I was thinking about other rights.. not this 4th.. like free speech, right to bear arms.. what happened to due process? again why not get a rubber stamp? so its not really a hindrance..
That's a pretty loopy argument. GWB is not one to see what way the wind is blowing to help him make up his mind. Me grow up? It's you who is afraid of the bogeyman-- the very bogeyman who is protecting you and your loved ones and your fellow countrymen from another 9/11. As I said, I'm not fearful, you are. I'm just being trusting, pragmatic and understanding of extenuous circumstances. So far, so good.
I have a can of elephant repellant in my house. It must work - I don't see any elephants. Keep talking if it makes you feel better. I already said my piece. Sorry if you found it to heavy on those pesky rights of man .
How is anyone's right to bear arms being infringed anymore than the extant gun laws allow? Do you really want people to be able to speak freely about how to harm and/or bring down the US. That is treason more than it is free speech. Due process goes out the window with enemy combatants.... Why not the rubber stamp? How would I know? Maybe there IS a reason. Prosecute if you want; better have a helluva good reason to derail the Administration over skipping over rubber stamp processes.
No wonder it irks you that I am (unknowingly) forcing you to suffer civil rights abuses. You seem to think I need your permission to post. If those dreaded sirens go off someday in your neighborhood, do you plan on ignoring the civil defense protocol because of your rights? Do you wear your seatbelt even though it is really your own business. There are lots of times that you compromise your rights; I'm not buying this purity unto death argument. It's romantic but that's about all.
So Cindy Sheehan's protests are bring down America? Bush is losing this war because of her? how do you determine that they are enemy combatants?
I don't think they are hurting America anymore than providing ample propoganda for the enemy. I don't know-- you brought up the thing about the guns. I think you determine that they are ECs by listening to what they say. That's why they wiretap.
<B>FranchiseBlade A few things. One, when have rights given up for reason or another ever been given back voluntarily? They have always been won back by outcry, and then some sort of judicial, or legislative action, that I can recall. I am often wrong, and may have overlooked something, so if I have I do look forward to hearing about it. But I honestly can't think of a time where an executive branch on its own just gave freedoms back.</b> Does it really matter who or how? As long as we get back what is really needed when the time of crisis is past. Isn't that part of what the checks and balances are about, too? Can you think of a time(s) when something was not given back that had been suspended or claimed? <b>Two, when will the threat from terrorism wane? Terrorism in the world has increased not decreased since the patriot act, and Bush use of warrantless wiretaps. Even GW Bush says the war against terrorism, can't be won, so it won't ever be over.</b> But how's terrorism in America doing? <b>If it is supposed to wane, why push to make provisions of the Patriot act permanent?</b> Wasn't it just renewed for another 6 months or so? Maybe there is feeling that the Patriot Act should be permanent because, as you say, the world is permanently changed. <b>Three, again addressing the war in Iraq and the rationale that a stable free Iraq makes us safer... How is freedom won abroad by sacrificing it at home?</b> There are two fronts: Iraq and the US. Fortunately the US front is pretty quiet... and why is that? <b>The logic behind that just doesn't seem to exist. It is the old "Practice what I preach and not what I do" rationale. Telling someone they should be free and live by the principles of democracy while we buy off their press and deny them a free press in their own land, and meanwhile shrug off the checks and balances and remove freedoms at home, just doesn't seem like the best start or footing to begin a new democracy.</b> There certainly are some ugly aspects, aren't there? <b>You claim that your freedoms are still intact, but this administration proves you wrong. Your freedoms aren't. You are no longer guaranteed a freedom to speak in private about private issues without the govt. monitoring your phone calls. The loss of that freedom may or may not bother you, but that doesn't mean it is any less removed by this administration's actions and rationale of those actions. By bypassing the FISA court, your one protection of that freedom has been removed.</b> I doubt that the government has the interest, time or resources to spy on every citizen. If I am somehow suspect, I deserve to be spied on for the public safety. If they procure evidence, I should pay the price. <b>Again you may not care whether your freedoms are being removed or taken, or you may even be happy they are being taken, but it isn't accurate to pretend like they aren't.</b> I have nothing to complain about post-Patriot Act. What can I say? The incidents of terrorism in this country have been kept in check. Several plots have been thwarted-- AND WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN WITHOUT THE PATRIOT ACT...or so the rumor goes.
