It isn't covered in the constitution, and you make the claim without providing any proof that your claim is accurate. It is in fact not only unprotected by the constitution but specifically forbidden. If the tapping involved cases where people are known to be tied to terrorists the govt. can immediately show the proof to the court and get an order to wiretap. According the presidential oath protecting the nation is not the first job of the president. Upholding the constitution is. The president is violating his oath to the people. Going against our constitution, violating the freedom of Americans guaranteed in that constitution does not help us win a war on terror, it does not protect anyone, but puts them in jeopardy.
I heard the President say this. So let me get this straight. If the president gets the NSA to spy on the Americans and by passes the the court that was set to regulate this very action and it is caught it's some how "the Liberals" who are to blame.
....my point is government surveillance belongs in communist countries not Constitutional Republics where there are safeguarded individual freedoms. Our safety and protection is not based upon surveillance of the people but preservation of the U.S. Constitution. Work within the Constitution and our people can be safeguarded. These intrusive federal actions will lead to tyrrany. All history proves that is the course powerful central governments always take, there is no exception I am aware of. These are the attibutes of power, human nature and government. Believe it or not.. we slumber down a dangerous path.
Actually it's not some communist invention, it's ancient old control tactics by people in power. All politicians, communist, socialist, capitalist, democratics or republicans, they graduated from the same school. They use same tactics, propagandas, and even speeches. Sometimes, I really want to laugh while reading some articles or listening to some speeches. People from China or other former so-called socialist countries might agree with me. As anti-communist as they can be, but those leaders behave and speak in the same way. Taking out those articles during the Culture Revolution and current articles from North Korea, you will find surprisingly many similarities and even exact same excerpts. Talking about past events, if there was any mistake involved, it's always due to flawed information or special circumstances, but the leaders' noble intention aka protecting people, country, party etc etc, was undoubted. As long as you claim you did it for a great cause, you are safe. And the public, especially those opposition have to be careful, because we all should look forward, and make the best out of the mess. If you don't stand together now, if you don't continue the course, enemy will win. Accountability? Never heard of. The country is facing serious enemy attack now, and it's not the right time to discusss who did what wrong, but rather time to gather together around the leader, showing support and moving forward. People in power can do pretty much everything in those countries, as long as they claim they want to protect the people and country from capitalists/imperialists/communists/terrorists etc etc. I always thought US was different, not because Americans are immune from those tactics, but rather the system keep that in check. But the system can be thrown as well.
It's an ancient tactic, but one we haven't seen used so blatantly before by the Executive Branch, at least in my memory. It was on display by the Argentine junta during the Falklands and, as you point out in your excellent post, there are numerous examples throughout history, many from the period leading up to WWII. The hubris of the Administration is astounding. I watched Bush's press confence today, most of it, and he tried to deflect raping the Constitution by a typical ploy... attacking the messenger, the leak. Whoever was responsible for the leak should be protected under the whistleblower laws, which I believe are on the books. What Bush did was illegal, and an abuse of power. Making it public was a service to the people of the United States. Naturally, someone like Trader_J, our resident far-right gadfly (Trader_J, I don't know what role you play in "real life," but that's the role you play here) immediately takes up the Administration's talking points for their typical response... attack. This most partisan of Administrations delights in assaulting those who disagree with them by defamation of the vilest kind. For a primer on how this is done, and the practitioner was a junior Senator, not the President of the United States, I would suggest seeing Goodnight, and Good Luck. It illustrates what we are facing today, except this is worse. Tailgunner Joe wasn't President of these United States. What we desperately need is a check on the Executive Branch, and gaining control of at least one part of Congress, the House or the Senate, in '06 is vital. The supreme irony is that what Bush and the leaders of the Republican Party are doing is exactly what the terrorists want... damaging our system of government, our system of alliances, and the very freedoms we take for granted, and have been the envy of the world for 230 years. Keep D&D Civil.
You are absolutely right, that lots of people take things they have for granted, will only remorse once it's gone. Throughout the past months and years, in those threads talking about Patriotic Act etc, we see lots of posters here said that they wouldn't mind a little bit inconvenience, as long as their security is protected. If they don't do anything really bad, they shouldn't be bothered or afraid. But they failed to realize once it started, it can hardly stop on itself. You start to check enemies, once you gain absolute power, you will start to check dissents or even just people you don't like, and then you will do that to your friends and even families, because you want to know whether they are truly your friends. That's how Culture Revolution started. On the end, it escalated to a degree that there is a quota for those "right leaning opportunitists" in each group. In some places, people even voted members among them to take those charges, and sent them to correction centers. When you think about it, it does make sense. If you are fighting against enemies everyday, there are voices sympatizing those enemies and opposing us, there must be enemies among us as well. US is not even close to that level. But the mentality of those supporters are the same: the leader is there to protect us; even if we sacrifice something personaly, it's for the good of the whole; only those bad guys need to be worried... I would say everything started from when people only question your "motives", and neglect the results of your action and action itself.
