good article on "illegal" wiretaps

Page 1 of 6 123 ... Last
  1. Board Supporter
    snakebyte05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,538
    Rep Power
    901
    Level
    30
    Lv. Percent
    85%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    good article on "illegal" wiretaps


    How to 'Connect the Dots'

    By Andrew C. McCarthy
    National Review
    January 30, 2006

    Washington's scandal du jour involves a wartime surveillance program President Bush directed the National Security Agency to carry out after al-Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001. The idea that there is anything truly scandalous about this program is absurd. But the outcry against it is valuable, highlighting as it does the mistaken assumption that criminal-justice solutions are applicable to national-security challenges.

    The intelligence community has identified thousands of al-Qaeda operatives and sympathizers throughout the world. After Congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of military force immediately following the 9/11 attacks, the president, as part of the war effort, ordered the NSA to intercept the enemy's international communications, even if those communications went into and out of the United States and thus potentially involved American citizens. According to reports from the New York Times, which shamefully publicized leaks of the program's existence in mid-December 2005, as many as 7,000 suspected terrorists overseas are monitored at any one time, as are up to 500 suspects inside the U.S.

    As is typical of such wartime operations, the NSA program was classified at the highest level of secret information. It was, nevertheless, completely different from the kind of rogue intelligence operations of which the Nixon era is emblematic (though by no means the only case). The Bush administration internally vetted the program, including at the Justice Department, to confirm its legal footing. It reviewed (and continues to review) the program every 45 days. It briefed the bipartisan leadership of Congress (including the intelligence committees) at least a dozen times. It informed the chief judge of the federal Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), the tribunal that oversees domestic national-security wiretapping. And it modified the program in mid-2004 in reaction to concerns raised by the chief judge, national-security officials, and government lawyers.

    Far from being a pretextual use of war powers to spy on political opponents and policy dissenters, the NSA program has been dedicated to national security. More to the point, it has saved lives, helping break up at least one al-Qaeda conspiracy to attack New York City and Washington, D.C., in connection with which a plotter named Iyman Faris was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment.

    As potential scandal fodder, so unremarkable did the NSA program seem that the Times sat on the story for a year — and a year, it is worth noting, during which it transparently and assiduously sought to exploit any opportunity to discredit the administration and cast it as a mortal threat to civil liberties. The leak was not sprung until the eleventh hour of congressional negotiations over renewal of the Patriot Act — at which point it provided ammunition to those who would gut Patriot's crucial post-9/11 domestic-surveillance powers and simultaneously served as a marketing campaign for Times reporter James Risen, who just happened to be on the eve of publishing a book about, among other things, Bush's domestic “spying.”

    In fact, so obviously appropriate was wartime surveillance of the enemy that Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, issued a statement right after the Times exposed the program, saying: “I have been briefed since 2003 on a highly classified NSA foreign collection program that targeted Al-Qaeda. I believe the program is essential to US national security and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities.” (With partisan “scandal” blowing in the wind, Harman changed her tune two weeks later, suddenly deciding that the “essential” program was probably illegal after all.)

    A MIGHTY FUSS
    If President Bush's reelection is any indication, what most Americans will care about is that we are monitoring the enemy. Chances are they won't be overly interested in knowing whether that monitoring is done on the president's own constitutional authority or in accordance with a statutory scheme calling for judicial imprimatur. Nevertheless, the Left is already indulging in loose talk about impeachment. Even some Republican “moderates,” such as Arlen Specter, say the domestic-spying allegations are troubling enough that hearings are warranted. So it's worth asking: What is all the fuss about?

    At bottom, it is about a power grab that began nearly three decades ago. Ever since it became technologically possible to intercept wire communications, presidents have done so. All of them, going back to FDR, claimed that the powers granted to the chief executive under Article II of the Constitution allowed them to conduct such wiretapping for national-security purposes. Particularly in wartime, this power might be thought indisputable. The president is the commander in chief of the armed forces, and penetrating enemy communications is as much an incident of war-fighting as bombing enemy targets is.

    But surveillance power has been abused — and notoriously by President Nixon, whose eavesdropping on political opponents was the basis of a draft article of impeachment. Watergate-era domestic-spying controversies dovetailed with important developments in the law of electronic surveillance. In 1967, the Supreme Court, in Katz v. United States, held that Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches extended to electronic surveillance — meaning that eavesdropping without a judicial warrant was now presumptively unconstitutional. Congress followed by enacting a comprehensive scheme, known as “Title III,” that required law-enforcement agents to obtain a court warrant for probable cause of a crime before conducting electronic surveillance. Yet both Katz and Title III recognized inherent presidential authority to conduct national-security monitoring without being bound by the new warrant requirement.

    The Supreme Court undertook to circumscribe this inherent authority in its 1972 Keith decision. It held that a judicial warrant was required for national-security surveillance if the target was a purely domestic threat — the Vietnam-era Court giving higher priority to the free-speech interests of “those suspected of unorthodoxy in their political beliefs” than to the safety of those who might be endangered by domestic terrorists. Still, the Court took pains to exempt from its ruling the “activities of foreign powers or their agents” (emphasis added).

    The true power grab occurred in 1978, when Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA attempted to do in the national-security realm what Title III had done in law enforcement: erect a thoroughgoing legal regime for domestic eavesdropping. And therein lies the heart of the current dispute. If the president has inherent authority to conduct national-security wiretapping, it is a function of his constitutional warrant. It is not a function of Congress's having failed until 1978 to flex its own muscles. A constitutional power cannot be altered or limited by statute. Period.

