Kayak
Partisan
I would suggest that the search/siezure laws are rooted in privacy. But I am open to arguments.Brian_B said:
The destruction of the Free and the Brave
- Thread starter zulu9812
- Start date
BasketCase
Username sez it all
And something you should keep in mind: half of the hypocrites are Democrats. My personal favorite:
"You can't love your country and hate your government."
-- Bill Clinton
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
BasketCase said:
Now THAT is an excellent quote.
Kayak
Partisan
And I agree.MobBoss said:Now THAT is an excellent quote.
Loathing certain members of it does not count!
Kayak said:
To a remote degree, yes. However, they are largely concerned with criminal procedure -- the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments all fall under the same rubric. It's just that most conservative leaning lawyers/jurists cringe when people mention the "right to privacy" as it's a sort of de facto ramping up of substantive due process rights.
It might seem like semantics but that's a big part of what the law is: lawyers are no more specially trained than anyone who has time to read a few casebooks.
BasketCase said:
I disagree with that. You can love what the people in your country stand for, and the ideals they represent. Technically, this country is about the people, not the government (although that's not the case) so one could hate the government or how it runs, but still love the country I think, although that is becoming harder as the government interferes more and more.
Tenochtitlan
Supreme Commander
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,647
BasketCase said:
What if the people of my country are honest and my government is a corrupt and oppressive one?
which it really is by the way/Not from America
Tell that to Jose Padilla. You remember him, the guy who's spent years in a Navy brig on suspicion of being a suspicious suspect.MobBoss said:
When the government can toss someone into prison "just because we think he might know something" then our freedoms and rights are under attack.
Verbose
Deity
This is a problem that always crops up when people assume that governemt wouldn't treat someone the way it is unless there's a good reason.YNCS said:
Punishment begins when a suspect is picked up. The proof? He was picked up by the police wasn't he? Stands to reason he must be guilty then.
X is under suspiscuion. Well if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear. And they wouldn't suspect you unless you had something to hide, would they?
Works the same in war: We're killing those people because they are the Enemy. How do we know? We're killing them aren't we? We wouldn't if they weren't. What we do to them is proof of how much they deserve it.
How bad things can get tends to be decided by what opportunities a governement has for keeping its activities secret and opaque. I'll make no real ruling on the state of the US on that score, but at present they seem considerable.
Red Stranger
Emperor
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2005
- Messages
- 1,678
Well, we ARE in a war. It's a long war. And the reason it's a long war is because you do not give the President the authority to win this war.
PrinceOfLeigh
Wigan, England
Once again MobBoss you are all to eager to jump into an argument to actually read and understand what I am saying.MobBoss said:Funny, a good portion of our country felt the same way when we aided Britain in WWI and WWII.
Anytime being a ally of the USA gets to be too burdensome feel free to call the relationship quits.
I was simply stating that the anti-terror legislation enacted in my country was obviously ineffective. The anti-terror laws were brought in this country in 2001 (some of the quickest legislation ever passed by the way) and yet the bombers still got through. I mentioned Iraq as it was our participation there that was the bombers motivation. Want to tell me which part of my post said we shouldn't have joined the War on Terror?
That being said I do take your point. As an ally of America we should be fighting side by side with them as they did with us in WWI & WWII. Could you at least give us some idea of when it is half way through so we can join then?
Who are the other half?BasketCase said:
BasketCase said:
Bullcrap.
Could someone love Germany and hate the Third Reich? Could someone love Mother Russia and hate the Communist Party? Could someone love China and hate the... ummm... Communist Party? Could someone love Iraq and hate Saddam's dictatorship?
Brian_B said:
How long does an average US senator serve, by the way? What's the reelection rate for incumbent US representatives? And how long have most SCOTUS justices served for?
BasketCase
Username sez it all
Feel free to debate the merits of what Bill Clinton said--what struck me when I first read it was that it sounds a lot like something you'd expect to come out of a dictator's mouth.....