If the 14th amendment made outlawing abortion unconstitutional, why did it take 100 years for the supreme court to overturn abortion legislation?
But how do you know when the crisis is past? The problem with the Admin's argument is that they are arguing that they can continue to engage in things like warrantless surveilance indefinately and further without telling anyone else in the government. In case you've missed it there hasn't been a declaration of war. Technically everything has been done has been done during a time of peace. What that means is that if the Admin's argument is accepted then we have a precedent for saying that even in times of peace the Executive branch can violate due process and the separation of powers as long as they, not the courts or Congress regard it as necessary with essentially no constraints. That will apply for this Admin. and any future Admins. Just think about it. A Hillary Clinton Admin. will have the same powers to essentially do whatever in the name of national security thanks to the precedence this could set.
The problem with this is that there is a pragmatic compromise already. The FISA courts were created to handle this exact sort of thing and with retroactive warrants its not handcuffing the NSA from conducting surveillance. All that is being asked for is to have judicial review at sometime. I don't see how turning over all of your trust blindly to the Executive branch counts as being pragmattic. Optimistic that they won't abuse that power certainly but not pragmatic.
How do we get from them skipping out on a few rubber stamp or retroactive warrants to "turning over all of (our) trust?" Aren't they taking "liberties" in this one area? If we engage the slippery slope argument then we may have to go back on a lot of things that we do quite naturally.
As compared to your blind faith in the government? You can call me unrealisitic all you want - I'll just respond with "likewise".
It was never given back, it had to be taken back. That doesn't mean that it was ok to abuse that power up until it was taken back. It doesn't make it ok that Japanese-Americans were put into internment camps because the camps were eventually closed down. And if it has always been taken back, then that is exactly what people are hoping for now. They want congress to take it back, and sense the President has attempted to go beyond the checks and balances system the only way to take it back, by going after him.
The difference is that you are willing to exaggerate under the guise of "err[ing] on the side of caution." You state unequivocably that it is a "child" when we both know that the medical term is "embryo" or "fetus." I understand that you have to exaggerate in order to get a rise out of the "you're killing a child" crowd, but that exaggeration does nothing to bolster your argument. As do I. The woman who has an abortion will eventually have to repay any karmic debt, but that is her burden and the choice to take that burden on is hers alone. Actually, I would support some very stringent regulation including abortion bans after 12-14 weeks. One facet of this issue that I look at is the legal side, but you are sorely mistaken if you think that this is the only facet that interests me. The right to decide what happens to one's own body, including the right to decide whether or not to use one's womb to bring a fetus to term, is greater than any right the fetus may have up to a point. I do not support late term abortions performed when the fetus could be viable as viability is the key in my mind. As long as the fetus cannot survive outside the womb, then the woman whose womb it is has the right to decide whether to use that womb to bring a fetus to term. The fetus has no rights in my mind until it is viable.
Because it shows that the Admin. can't even be trusted to abide by a compromise extremely in their favor that is more than reasonable. The Admin's own actions and arguments have already greased that slope.
Either that or liberal judges decided that something written before their parents were born means something that its authors never intended. The 14th amendment was meant to expand the group given protections, not limit it. Abortionists will jump through some convoluted leaps in logic just to make sure women have the right to keep on killing babies.
<b>andymoon The difference is that you are willing to exaggerate under the guise of "err[ing] on the side of caution." You state unequivocably that it is a "child" when we both know that the medical term is "embryo" or "fetus." I understand that you have to exaggerate in order to get a rise out of the "you're killing a child" crowd, but that exaggeration does nothing to bolster your argument.</b> I'm exagerating by erring on the side of caution because that "thing" inside a mother might be human?!!! You have hit a new low, andymoon. That "thing" has human and unique DNA. Call it whatever you want but likely it has a soul and, for certain, if you would just leave it alone except to nourish it, you would see born a bright child who laughs just as sweetly as your own. <b>The right to decide what happens to one's own body, including the right to decide whether or not to use one's womb to bring a fetus to term, is greater than any right the fetus may have up to a point. I do not support late term abortions performed when the fetus could be viable as viability is the key in my mind. As long as the fetus cannot survive outside the womb, then the woman whose womb it is has the right to decide whether to use that womb to bring a fetus to term.</b> All these "in my mind" qualifiers seem to put you back in the Probably Neighborhood... The fetus has no rights in my mind until it is viable.[/QUOTE]