    But limiting presidential authority is precisely what FISA purports to do. It ostensibly prohibits national-security eavesdropping (and, since 1994, physical searches) unless the executive branch can satisfy a federal judge — one of eleven who sit on a specially created Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court — that there is probable cause that the subject it seeks to monitor is an “agent of a foreign power” (generally either a spy or a member of a foreign terrorist organization).

    FISA does not aim to restrict the power to eavesdrop on all conversations. Communications that are entirely foreign — in that they involve aliens communicating overseas, for example — are exempted, as are conversations that unintentionally capture “U.S. persons” (generally, American citizens and permanent resident aliens), as long as these communications are intercepted outside the U.S. But where it does apply, FISA holds that the president — the constitutional officer charged with the nation's security — is powerless to eavesdrop on an operative posing a threat to the United States unless a judge — who need not possess any national-security expertise — is persuaded that the operative is a genuine threat. One suspects that such a system would astonish the Founders.

    THE BOUNDS OF FISA
    Does the NSA program violate FISA? That question is difficult to answer with certainty. The program remains highly classified, and many of its details are not publicly known, nor should they be. Much has been made of the fact that FISA approval is required to intercept calls into or out of the United States if an American is intentionally being targeted. But scant attention has been given to FISA's caveat that such conversations are protected only if their participants have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It is difficult to imagine that Americans who make or receive calls to war zones in, say, Afghanistan or Iraq, or to al-Qaeda operatives anywhere, can reasonably expect that no one is listening in.

    Nevertheless, it would not be surprising to learn that at least some of the NSA monitoring transgresses the bounds of FISA. For example, the statute mandates — without qualification about the reasonable expectation of privacy — that the government seek a judicial warrant before eavesdropping on any international call to or from the U.S., if that call is intercepted inside our borders. A distinction based on where a call is intercepted made sense in 1978. Back then, if a conversation was intercepted inside our borders, its participants were almost certain to include at least one U.S. person. But modern technology has since blurred the distinction between foreign and domestic telephony. Packets of digital information are now routed through switches inside countries (including, predominately, the U.S.) where neither the sender nor the recipient of the call is located. The NSA has capitalized on this evolution, and is now able, from within the U.S., to seize calls between Tikrit and Kabul, or between Peshawar and Hamburg. If done without a warrant, those intercepts present no FISA problem, because all the speakers are overseas. But it's hard to believe that the NSA is using this technology only to acquire all-foreign calls, while intercepting calls between, say, New York and Hamburg only from locations outside the U.S.

    Perhaps that is why the Bush administration's defense has been light on the abstruse details of FISA and heavy on the president's inherent Article II power — although carefully couched to avoid offending Congress and the FISC with suggestions that FISA is at least partly unconstitutional. Essentially, the administration argues that FISA is beneficial in ordinary times and for long-term investigations, but that it did not and cannot repeal the president's independent constitutional obligation to protect the country: an obligation that was explicitly reserved even by President Carter, who signed FISA; that has been claimed by every president since; and that is uniquely vital in a war against thousands of stateless, stealthy terrorists, in which both a “probable cause” requirement and a sclerotic bureaucracy for processing warrant applications would be dangerously impractical.

    In advancing this argument, the administration finds much support in the one and only decision ever rendered by the Foreign Intelligence Court of Review — the appellate court created by FISA to review FISC decisions. That decision came in 2002, after a quarter-century of FISA experience. Tellingly, its context was a brazen effort by the FISC to reject the Patriot Act's dismantling of the “wall” that prevented intelligence agents and criminal investigators from pooling information. In overruling the FISC, the Court of Review observed that “all the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.” Notwithstanding FISA, the Court thus pronounced: “We take for granted that the President does have that authority.”

    The administration has also placed great stock in Congress's post-9/11 authorization of “all necessary and appropriate force” against those behind the terrorist attacks. While this resolution did not expressly mention penetrating enemy communications, neither did it explicitly include the detention of enemy combatants, which the Supreme Court, in its 2004 Hamdi decision, found implicit in the use-of-force authorization because it is a “fundamental incident of waging war.” Capturing intelligence, of course, is as much a component of waging war as capturing operatives. Any other conclusion would lead to the absurdity of the president's having full discretion to kill terrorists but needing a judge's permission merely to eavesdrop on them.

    FISA aside, the administration stresses that the NSA program fits comfortably within the Fourth Amendment. That Amendment proscribes unreasonable searches, not warrantless ones — and it is thus unsurprising that the Supreme Court has recognized numerous exceptions to the warrant requirement that are of far less moment than the imperative to protect the country from attack. Plainly, there is nothing unreasonable about intercepting potential enemy communications in wartime. Moreover, the courts have long held that searches conducted at the border are part of the sovereign right of self-protection, and thus require neither probable cause nor a warrant. Cross-border communications, which might well be triggers of terror plots, are no more deserving of constitutional protection.

    CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
    Critics have made much of a lengthy analysis published on January 6, 2006, by the Congressional Research Service that casts doubt on the administration's core contentions. Media have treated the report as bearing special weight because the CRS is a non-partisan entity. But that does not mean the CRS is objective. “The sole mission of CRS,” it explains on its website, “is to serve the United States Congress.” Yet the issue at stake is precisely a separation-of-powers dispute.