I would be willing to bet that the BBS "TJ" character is either one of the mods or a liberal looking to have a good time.
A few quotes on liberty. Excuse the rant, but these guys can say it better than I: They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. --- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759. (dedicated to reggietodd) The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts. -- Edmund Burke, letter, April 3, 1777, to the Sheriffs of Bristol It is seldom that liberty of any kinds is lost all at once. -- David Hume The history of Liberty is a history of the limitations of governmental power not the increase of it. -- Woodrow Wilson Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. -- William Pitt, 18 Nov 1783 I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave. -- H. L. Mencken I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. -- Thomas Jefferson Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences. C.S. Lewis [American Rifleman, December 1991, pg. 14] If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -- George Orwell He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression. -- Thomas Paine
Are you talking about article 2 again? I thought we already shut you down.. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=106188&page=2
This will cost the republican party dearly in the upcomming elections. If the Dems want to have a chance, they need to HAMMER away at this, and how it is eroding our civil liberties. That will get it done. DD
Can Bush, in his new proclaimed powers, ban firearms? You might think that the 2nd Amendment might prohibit this. However, iin Bush's new proclaimed powers as Commander in Chief to override Constitutional Amendments to protect national security,there would seem to be no reason why he could not do this. Though not appreciative of the 4th Amendment provisionms against illegal searches and seizures, I am hoping that with this example maybe bigtexx TJ and Basso, can understand the argument that opponents to Bush's new proclaimed powers are making.
I hope you are right, but do you think Jesus would be deterred by the Constitution and the 4th Amendment away from voting for the GOP? Also don't forget the other main core of the GOP. Do you think that the very wealthy would risk their estate tax elimination, due to some possible civil liberty erosions, that they don't anticipate being applied to themselves? Bush and Rove don't think so and so far they have been tactically correct.
Orwell could have a case against Bush Presidential pronouncements may too-closely reflect a familiar literary style By Steve Young Lawyers for the estate of George Orwell have announced their intention to sue President Bush for plagiarism. "We have long believed that this administration has stolen much of its policy from Mr. Orwell's writings," said attorney Will Bilyalotz. "Expressly, '1984' and 'Animal Farm.' In some cases, like the illegal surveillance of its own citizens, this administration has lifted the passages word for word from '1984.' Just changing the year doesn't protect the president from copyright laws." White House spokesman Scott McClellan, while refusing to comment directly because of the "ongoing investigation," reminded reporters that the Patriot Act had given the president the power to suspend copyright laws and, anyway, "No one can own words." Legal experts believe proving copyright infringement will not be easy. "Even if he is guilty, the president's propensity for adapting Mr. Orwell's '1984' newspeak is so effortless, as if he made up the words himself," said law professor Sue Yu Atdropohat. "Illegal borrowing of words or even fictional characters from published works has a high threshold of proof. The producers of the film 'Being There' have had their lawsuit against the Bush campaign tied up in court since 2000. After all, one man's outright theft of ideas is another man's malapropos." "Personally, I think this so-called intelligentsia is just jealous," said Newt Gingrich. "Orwell could have only dreamed of great terms like 'defeatist' and 'evil-doer.'" Bilyalotz differs. "The president's comments like, 'This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table,' is plain and simple, Mr. Orwell's 'doublethink' (the power to hold two completely contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously and accept both of them)." The president has regularly pointed out that he will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism, and that those who want to hamstring his ability to steal written material are only aiding the enemy. "9/11 has made us look at our plagiarism in a different way," said the president. "As long as I am president or king, the American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And if that takes dissolving the Constitution, then so be it." "It was Mr. Orwell in '1984' who first came up with 'Victory Mansions' and industrial-grade 'Victory Gin.' Now the president calls his book, a 'National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.' The president doesn't go 10 seconds without using the word 'victory.' One doesn't have to be a math whiz to put two and two together. Our greatest concern is not that the president uses Mr. Orwell's words," Bilyalotz said, "but that he's actually using '1984' as a governmental guidebook, and I'm afraid the president hasn't read how it ends." In his weekly radio address, Bush said the "Spy on US" program has been reviewed regularly by the nation's top legal authorities and Fox talk-show hosts, targeting only those people with "a clear link to these terrorist networks, which include Al-Jazeera and CNN." "Freedom is in its last throes," Vice President Dick Cheney said. "First, they take away torture, now they want to take away spying on our own citizens. What's next to go, Fox News?" The revelation of the unauthorized bugging has delayed renewal of the Patriot Act, which includes a provision giving President Bush monarchial powers. "Not only will it make this country safer," explained the president, "but it will ordain either Jenna or Barb as the country's first queen without the risk of voter fraud or expensive campaigns." "This country is ready for a female queen," said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, "and we can't take the chance that the next election could turn out to be a mushroom cloud." In other Patriot Act news, the White House has asked historians to remove Ben Franklin's quote, "They that give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" from history books. "It's wordy and confusing," Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez said. "And one thing this country doesn't need in its fight against terrorism is more confusing words. At least that's what we feel here in the Ministry of Truth."
