George Bush protecting your civil liberties by breaking them

Refer to the message above. He is authorized by the Constitution. If he is authorized by the Constitution, how is it suspended?And yes, we are really at war.

---

Hamas Charter
What's your favorite line?

Proof? Evidence? Link? Anything?Impeech him then.

---

Hamas Charter
What's your favorite line?

When a known liar makes a statement, the onus of evidence is on he who offers his statements as evidence, not he who challenges them.

I don't have any problem with listening to Al Qaeda conversations anywhere in the world. And I'm grateful for the Al Qaeda cell they busted up in, uh, er, and the one in, um, ah, too. Safe as houses, all of us, thanks to illegal wiretapping, yessir.You repeat that disloyal/comfort to the enemy line to anyone who thinks Bush shouldn't wiretap American citizens without a warrant.You continue to refuse to respond to the fact that the condemnation of the program comes from every part of the U.S. political spectrum, from far right to far left.That makes maintaining a contrary fiction kind of like, well, sorta like...oh, not a lie, that nasty word...a field expediency, perhaps?I see you've trotted out another quote from Bush claiming that to expose his illegal wiretapping gave aid and comfort to the enemy: like they didn't know we would! Truly, remarkably, bizarrely unbelievable.Once more, slowly:Critics
of
illegal
wiretapping
support
eavesdropping
on
Al
Qaeda.You distort the record (just like Chickenhawk Karl Rove does) and claim Democrats are apparently opposed to listening to Al Qaeda calls, but let me ask you this: This is just partisanship, right? You DO know that many Republicans object? Either they are also treasonous lefties OR the enitre charge is bogus. Pick one.Now, can you give me an operational scenario that sketches out realistic instances where Al Qaeda would call to or from the U.S. and NOT consider the likelihood of eavesdropping? That is, not until they read the NY Times, and say, "Aaiii yahhh tollla aaahh! The Americans are trying to listen to our calls! Who knew??!!"The issue is not wiretapping Al Qaeda calls, and the issue is not even wiretapping American citizens who might be talking to Al Qaeda--the issue is warrantless wiretaps of Americans. Which is illegal. Period.You copy that, good buddy?Goodbye. See ya in the camps.

Ah, so you have zero evidence, zero links, zero sources, or zero anything really.

---

Hamas Charter
What's your favorite line?

The entire charge is bogus. Wiretapping Americans who are talking to known or suspected members of Al Qeada.This message has been edited by Tal, 02-01-2006 03:55 PM

---

Hamas Charter
What's your favorite line?

talking to known members of al qaeda? get a warrant.talking to suspected members of al qaeda? show probable cause -- get a warrant.see? that was easy.

---

Based on what evidence? You're leveling a pretty serious charge against a whole lot of people, so what's your evidence that this is true? The Administration certainly hasn't given any.Do you just trust them not to spy on anybody but bad people? Why on Earth would you?

It's legal to wiretap Americans without a warrant?Since when?I am not claiming that we shouldn't wiretap. To the contrary, I think it's quite important to have the ability to do so.But when we start wiretapping citizens without judicial oversight, that is unconstitutional.Our right to be free from our government secretly eavesdropping upon our private phone conversations unless they have shown to a court that there is good reason to do so is a large part of what makes the American Constitution and Bill of Rights two the most amazing freedom-protecting documents in the all of history.How dare Bush decide he doesn't need judicial oversight to spy on us?How dare he think he's above the constitution?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-01-2006 07:20 PM

quote:

---

I don't know what is so hard to understand about this. If you are talking to Al Qeada, we want to know about it.

---

And I think we should know about people doing this.But you need to get a warrant from a judge so there is a record of you doing it, and that there is a record that you showed that there was just cause for you to do that.The fact that the president isn't above getting a warrant is what makes us different from most of the governments we say we are different from.Oh, and habeas corpus too, except Americans don't have that right anymore, either.

lol, schraf, and all of this is from the same people who excuse the proliferation of firearms in your country because the "right to bear arms" is there to protect against governments.As if even a heavily armed citizenry could stand up against the government and army (unless the army mutinied). Nuts!So here we have a case where real protection is being eroded and these same people are all for removing protection from government gone wrong.All we out here can do is shake our heads (and look over our shoulders nervously) at the antics.

Dunno... but a quick scan failed to reveal that most sought after word of the entire human race. Love. Any doctrine which fails to address the most basic of human needs posits an incomprehensible godThe tone struck me to be remarkably like the speeches of Adolf Hitler http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/speeches/text/speeches.htm I don't mean to draw any crass parallels but one most certainly would have to have been there....or there afterwards to really get it.This message has been edited by iano, 02-Feb-2006 01:45 AM

I've been giving this a lot of thought and there is no way can be in a state of war.War exists when it is declared on another nation-state. The state of war ceases to exist when either we accept the surrender of said nation-state (Japan) or defeat the government of said nation-state (Iraq).A war on terror is not a war anymore than a war on crime or a war on drugs.When does a war on terror end? Can it end? For this reason it is absolutely unacceptable for the president to think he has war-time powers.... Allowing the president to do this allows the president to declar war on "anything" and violate the constitution all he wants.

Yeah, like the Constitution of the United States.

but LINCOLN suspended that, so that makes it ok! liberals love lincoln!

---