    While the CRS study is an impressive compilation of the relevant law, it resorts to a fairly standard tactic for marginalizing executive power: reliance on the concurring opinion by Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson in a 1952 case involving President Truman's failed effort to seize steel mills — a move Truman justified by referring to the exigencies of the Korean War. Jackson saw executive power as waxing or waning along a three-stage scale, depending on whether a president acted with the support, the indifference, or the opposition of Congress. On this theory, a statute like FISA could curb a president's inherent constitutional authority. The fatal problem with the Jackson construct, however, has always been that it makes Congress, not the Constitution, the master of presidential authority. It disregards the reality that the executive is a coequal branch whose powers exist whether Congress acts or not. But the CRS prefers Jackson's conveniently airy formula, which failed to command a Court majority, to relevant opinions that don't go Congress's way, such as that of the Foreign Intelligence Court of Review — which, unlike the Supreme Court, was actually considering FISA.

    Frustrated by its inability to move public opinion, the Left is now emphasizing the large “volume of information harvested from telecommunication data and voice networks,” as the Times breathlessly put it, “without court-approved warrants.” But this is pure legerdemain. When we refer to “information” from “telecommunication data,” we are talking about something that, legally, is worlds apart from the content of telephone calls or e-mail messages.

    These data do not include the substance of what people privately say to one another in conversations, but rather comprise statistical facts about the use of telecommunications services (for example, what phone number called another number, the date and time of the call, how long it lasted, etc.). Court warrants have never been required for the acquisition of such information because, as the Supreme Court explained over a quarter-century ago in Smith v.. Maryland, telecommunications data do not implicate the Fourth Amendment. All phone and e-mail users know this information is conveyed to and maintained by service providers, and no one expects it to be private.

    Analyzing such data is clearly different from monitoring the calls and e-mails themselves. For our own protection, we should want the government to collect as many of these data as possible (since doing so affects no one's legitimate privacy interests) in order to develop investigative leads. That's how a country manages to go four years without a domestic terror attack.

    Yet the Left's rage continues, despite the public's evident disinterest in the mind-numbingly technical nature of the dispute, and despite the obvious truth that the NSA program was a bona fide effort to protect the nation from harm, not to snoop on Americans — only a tiny fraction of whom were affected, and those with apparent good reason. The controversy is a disquieting barometer of elite commitment to the War on Terror. As recently as two years ago, when “connecting the dots” was all the rage, liberals ignored eight years of Clintonian nonfeasance and portrayed the Bush administration as asleep at the switch while terrorists ran amok. Now they ignore President Clinton's insistence on the very same executive surveillance power that the current administration claims and caricature Bush as the imperial president, shredding core protections of civil liberties by exaggerating the terror threat. Either way you slice it, national security becomes a game in which necessary decisions by responsible adults become political grist, and, if they get enough traction, phony scandals. What remains real, though, is the danger to Americans implicit in any system that can't tell a war from a crime.

    Mr. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a contributor to National Review Online

  2. Board Supporter
    zaph123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    34
    Posts
    243
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    55.32%

    Nice read thanks
  3. Senior Member
    Mass_69's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  220 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,550
    Rep Power
    3039
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    94.75%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    •   
       

  4. New Member
    mindgames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    162
    Rep Power
    190
    Level
    11
    Lv. Percent
    13.77%

    US Supreme Court Quotation:

    "The price of lawful public dissent must not be a dread of subjugation to an unchecked surveillance power."

    It is also legal precedent that:

    "bugging or tapping domestic political suspects without a warrant is illegal." ( US Supreme Court, July 3rd, 1972.)

    It is pertinent to note that Bush has exercised his discretion an incredible number of times compared to any President in US History. No offense, but if I lived in the US such unilateralism would concern me in a 'democracy'.
  5. Kyra Gracie= my future wife
    mywetnightmares's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    435
    Rep Power
    332
    Level
    17
    Lv. Percent
    32.45%

    Don't forget that it's not just bush that did this, clinton did it, bush 1 did it, reagan probly did it, I believe carter did it as well, it's not uncommon. I'm pretty sure that the furor over Bush doing it isn't because it's actually illegal, which it's not, but over the fact that it's Bush and the hippies wanna stick whatever they can to him.
  6. Senior Member
    Mass_69's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  220 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,550
    Rep Power
    3039
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    94.75%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by mywetnightmares
    Don't forget that it's not just bush that did this, clinton did it, bush 1 did it, reagan probly did it, I believe carter did it as well, it's not uncommon. I'm pretty sure that the furor over Bush doing it isn't because it's actually illegal, which it's not, but over the fact that it's Bush and the hippies wanna stick whatever they can to him.
  7. New Member
    Bigdaddyandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    40
    Posts
    97
    Rep Power
    161
    Level
    9
    Lv. Percent
    3.66%

    Yeah, just what we need more government noses in our business.

    The same people that authorized this are the same ones who shut Clinton down from doing it in 95-96.
    It's absurd and hypocritical.Every time Clinton tried to do anything. He was blocked by the republicans.

    It was partisan politics at its worst.

    He still managed to get us out of massive deficit, we had relatively few terrorist attacks on us(in comparison to the Reagan era), welfare rolls were down, and we had more quality jobs.

    The bottom line is while Bill Clinton was no angel by any stretch of the imagination. George Bush has squandered and pissed away everything.

