More Egregious Affront to the US Constituions

But having a whole city torched and burned to the ground would seem to be more damage than the terrorists are capable of as well. The threat both from damage, and defeat was greater in the times of our founding fathers even with the prevelance of muskets. Yet still Franklin believed as he did.

The principles of freedom, tyranny, and security aren't just for the 18th century, or everything before the 21st century. Those concepts are not bound by time.

 

I agree, and we didn't get here, by abandoning our constitution and judicial review. In cases where that power was abused or abandoned, luckily there were congressional hearings, and efforts made to correct it.

So if we are to follow the method that got us through those 225 years, we need to have some hearings about Bush's belief that he pick and choose which parts of the constitution to follow. And we need to make corrections to ensure that such abuses don't happen again.

 

bush the puppet sounds more appropriate..

the puppetmaster may be cheney, rove, neocons, even OBL..

 

whoop double post

 

Giddyup;

I'm sorry to harp on this again but can you use the quote function when quoting other people. Its easier to read and easier to respond to.

Just type "[qu ote] (the text you are quoting) [/qu ote]" except don't put the space between the "qu" and the "ote".

 

Heck, giddy likes his "qu" and his "ote". That, and trying to drive us nuts.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

People also have a greater problem with gun control and requiring gun registration than they do with thousands of innocent children being killed in this country by hand guns. The issue of government intervention into our privacy slices many ways.

 

again, who said its about just privacy

its not about spying, its about warrantless domestic spying

go ahead and get a court order and we'll shut up

and don't that give that excuse of timing.. because warrants can be obtained 72 hours after the fact

what if the fisa court rejects the request? then the person was not "questionable" in the first place.. maybe just war protester or a dissenter or just racially profiled or it can be me or you..

innocent children being killed? you talking about innocent, born, running, walking, breathing, laughing, shouting, crying children and their parents in iraq being bombed in their homes with daily us military air strikes?

 

I'm not saying they happened in a vaccum. Because some people crashed some planes into our buildings is no reason to panic and dismantle our governing document. I was in NYC on 9/11 2001. I know what happened. But nothing that happened should allow our freedoms to be taken from us, or given away by an executive branch who refuses to accept the checks and balances, as well as the bill of rights from the constitution.

There is nothing that should make us give that up. If we do then we are fighting to preserve something other than the United States. Because the United States is all about those liberties, and freedoms.

By claiming that something bad was done to us, so that makes it ok for the govt. to abuse our freedom and the constitution, is akin to saying that because Israel attacked, and discriminated against the Palestinians then suicide bombings are ok. Afterall, they don't happen in a vaccum.

 

Woah!

Are you really trying to imply that because weapons are different the statement (and therefore the ideal) are moot?

We've discussed this kind of thing before giddyup, and although I am well aware that it's really pointless to argue with you about it, this kind of thinking really bothers me. It doesn't matter if its a musket or a nuclear weapon! I'm not giving up my rights for anybody - I'm way too proud of what this country exemplifies w/regard to civil liberties and protection from the government to just give it up because of a few loonies. And it's perturbing that people like you seem to think that a potential threat somehow justifies removal of constitionally protected rights. Your "you do what you have to do" mindset is anti-american: The constitution protects us from precisely that mentality.

Why? Because the liberty of the individual is worth more than any "protection"! If you don't think the rights espoused in the constitution and the bill of rights are worth dying for, or immalleable regardless of circumstance, I don't think you understand the true meaning of the phrase "fighting for our freedoms".

Sadly, I don't think you understand what "your liberty" really means.

 

You deal with "probabl[ies]" a lot. Abortion, no matter how rare, was practiced in that time and somehow the founding fathers were more interested in protecting the liberties of the born (they specifically used that language) to the complete exclusion of anything else. You can assume that they would have found abortion an "egregious" wrong, but that is merely your assumption.

I think that especially back then, they had much bigger fish to fry. They were trying to found a nation, overthrow a tyrannical government, and create a framework of laws that could stand the test of time. I think that they would have been absolutely unconcerned with the "abortion industry" even if Nostradamus had come back to tell them exactly how that issue would play out.

They were interested in assuring that our rights would be protected, not in restricting behavior between patients and doctors.

Some people STILL don't see abortion as a "terminal action." Like it or not, that is the way it is.

If my wife were raped and murdered and I knew who the killer was, I would say the same thing as I pulled the trigger to take the b*stard's life.

I would still expect to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law since NOBODY, especially not the one man who took an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the land, is above the law.

More assumptions.

I am asserting that the founding fathers and the people who wrote the 14th were trying to protect ALL of our rights from people like you who would take those rights away based on your opinions and assumptions.

Do you need the same course in Reading Comprehension that t_j and texx do?

I specifically said that I was not comparing Bush to Hitler. I was comparing your opinion and willingness to defer to Bush to the same willingness shown by German citizens. We should not give up our rights to the President because if we were to somehow elect a guy like Hitler, he should be checked by the same limits that all other Presidents have had.

With people like you laying down, rolling over, and playing dead when it comes to the illegal actions of the President, no censure will take place, but you knew that already.

 

So.... The price we pay for our liberties is... our liberties.

You think its acceptable to throw away your civil liberties to feel a little less fearful.

I don't. Reread my other post.

 

I still don't understand how getting a court order 72 hours after domestic surveillance on US citizens as what the constituion and law says can be a hindrance to the greater good..

 

The administration's argument is that the process of getting a warrant for around 20,000 electronic wiretaps is simply too burdensom even with 72 hours to do it. In order to get a warrant, I believe that the attorney general must sign off on every single warrant request and some other high level officials also have to sign off. Consequently, signing multiple sheets of paper 20000 times a year is somewhat of a logistical nightmare. Thus, they argue that the executive branch should be able to bypass the system in order to be able to wiretap as necessary in order to protect the country. Otherwise, the NSA and other intelligence agencies wouldnt be able to wiretap when necessary due to excessive paperwork and bureaucratic issues.

 

But Jr has said that the program was "limited, very limited" to only around 500 at a time.