Jump to content

More Loony Left Outrages


Guest Buschbacher
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Buschbacher

The "Protect America Bill" ( which allows us to listen in on terrorist conversations) is due to expire

this weekend. Bush wants a new permanent bill in place before then. The Senate has passed a bill

which Bush has approved. However the Loonys in the House are refusing to pass their own bill or

approve the senate bill. Nice to know where the Loony's priorities are, their own Loony Left

agenda comes before the security and protection of America. Their behavior borders on treason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo
The "Protect America Bill" ( which allows us to listen in on terrorist conversations) is due to expire

this weekend. Bush wants a new permanent bill in place before then. The Senate has passed a bill

which Bush has approved. However the Loonys in the House are refusing to pass their own bill or

approve the senate bill. Nice to know where the Loony's priorities are, their own Loony Left

agenda comes before the security and protection of America. Their behavior borders on treason.

FISA more than adequately provides for the govt' to obtain info legally.

For some reason they don't

feel the need to want to obtain info legally. What does that tell you?

While you may feel "thier" behavior borders on treason

your current heros in Washington have actually committed it.

If you are willing to bury your head in the sand simply because your preferred party is in power then that is as bad as treason itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Twizzler
The "Protect America Bill" ( which allows us to listen in on terrorist conversations) is due to expire

this weekend. Bush wants a new permanent bill in place before then. The Senate has passed a bill

which Bush has approved. However the Loonys in the House are refusing to pass their own bill or

approve the senate bill. Nice to know where the Loony's priorities are, their own Loony Left

agenda comes before the security and protection of America. Their behavior borders on treason.

Bush wants immunity for the phone companies so people will be less likely to investigate his own criminal activity. There's nothing patriotic about the man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The vague provisions of the law would allow the government discretion to monitor, without a warrant, the electronic communications of US citizens, effectively violating the ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures" inscribed in the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution.

Oh no, we gotta hand over our civil liberties in exchange for a pat on the head and a false assurance that everything will be okay!

Sniveling cowards, the lot of you who think like this. Grow a spine.

Those who would give up freedom for liberty deserve neither.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
The vague provisions of the law would allow the government discretion to monitor, without a warrant, the electronic communications of US citizens, effectively violating the ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures" inscribed in the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution.

Oh no, we gotta hand over our civil liberties in exchange for a pat on the head and a false assurance that everything will be okay!

Sniveling cowards, the lot of you who think like this. Grow a spine.

Those who would give up freedom for liberty deserve neither.

The NSA call listen to all my phone calls, read my e-mails and go through my garbage . I

don't have a problem with any of that. Discovering a terrorist plot by eavesdropping and

possibly saving thousands of American lives is well worth the scrutiny. Only the Loony Left

would fail to understand that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FISA more than adequately provides for the govt' to obtain info legally.

For some reason they don't

feel the need to want to obtain info legally. What does that tell you?

While you may feel "thier" behavior borders on treason

your current heros in Washington have actually committed it.

If you are willing to bury your head in the sand simply because your preferred party is in power then that is as bad as treason itself.

How does a sheep herder from the Ozarks have such amazing mind reading abilities ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NSA call listen to all my phone calls, read my e-mails and go through my garbage . I

don't have a problem with any of that. Discovering a terrorist plot by eavesdropping and

possibly saving thousands of American lives is well worth the scrutiny. Only the Loony Left

would fail to understand that.

So the Bill of Rights is "Loony Left" now? Only you would be so stupid.

Fourth Amendment, jackass. Read it. Were the founding fathers all "Loony Left" too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Kearny Educator
So the Bill of Rights is "Loony Left" now? Only you would be so stupid.

Fourth Amendment, jackass. Read it. Were the founding fathers all "Loony Left" too?

I really don't think "Patriot" was referring to the entire Bill of Rights, and I think you know that too.

Furthermore, this is a far different world than the one our founding fathers lived in, terrorism was

unknown in their world.

To try to make the argument that the contents of a document hundreds of years old is completely

relevant today and will never need tweaking to adjust to today's dangers is unrealistic.

Listening to phone calls that may last a minute or two require a law that Bush recognizes is vital

to our protection. I applaud President Bush for his efforts in protecting the American public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Twizzler
So the Bill of Rights is "Loony Left" now? Only you would be so stupid.

Fourth Amendment, jackass. Read it. Were the founding fathers all "Loony Left" too?

In fairness, what would the founding fathers have done if the world looked as it does today? We need to ask ourselves how to remain free and safe. I don't trust Bush for a second, and can see no reason why the government cannot get warrants. This is an ugly period in our history. Let's hope the next president restores sanity.