    The only reason he got reelected was 9-11. He ran on fear tactics and he's still using fear tactics to get what he wants done.
    It absolutely amazes me how sheeplike we have become.
    My only hope is that we wake up.

    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    Benjamin Franklin
  8. Senior Member
    MaynardMeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,108
    Rep Power
    678
    Level
    26
    Lv. Percent
    63.67%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    Yeah, just what we need more government noses in our business.

    I agree, government should stay out as much as possible. But the President is in charge, directly in charge, of protecting his fellow Americans.

    The same people that authorized this are the same ones who shut Clinton down from doing it in 95-96.
    It's absurd and hypocritical.Every time Clinton tried to do anything. He was blocked by the republicans.

    Clinton wasn't shut down when he did it. The same small number of rebublicans and a larger amount of democrats that are against it today, were against it then. But under clinton, the democrats only had 25% of their population against it.



    It was partisan politics at its worst.

    welcome to america.


    He still managed to get us out of massive deficit, we had relatively few terrorist attacks on us(in comparison to the Reagan era), welfare rolls were down, and we had more quality jobs.

    Very true, but he took more money out of the hands of Americans than the british ever did. Taxation with representation isn't all that great either. And he would have kept shooting up taxes.. the reality is. some economists do not even hold the deficit as having any impact on society. Since being off the gold, the american dollar is worth only what the american people say its worth.

    The bottom line is while Bill Clinton was no angel by any stretch of the imagination. George Bush has squandered and pissed away everything.

    Under Clinton's watch, those who hate the United States and the Westernize world were able to gather arms and money to plan attacks on our women and men over seas and at home. Yes he did an awesome job keeping nations like China, uhmm, france.. china, and france supporting us. But that was done with interesting and questionable "gifts" and their common interest of socalism.

    Clinton never had a legacy and he hates that. Bush will have two or three before the end of his term.

    1. He brought back the courts to how they are suppose to be. Courts are not set to be used to create laws. That the job of the Congress. Democrats like Kerry, Kenedy hate the fact that traditionalist judges are on the court.. it kills the only way liberals like Kerry and Kenedy could get anything done.

    2. It is in the best interest of the new global economy that Islamist groups ( which are a small number of muslims but hold most of the guns and money) are disolved. Some nations like Egypt are seeing the problems these groups cause and thusly changing their government for the better. Others need a B52 to change their minds. I have 30 Iraqi women that go to the college I teach at. I had mixed feelings about Iraq until I met them. Also keep in mind that we held an isolationist view pre World War Two. The first days the united states went in to stop Hitler, we lost 29,000 lives. If we cared, and gave an ear to the small number of people in Austria, Poland, the Jews in Germany.. as we did with the people of Iraq... if we acted two years earlier.. we could have prevented those deaths, and the murder of millions in death camps. Bush has learned from the mistakes of the past.

    3. Bush may actually finally get a law passed that the Fed. Government could not tax the american people over X amount. That is in the works.

    To be fair, 3 things that he has totally messed up on.

    1. Border protection. He is not willing to place a true wall and allow guest workers to come in and out in a controlled order. The 8 foot ball feild long tunnel with lights and paved floors will spell a disaster and bring the next attack. They already caught two Iraqis that tried to sneak in to the US. They snuck into Mexico.

    2. Energy. Both republicans and democrats will talk talk and talk. but both are tied to oil.. even kenedy makes millions with his stock holdings.

    3. Katrina.. ok.. well everyone is at fault here.. Even N.O. which is totally controlled by Democrats.. the chosen land for liberals and minorites.. their system failed its people. The Feds should have seen this sooner and got their asses there.. HOWEVER.. most of the reports of mass murders, toxic waters etc were false.. but yes.. more should have been done for the displaced. by the way.. N.O. just turned down a large amount of fed aid to bring citizens back to the city who do not have the means.


    The only reason he got reelected was 9-11. He ran on fear tactics and he's still using fear tactics to get what he wants done.
    Feer tactics like "Bush will bring back the draft" "Bush will take away your medicare" Democrates use their fair share. Bush's "fear tactics" were reality, 9-11 was a reality check and legit fear to have i think.. but The United States can over come these fears with the proper governing body.

    It absolutely amazes me how sheeplike we have become.
    My only hope is that we wake up.

    BAAAAA. BAAAAA. good.. glad to be a sheep, if it is going to protect our nation and those people that are too scared to rise up against brutality. We woke up after 9-11, so we are not sleeping anymore. We slept very well under Clinton ( the comfortable president) We cannot affored to ever sleep again


    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    Benjamin Franklin

    we aren't giving up any liberty.. if you feel liberity was taken from you.. then you my friend are in league with known terrorists
  9. Board Supporter
    snakebyte05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,538
    Rep Power
    901
    Level
    30
    Lv. Percent
    85%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    One thing I would like to add about Bush reinstating the draft, the funniest part about that, is the bill that was created to reinstate the draft was headed by a democrat and the majority that were part of it were democrats, it had nothing to do with bush, ill see if I can remember the bill number and tell you which democrat it was that started it.
  10. Senior Member
    MaynardMeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,108
    Rep Power
    678
    Level
    26
    Lv. Percent
    63.67%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    it was Charles B. Rangel
  11. Board Supporter
    snakebyte05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,538
    Rep Power
    901
    Level
    30
    Lv. Percent
    85%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    It was Jim Mcdermott that was the head of it. I can't find the bill anymore, it doesn't seem to be on the congress website anymore.
  12. Board Supporter
    snakebyte05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,538
    Rep Power
    901
    Level
    30
    Lv. Percent
    85%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by MaynardMeek
    it was Charles B. Rangel
    Are you sure? I could have sworn Jim Mcdermott was the head of it.
  13. Senior Member
    MaynardMeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,108
    Rep Power
    678
    Level
    26
    Lv. Percent
    63.67%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rep. Charles Rangel introduced a bill in Congress Tuesday to reinstate the military draft, saying fighting forces should more closely reflect the economic makeup of the nation.


