaps RETROACTIVELY. So your whole post is for nothing!

 

[Jadow]

however, the court could say even though Al Quaida called the NY number, that still isn't enough probable cause for the wiretap.

The lib judges Clinton appointed actually do think like that.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Jadow
I 100% support what the pres is doing in this regard.

A known and legally wiretapped al queda agend in Saudi Arabia calls a mystery number in NY. 1 minute later the number he called in NY makes a call to a number in Seattle. According to some interpretations of the current rules, the feds can not wiretap the call from NY to Seattle because it is a domestic call without a warrant. Some warrants have taken over 3 MONTHS to get!

A little late after Safeco field is in flames and 70,000 people are dead.

But it can be bypassed and then obtain one within 72 hours. But then the courts won't give one to you because of some stupid technicality and by law you must let the terrorists go free.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

That's if you assume that everyone, at every level of the executive branch, has only the best motives, and nothing but fighting terrorist in mind. If you do, you're simply stupid.

Are you suggesting judicial involvement in this war and in every future war? That's probably how France fought the Germans in World War 2.

As soon as Congress declares war against the United States, they're free to tap my phones. Otherwise, they're going to refer to the Constitution that keeps them in power.

Actually, here's a line from the constitution that you should examine carefully:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[BlancoNino]

Okay, to put things more broad, the executive branch has the sole power of war and of command of the military. We are using the military (war or not) to fight terrorists. Fighting terrorists involves gathering information, spying, etc. Terrorist activity and information from Al-Qaeda are making their way into the United States.

 

[TheSlamma]

Zendari and the rest of the neo-con repubs just want to listen to the conversations of people who actually get laid.

Bush, Zendari... why don't you guys just go back to 1-900 numbers.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Okay, to put things more broad, the executive branch has the sole power of war and of command of the military. We are using the military (war or not) to fight terrorists. Fighting terrorists involves gathering information, spying, etc. Terrorist activity and information from Al-Qaeda are making their way into the United States.

Still that damn ole Constitution thing.

Oh, and all of the terrorists are in Iraq...didn't you get the memo?