We would also have to ask, now that militias are meaningless, what the 2nd Amendment means today, if anything. After all, it says the people have a right to bear arms. It doesn't say firearms. It says arms. Does that include a nuclear weapons stockpile? Does Bill Gates have a Constitutional right to arm himself against the world with nuclear weapons and his own private army?

The radical right has gotten its jollies dividing our country. We need to come together as a people to decide what kind of society we want to live in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, this is a far different world than the one our founding fathers lived in, terrorism was

unknown in their world.

To try to make the argument that the contents of a document hundreds of years old is completely

relevant today and will never need tweaking to adjust to today's dangers is unrealistic.

That's not an position one usually hears from Bush supporters. Usually they're all about "strict construction."

There is actually a process for "tweaking" the Constitution if there is a perception that it needs to be tweaked. It is not "tweaking" the Constitution to do something that it actually forbids. It's simply illegal. Much like a President saying that he can pick and choose which provisions of a statute he will follow. But then, this President hasn't been much for respecting limitations on his power, has he?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not an position one usually hears from Bush supporters. Usually they're all about "strict construction."

There is actually a process for "tweaking" the Constitution if there is a perception that it needs to be tweaked. It is not "tweaking" the Constitution to do something that it actually forbids. It's simply illegal. Much like a President saying that he can pick and choose which provisions of a statute he will follow. But then, this President hasn't been much for respecting limitations on his power, has he?

Loony Left Gobbly Gook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't think "Patriot" was referring to the entire Bill of Rights,

He probably isn't even aware of it. My point is that he implied that only a "Loony Left" person would fail to see that warrantless wiretapping is okay, so I pointed to the Amendment that explicitly makes things like that not okay, and asked him if he thinks the people responsible for the Bill of Rights are (as they would be, by his logic) "Loony Left."

and I think you know that too.

Furthermore, this is a far different world than the one our founding fathers lived in, terrorism was

unknown in their world.

Cry me a river. The government can get warrants, then it can do all the surveillance it wants.

To try to make the argument that the contents of a document hundreds of years old is completely

relevant today and will never need tweaking to adjust to today's dangers is unrealistic.

Your straw man is unrealistic.

Tweaking the Constitution is one thing--doing the exact things it FORBIDS while making no actual attempt to change the actual Constitution is something else.

Listening to phone calls that may last a minute or two require a law that Bush recognizes is vital

to our protection. I applaud President Bush for his efforts in protecting the American public.

Those who would give up freedom for security deserve neither.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush wants immunity for the phone companies so people will be less likely to investigate his own criminal activity. There's nothing patriotic about the man.

:)

Some of you apparently can't see beyond your Bush-hating lenses.

In a statement at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is considering legislation to extend the Bush administration's electronic surveillance program, Feinstein said the companies should not be "held hostage to costly litigation in what is essentially a complaint about administration activities."

She endorsed a recent statement by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W. Va., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, that companies assured by top administration officials that the surveillance program was legal "should not be dragged through the courts for their help with national security."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...9/BA13T97BN.DTL

For those who aren't aware, Feinstein (like Rockefeller) is one of the Democrats with the most history on the Senate Intelligence Committees.

But why listen to your own party's experts? Get your wisdom from partisan demagogues and the know-nothing press.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest *Autonomous*
The "Protect America Bill" ( which allows us to listen in on terrorist conversations) is due to expire

this weekend. Bush wants a new permanent bill in place before then. The Senate has passed a bill

which Bush has approved. However the Loonys in the House are refusing to pass their own bill or

approve the senate bill. Nice to know where the Loony's priorities are, their own Loony Left

agenda comes before the security and protection of America. Their behavior borders on treason.

Of course, FISA is still in effect. The only difference is that Bush wants the Protect America Bill because it forces the telecoms to obey the government. That is it.

Some treason.

Busch beer is horrible, btw. Why not 'bach' Budweiser instead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Twizzler
I'll take that one.

Because the NSA program in question constitutes a reasonable search.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

Now you tell me why the NSA program doesn't constitute a reasonable search.

Yet again you display your complete ignorance of the law. Under our system of checks and balances, the courts decide whether a search is reasonable or not. That way, one branch of government checks against abuses by another.

A dictator will always say that what he wants to do is reasonable. That is why the Constitution sets up a system of checks and balances, which we have lived by for more than 200 years, and why presidents for more than 200 years have accepted limits on their power. They have understood that the framers did not set up a unitary, all-powerful executive. Under our system, a search requires a warrant issued by a court. If that breaks down, we'll lose not only our individual liberty but also our system of government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Twizzler
:)

Some of you apparently can't see beyond your Bush-hating lenses.