    think we are both correct http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/pr_draft.shtml
  14. Kyra Gracie= my future wife
    mywetnightmares's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    435
    Rep Power
    332
    Level
    17
    Lv. Percent
    32.45%

    Jim "Jihad" McDermot, what a joke. If he lived in any other district in the country he would have been out of office long ago, especially after he went to Iraq to have a tea party with Saddam.
  15. New Member
    mindgames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    162
    Rep Power
    190
    Level
    11
    Lv. Percent
    13.77%

    Quote Originally Posted by mywetnightmares
    Don't forget that it's not just bush that did this, clinton did it, bush 1 did it, reagan probly did it, I believe carter did it as well, it's not uncommon. I'm pretty sure that the furor over Bush doing it isn't because it's actually illegal, which it's not, but over the fact that it's Bush and the hippies wanna stick whatever they can to him.
    It's the same in Australia and it always confounds yet amuses me...whenever the status quo is challenged, some presume it only comes from 'lefties', or 'hippies.'
    Thank goodness that totalitarian mind set didn't exist when dictatorships and monarchies were toppled in favor of democracies throughout history. We would still be in the stone age without courageous challenges to the norm.
  16. Banned
    BioHazzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    925
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    23
    Lv. Percent
    38.58%

    Quote Originally Posted by mindgames
    US Supreme Court Quotation:

    "The price of lawful public dissent must not be a dread of subjugation to an unchecked surveillance power."

    It is also legal precedent that:

    "bugging or tapping domestic political suspects without a warrant is illegal." ( US Supreme Court, July 3rd, 1972.)

    It is pertinent to note that Bush has exercised his discretion an incredible number of times compared to any President in US History. No offense, but if I lived in the US such unilateralism would concern me in a 'democracy'.
    You totally ignored or simply chosed to ignore the simple fact that our President insured orders to target Al Qaeda terrorists, NOT 'political suspects'.

    The mass murderer Osama and his fanatic butchers, are not 'political suspects'.

    Dude, it is a WAR!!

    Would you call those who blew up 200 Aussies in Bali, some 'political suspects'? Yeah... let's don't trespass on their freedom and rights, huh?

    God forbids if we ever acted 'UNILATERALLY' to hunt down and kill off these evil murderers.....
  17. New Member
    mindgames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    162
    Rep Power
    190
    Level
    11
    Lv. Percent
    13.77%

    Quote Originally Posted by BioHazzard
    You totally ignored or simply chosed to ignore the simple fact that our President insured orders to target Al Qaeda terrorists, NOT 'political suspects'.

    The mass murderer Osama and his fanatic butchers, are not 'political suspects'.

    Dude, it is a WAR!!

    Would you call those who blew up 200 Aussies in Bali, some 'political suspects'? Yeah... let's don't trespass on their freedom and rights, huh?

    God forbids if we ever acted 'UNILATERALLY' to hunt down and kill off these evil murderers.....
    Ok - and I say ALL the following with due respect that we have alternate opinions.

    1. I am quoting the findings of YOUR Supreme Court.
    2. I am sure the Iraqis who were subjected to an illegal invasion, lost children to cluster bombs, white phosphorous etc may consider Bush a reckless war criminal and a true terrorist.
    3. Define terrorism - it appears to me to be a western word for any opposition to US policy - now suicide bombing may not be platable, but it is a tactic of war for groups fighting against overwhelming numbers. They are certainly not going to line up toe to toe with US forces and fight it out. PS This DOES NOT mean I support or advocate this tactic but - as you say - dude this is a war.
    4. the people who blew up the Aussies would I'm sure be seen as freedom fighters by their countrymen whether I like it or not. War and labels always depends on which side of the fence you are on.
    5. The US has murdered people, usurped governments, tortured, supplied arms to cotra drug dealers, the taliban, set up governments in Afghanistan armed them and then gone to war against the same people and weapons, wreaked havoc in Nicaragua, ignored genocide in the Balkans and Rwanda and intefered in a LOT of countries over the years without invitation.....no wonder a lot of people are pissed at them. you cannot invade a nation and not expect retaliation.
  18. Registered User
    DougMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    30
    Posts
    221
    Rep Power
    244
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    31.48%

    Haha Mindgames why do you even bother? When someone says "Dude, it is a WAR!!" you should know they have completely bought into the whole idea of a black and white world. Its the reason a lot of people I know really like Bush... he makes things simple. Just listen to Bush that is all you need to do. After all its a lot easier to be a sheep than a shepherd. And with people apparently happy to be sheep its going to be hard to make a point since you have all of 1 step of logic to do it in. DUDE ITS A WAR! See... 1 step of logic.
  19. Banned
    BioHazzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    925
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    23
    Lv. Percent
    38.58%

    Ok - and I say ALL the following with due respect that we have alternate opinions.

    It is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of facts.