When I first read that quote, the poster had hidden the name of the speaker in a spoiler-type thingy. I was certain it had been spoken by a Republican--and MAN, was I ever surprised.
And yes, Leigh--the "other half" are Republicans. The problem with the point raised in this thread is that regardless of party, contradictions can always be found in a politician's campaign platforms. If he favors gun control, he's against the 2nd Amendment. If he opposes it, he's against the right to life. If he favors a ban on hate speech, he's against free speech. If he opposes such bans, he's labelled a racist. Etc.
When I first read that quote, the poster had hidden the name of the speaker in a spoiler-type thingy. I was certain it had been spoken by a Republican--and MAN, was I ever surprised.
And yes, Leigh--the "other half" are Republicans. The problem with the point raised in this thread is that regardless of party, contradictions can always be found in a politician's campaign platforms. If he favors gun control, he's against the 2nd Amendment. If he opposes it, he's against the right to life. If he favors a ban on hate speech, he's against free speech. If he opposes such bans, he's labelled a racist. Etc.
IglooDude said:
Average? Taking a semi-educated guess I would say maybe two and a half terms or sixteen years but that may be high. Reelection for incumbents in the House? It's extremely high. So your contention is that there are members of the House and Senate that are perpetrating some grand 20-30 year conspiracy to erode the rights of American citizens? Most of them are more concerned with lining their own pockets with graft than they are shaping some new world order. Also, the Senate and House has only been majority Republican for the last ten years or so. Prior to that the Democrats held the edge in both chambers so that tempers the ability to enact any long-term scheme.
And how long have most SCOTUS justices served for?
Prior to the last two replacements the "Rehnquist Court" had been there for around twenty years. Average span for a Supreme Court Justice is around ten to fifteen years I would say. The longest one was around thirty-ish. While I certainly agree a judge comes into the job with an idea of how the Constitution should be interpreted (it's the main reason I generally vote Republican), the Judiciary branch doesn't execute the laws that is, of course, the job of the Executive branch.
Over the last twenty+ years I would say the biggest change to this nation that has come out of the Supreme Court has been a curbing of the power of Congress to cram the basis for their Constitutional power to enact laws under the Commerce Clause.
Brian_B said:
No, it isn't my contention that there are members of the House and Senate that are perpetrating some grand 20-30 year conspiracy to erode the rights of American citizens. I was just pointing out that relying on the same people not being in control of the government for a long period of time might not be a firewall to rely upon since there appears to be a systemic breach there already. I agree that most of them are more concerned with lining their own pockets with graft than they are shaping some new world order, however, their default solution to any problem is traditionally either throwing taxpayer money at it, or increasing government oversight/regulation of it. The intentions may well be good, but put something clever in here about the road to hell.
MobBoss said:
Would you say that the only justifiable reason to bypass FISA is in time-critical matters?
MobBoss said:I humbly submit that the extent of my "strong feelings" are solely expressed upon these threads here at CFC. I am not a protestor, at least my feelings havent been "strong enough" to do so as of yet.
MobBoss, there is no doubt in my mind that, based purely on your postings here on CFC, there will be an active insurrection in the US that would make Fallujah look like a retirement home bingo night before you actually disagree with a government pro-security action enough to protest.
A'AbarachAmadan
Deity
I just read a plethora of articles on what is being done. Wiretapping is not being done; it would be illegal. The process being done is perfectly legal. Whether it is in the spirit of freedom is debatable, but not its legality.
Kayak
Partisan
As I said, this administration has little credibility with me. They could do this sort of thing with my blessing if they just allowed some frikkin oversight.A'AbarachAmadan said:
Pasi Nurminen
Deity
MjM said:
Question: why is vilifying, criticizing, or highlighting the wrongdoings of the Bush administration anti-American? It seems to me the point of the article is that Bush is victimizing the American people (among others), and highlighting it is part of stopping it, part of safeguarding the American people against further wrongdoing.
Seems to me that this article is pro-American. Disliking Bush doesn't equate disliking America.