In a statement at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is considering legislation to extend the Bush administration's electronic surveillance program, Feinstein said the companies should not be "held hostage to costly litigation in what is essentially a complaint about administration activities."

She endorsed a recent statement by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W. Va., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, that companies assured by top administration officials that the surveillance program was legal "should not be dragged through the courts for their help with national security."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...9/BA13T97BN.DTL

For those who aren't aware, Feinstein (like Rockefeller) is one of the Democrats with the most history on the Senate Intelligence Committees.

But why listen to your own party's experts? Get your wisdom from partisan demagogues and the know-nothing press.

Fallacious appeal to authority.

They caved. That's why so few people respect the current Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BushBacker
Of course, FISA is still in effect. The only difference is that Bush wants the Protect America Bill because it forces the telecoms to obey the government. That is it.

Some treason.

Busch beer is horrible, btw. Why not 'bach' Budweiser instead?

The previous post wasn't mine, apparently someone is enamored by me. But Autonomous is wrong

as usual. The "Protect America Bill" Bush wants has a provision that protects telecoms from lawsuits

stemming from privacy issues. Without the threat of a lawsuit, there's no reason to not cooperate

with the government. The Loony Left bloggers are not a reliable source of info, watch Fox instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take that one.

Because the NSA program in question constitutes a reasonable search.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

Now you tell me why the NSA program doesn't constitute a reasonable search. :)

Warrantless ''National Security'' Electronic Surveillance .--In Katz v. United States, 151 Justice White sought to preserve for a future case the possibility that in ''national security cases'' electronic surveillance upon the authorization of the President or the Attorney General could be permissible without prior judicial approval. The Executive Branch then asserted the power to wiretap and to ''bug'' in two types of national security situations, against domestic subversion and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its authority on a theory of ''inherent'' presidential power and then in the Supreme Court withdrawing to the argument that such surveillance was a ''reasonable'' search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment. Unanimously, the Court held that at least in cases of domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required. 152 Whether or not a search was reasonable, wrote Justice Powell for the Court, was a question which derived much of its answer from the warrant clause; except in a few narrowly circumscribed classes of situations, only those searches conducted pursuant to warrants were reasonable. The Government's duty to preserve the national security did not override the gurarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy. 153 This protection was even more needed in ''national security cases'' than in cases of ''ordinary'' crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the First Amendment as well as by the Fourth. 154 Rejected also was the argument that courts could not appreciate the intricacies of investigations in the area of national security nor preserve the secrecy which is required. 155

The question of the scope of the President's constitutional powers, if any, remains judicially unsettled. 156 Congress has acted, however, providing for a special court to hear requests for warrants for electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence situations, and permitting the President to authorize warrantless surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information provided that the communications to be monitored are exclusively between or among foreign powers and there is no substantial likelihood any ''United States person'' will be overheard. 157

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest a proud american
:)

Some of you apparently can't see beyond your Bush-hating lenses.

In a statement at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is considering legislation to extend the Bush administration's electronic surveillance program, Feinstein said the companies should not be "held hostage to costly litigation in what is essentially a complaint about administration activities."

She endorsed a recent statement by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W. Va., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, that companies assured by top administration officials that the surveillance program was legal "should not be dragged through the courts for their help with national security."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...9/BA13T97BN.DTL

For those who aren't aware, Feinstein (like Rockefeller) is one of the Democrats with the most history on the Senate Intelligence Committees.

But why listen to your own party's experts? Get your wisdom from partisan demagogues and the know-nothing press.

The Congress willl not be taking up this legislation before it expires. The President of course has dragged out the old fear card once again. What the Senate version of the bill will accomplish is that instead of suing the Telecommunications Industry, people would be forced to sue the Government. Now professor I know that you are well versed in the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity which means you can't not sue the Government. without them agreeing to be sued. So what the Senate Bill did was substitute one entity, the Tele communications industry and replaced it with another, the Federal Government.

Which means, the next Administration is the one that is going to have to deal with this problem. If no action is taken and the FISA Bill reverts back to its original intent, no one will be any less safe than they are now. Remember, we were told that this bill was only supposed to monitor phone calls from foreign countries to the US and vice versa. We now know that this was a sham, that they were monitoring all calls and e-mails.

Now, if the original FISA Law reverts back, the only change is that the FBI or CIA will still have the ability to pick up information and listen in for 72 hours before they get an actual warrant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...