    1. I am quoting the findings of YOUR Supreme Court.

    OUR Supreme Court 'specifically' referred to 'political desent', NOT to terrorists who murdered over 2000 men, women and children on one September morning.

    You quoted correctly, but inferred incorrectly.


    2. I am sure the Iraqis who were subjected to an illegal invasion, lost children to cluster bombs, white phosphorous etc may consider Bush a reckless war criminal and a true terrorist.

    80% of the Iraqi populations are better off w/o Saddam. But I suppose you would rather that Saddam and his butchers gased them, tortured them and raped them?

    Your definition of what a war criminal is, is, to put it mildly, F@#$ed up.

    Stop getting your news from Al Jazeera.


    3. Define terrorism - it appears to me to be a western word for any opposition to US policy - now suicide bombing may not be platable, but it is a tactic of war for groups fighting against overwhelming numbers. They are certainly not going to line up toe to toe with US forces and fight it out. PS This DOES NOT mean I support or advocate this tactic but - as you say - dude this is a war.


    You need to get your facts right. Almost all of the suicide bombings, have managed to only murdered thousands of innocent men, women and children. That is why your beloved Al Qaeda is the most hated group in Iraq today. They are also the most hated group in Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Afghanistan. Even Saudi Arabia is killing them whenever they find them. You are on the wrong side of reality, my friend.

    Don't be a sucker. If you want to know what terrorism is, go ask your fellow Aussies who have lost family members in Bali. Then may be you can educate them on what your definition of terrorism is. Hope you have a good dental plan. :ROFL:


    4. the people who blew up the Aussies would I'm sure be seen as freedom fighters by their countrymen whether I like it or not. War and labels always depends on which side of the fence you are on.

    Well, I don't know where you get your news, but the Indonesians are royally pissed at those butchers. They are not that sympathetic toward terrorists, like you are.

    5. The US has murdered people, usurped governments, tortured, supplied arms to cotra drug dealers, the taliban, set up governments in Afghanistan armed them and then gone to war against the same people and weapons, wreaked havoc in Nicaragua, ignored genocide in the Balkans and Rwanda and intefered in a LOT of countries over the years without invitation.....no wonder a lot of people are pissed at them. you cannot invade a nation and not expect retaliation.

    Dude, then I suggest you go join Al Qaeda then. According to your perverted view, Al Qaeda must be working for world peace.
  20. New Member
    DaWarw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    59
    Rep Power
    139
    Level
    7
    Lv. Percent
    91.51%

    We're not harsh enough in the Middle East. We need to stay executing terrorists left and right. Then if they don't stop killing American citizens and beheading them, we must blow up their villages. There is no enemy if he is dead.
  21. Banned
    BioHazzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    925
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    23
    Lv. Percent
    38.58%

    Quote Originally Posted by DougMan
    Haha Mindgames why do you even bother? When someone says "Dude, it is a WAR!!" you should know they have completely bought into the whole idea of a black and white world. Its the reason a lot of people I know really like Bush... he makes things simple. Just listen to Bush that is all you need to do. After all its a lot easier to be a sheep than a shepherd. And with people apparently happy to be sheep its going to be hard to make a point since you have all of 1 step of logic to do it in. DUDE ITS A WAR! See... 1 step of logic.
    Oh what the heck, I'll humour you too, even though this is a total waste of time.

    The war on terrorism is indeed a war. Everyone who is a participant in it, KNOWS it and TREATS it as such. It is irrelevant what you 'think' it is. You can pretend that 9/11 is a picnic, and the Bali bombing is just a cook-out. It does not change a thing. The war is being fought. You are just an onlooker. So, you are free to pretend it to be anything you want.

    IF you are interested in not coming across like a total moron, then do some research. Go read Al Qaeda's published declaration. They made a lot of them. They spelled out exactly what their goals are and what their strategies are.

    But you are free to pretend that those do not exist and it is all a made up lie and one huge conspiracy. Yeah, and 911 never happened. It was all a hoax. LOL

    See ya!
  22. Banned
    BioHazzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    925
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    23
    Lv. Percent
    38.58%

    Quote Originally Posted by DaWarw
    We're not harsh enough in the Middle East. We need to stay executing terrorists left and right. Then if they don't stop killing American citizens and beheading them, we must blow up their villages. There is no enemy if he is dead.
    Unfortunately, you are correct. Evil knows only violence. Against the fanatics, there can be no compromise. These fanatical terrorists need to be systematically hunted down and killed off. That is the way terrorists have traditionally been dealed with in the Middle East. It is a tried and true method. Egypt has done that to the Muslim Brotherhood. Syria has done that to their muslim terrorists. Algeria has been doing that to their muslim terrorists. Saudi Arabia is doing that to their Al Qaeda terrorists, finally, after Al Qaeda started violence in Saudi Arabia.
  23. Senior Member
    Rogue Drone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,226
    Rep Power
    743
    Level
    37
    Lv. Percent
    69.91%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    What do you think the US Military and Intelligence services do all day ,Biohazzard? Drink, play cards and tell jokes? No, they are systematically hunting down and killing terrorists. Everyone who is a participant in it, KNOWS it and TREATS it as such.

    Tried and trued methods, right, those wonderfully free, prosperous and safe countries are the ones we want to copy, they obviously have the answers we need.

    Get a ****ing clue, pal, you can't save a free republic by establishing a police state.
  24. Registered User
    DougMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    30
    Posts
    221
    Rep Power
    244
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    31.48%

    Quote Originally Posted by BioHazzard
    The war on terrorism is indeed a war. Everyone who is a participant in it, KNOWS it and TREATS it as such. It is irrelevant what you 'think' it is. You can pretend that 9/11 is a picnic, and the Bali bombing is just a cook-out. It does not change a thing. The war is being fought. You are just an onlooker. So, you are free to pretend it to be anything you want.


    See ya!
    No thank you for responding. Goes to prove my point. 1 step logic. 9/11 => iraq war, 9/11 => Bush can do no wrong, 9/11 => wire taps. Who attacked us on 9/11? As you mentioned it was Al Qaeda. If the government even suspects you are linked to Al Qeada then boom they do a FISA court and its done. Why does Bush have to go around the courts? Because he can, and most people dont care. At no point did I argue with wiretaps... it is just ridiculous that the president just disregards the courts as such. America was built on checks and balances. It was not built on this Machiavellian idea that the ends justify the means.

    I am not denying that there is a war... I am saying that you should not be so quick to accept everything the government puts out. Remember, its always about the next shot. Today its wiretaps, what is next?
  25. New Member
    mindgames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    162
    Rep Power
    190
    Level
    11
    Lv. Percent
    13.77%

    Quote Originally Posted by DaWarw
    We're not harsh enough in the Middle East. We need to stay executing terrorists left and right. Then if they don't stop killing American citizens and beheading them, we must blow up their villages. There is no enemy if he is dead.
    Yeah, what a great idea. Just keep sending your youth uninvited and miles overseas to be killed so those that are left can profit and put petrol in their cars. What a great idea.

    I suggest that you look at the civilian deaths from laughably called 'smart' bombs that the US has used before you accuse others of killing civilians.

    And also - look at the almost blanket left wing successes in South America - look at the DEMOCRATICALLY elected Hamas Party - Don't you get it - most of the worlsd thinks US style politics SUCKS and they are SICK of your uninvited inteference.

    As far as 9/11 goes, if you hit, expect to be hit - don't give me that naive ' but what did i do to deserve this' crap.
  26. Advanced Member
    Whiskey Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    563
    Rep Power
    391
    Level
    21
    Lv. Percent
    57.26%

    I have religious beliefs that have fortold of what our government has done/will do to a tee. (we are not in good hands)

    But if I didn't have those then I would still call Bush the most ethnocentric, power hungry, money hoarding, murderer that is alive.
  27. Senior Member
    MaynardMeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,108
    Rep Power
    678
    Level
    26
    Lv. Percent
    63.67%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    Doug Man.. the presidents of these states have an obligation to all they can to protect the homeland. They have the granted right via the constitution to do any sort of "wire taps" the FISA system is important, but like any other court system its delay will hinder the ability of the president to protect the nation.. He can, like clinton, bush, carter, hell Truman was the worst.. have the ability to bypass any and all courts ONLY if they confront those in congress that are in "the need to know" and President Bush did that.. this will be a non-issue in 3 months... but dont get me wrong.. i totally understand why some people would be freaked out and use the "whats next" issue... the reality is.. what hasn't been next. Do you have EZpass or any other automatic toll paying card? Even when your cell phone is turned on, they can track you down. The government knows where you are at all times and where you are going.. your car can be shut down via a switch from a miles away..hell the secret service has a key that works in EVERY car.. i know.. they moved my car for me.. unbeknowsnt to me when I saw clinton speak at drew univeristy this past year..

    there are so many other things that is so so so so wrong that we just go ahead and play along with everyday.. ignorantly.. credit cards, even internet use.. nothing is private at all ever...
  28. Advanced Member
    Whiskey Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    563
    Rep Power
    391
    Level
    21
    Lv. Percent
    57.26%

    Quote Originally Posted by mindgames
    And also - look at the almost blanket left wing successes in South America - look at the DEMOCRATICALLY elected Hamas Party - Don't you get it - most of the worlsd thinks US style politics SUCKS and they are SICK of your uninvited inteference.
    Seriously, all this "we are freeing the world" bull**** makes me sick.


    Even if we where welcome, I do not want to live in a world that has one government...or even one style of government. If there was one world government, where do you run to when it goes wrong?
  29. Senior Member
    MaynardMeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,108
    Rep Power
    678
    Level
    26
    Lv. Percent
    63.67%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    Whisky... i can give you 43 other religions that will negate your religion.. and yes.. i have my MA in religious studies.. so i really will if you want me to.. but DO NOT ever stop living what you hold true! just know that america is too secular to give a damn... ;-)
  30. Advanced Member
    Whiskey Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    563
    Rep Power
    391
    Level
    21
    Lv. Percent
    57.26%

    ya i know
  31. Senior Member
    MaynardMeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,108
    Rep Power
    678
    Level
    26
    Lv. Percent
    63.67%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    if you dont mind me asking.. what are your religious views.. aka what is your religion
  32. Senior Member
    MaynardMeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,108
    Rep Power
    678
    Level
    26
    Lv. Percent
    63.67%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    And also - look at the almost blanket left wing successes in South America - look at the DEMOCRATICALLY elected Hamas Party - Don't you get it - most of the worlsd thinks US style politics SUCKS and they are SICK of your uninvited inteference.


    i do beg to differ.. yes they may not like our style of democracy ( which we really are not) however.. they do like being able to choose who the hell tells them to die... as condi rice said.. we dont expect the to mirror the united states.. they are totally different people with different ideology.. they will form a democracy that is right for them... and democracy is spreading.. from roughly 12 to now over 100.. MOST are forming with out any military intervention

    god i hate this font
  33. Advanced Member
    Whiskey Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    563
    Rep Power
    391
    Level
    21
    Lv. Percent
    57.26%

    Quote Originally Posted by MaynardMeek
    if you dont mind me asking.. what are your religious views.. aka what is your religion
    LDS... with many of my own concepts
    (our church has walked away from, and completely denies ever having part in, some of the founding principles that made it so beautiful)

    (and im not a polygamist (sp?) btw....or polygyny or what ever)

    I dont want to fill this thread with this so lets get back on track.
  34. Advanced Member
    Whiskey Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    563
    Rep Power
    391
    Level
    21
    Lv. Percent
    57.26%

    Quote Originally Posted by MaynardMeek
    And also - look at the almost blanket left wing successes in South America - look at the DEMOCRATICALLY elected Hamas Party - Don't you get it - most of the worlsd thinks US style politics SUCKS and they are SICK of your uninvited inteference.


    i do beg to differ.. yes they may not like our style of democracy ( which we really are not) however.. they do like being able to choose who the hell tells them to die... as condi rice said.. we dont expect the to mirror the united states.. they are totally different people with different ideology.. they will form a democracy that is right for them... and democracy is spreading.. from roughly 12 to now over 100.. MOST are forming with out any military intervention

    god i hate this font
    If its forming without military intervention then thats even more of a reason to just leave everyone the hell alone.
    btw, condi rice is a **** head...

    At least their country's unelected officials dont tell them to die as frequently as our elected ones do. And what country's are you refering to btw
  35. Board Supporter
    snakebyte05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,538
    Rep Power
    901
    Level
    30
    Lv. Percent
    85%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Well this is definatly getting interesting, just want to say, lets not bash each other or name call, doing that will just get this thread closed and then wheres the fun of a civil debate? Ill add some views tomorrow.
  36. Banned
    BioHazzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    925
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    23
    Lv. Percent
    38.58%

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogue Drone
    What do you think the US Military and Intelligence services do all day ,Biohazzard? Drink, play cards and tell jokes? No, they are systematically hunting down and killing terrorists. Everyone who is a participant in it, KNOWS it and TREATS it as such.

    Tried and trued methods, right, those wonderfully free, prosperous and safe countries are the ones we want to copy, they obviously have the answers we need.

    Get a ****ing clue, pal, you can't save a free republic by establishing a police state.
    I think you must have me confused with somebody. Because I know for a fact that Al Qaeda has been systematically hunted down and liquidated since 9/11. Terror cells have been systematically dismantled. Thousands are in jails all over Europe and the Middle East. Thousands have been killed. Just b/c you are clueless, does not mean it is not happening, Mr."I need to get a ****ing clue".

    Police state? Dude you need to, as you put it, get a ****ing clue. This is no police matter. The war on terrorism is not a police matter, Mr."I need to get a ****ing clue".
  37. Senior Member
    MaynardMeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,108
    Rep Power
    678
    Level
    26
    Lv. Percent
    63.67%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    Yeah, what a great idea. Just keep sending your youth uninvited and miles overseas to be killed so those that are left can profit and put petrol in their cars. What a great idea.

    I wish it were that simple. We could really use some extra gas here and you would think now that the US took over Iraq we could get some damn cheap oil! Not happening. Our oil is set to hit over $100.00 a barrel US...and now in my state of New Jersey, the new democratic gov. is going to hike the gas tax 15-25 cents per gal. We aren't swimming in any extra black gold here. Iraqi oil is for the Iraqis to do as they wish.. and in 10 years time they will have a stronger economy than the saudis
  38. Banned
    BioHazzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    925
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    23
    Lv. Percent
    38.58%

    Quote Originally Posted by snakebyte05
    Well this is definatly getting interesting, just want to say, lets not bash each other or name call, doing that will just get this thread closed and then wheres the fun of a civil debate? Ill add some views tomorrow.
    oops... sorry. I posted before I read this. Anyhooo, I am done with this pointless argument. It is kind of like arguing about the Easter Bunny and Santa's little helpers. lol
  39. Advanced Member
    Whiskey Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    563
    Rep Power
    391
    Level
    21
    Lv. Percent
    57.26%

    Quote Originally Posted by snakebyte05
    Well this is definatly getting interesting, just want to say, lets not bash each other or name call, doing that will just get this thread closed and then wheres the fun of a civil debate? Ill add some views tomorrow.
    My posts didn't insult anyone but they were harsh on the topics they addressed....
    ill tone i down so people dont get offended.
  40. Senior Member
    MaynardMeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,108
    Rep Power
    678
    Level
    26
    Lv. Percent
    63.67%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    Egypt, Libia, Saudi Arabia is making vast changes in civil rights, and though Hamas is in power, Palastine but hamas is no worse or better than the exiting powers.. those are some key nations there
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. good article on when young people should start supps
    By capnsavem in forum Supplements
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-29-2010, 12:42 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-20-2008, 02:38 PM
  3. Good Article on Grape Seed Extract
    By Quinc in forum Supplements
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-27-2007, 05:53 AM
  4. Where can I find good articles on weight loss?
    By freezito in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-26-2007, 11:24 AM
  5. Good article on Protiens & Amino Acids
    By 200wannabe in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-16-2004, 08:37 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in