War on Terror is not a national emergency

[greekguy]

Over the past few years, Pres. Bush has done many things that are quasi-legal, claiming strict measures must be taken because of the War on Terror, claiming in speeches and signing statements it is a national emergency. From opening mail, wiretapping, trying to get Google to hand over search results to government, Bush has done a lot that I believe violates the rights of Americans.

Now, if Congress were to pass a simple resolution to declare the War on Terror not a national emergency, all of his BS signing statements couldn't be taken seriously, since most of them say "in a national emergency I can do whatever the f*** I want". This would reel in the President who has gone too far and hopefully restore some of our lost civil rights. thoughts?

 

[Trajan12]

Which civil rights have we lost? Care to answer? What has been stricken from the constitution?

 

[Sidhe]

Which civil rights have we lost? Care to answer? What has been stricken from the constitution?

You know the partriot act inside out no doubt, the right to open mail, the right to use torture if the president says so. The little things.

From Wiki, with credible citations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

Much criticism against the 2001 Act had been directed at the provisions for Sneak-and-Peek searches — a term coined by the FBI. Critics argued that Provision 213 authorizes "surreptitious search warrants and seizures upon a showing of reasonable necessity and eliminates the requirement of Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that immediate notification of seized items be provided."

30,000 National Security Letters Issued Annually Demanding Information about Americans: USA PATRIOT Act Removed Need for FBI to Connect Records to Suspected Terrorists
[...] According to the Washington Post, universities and casinos have received these letters and been forced to comply with the demands to turn over private student and customer information. Anyone who receives an NSL is gagged - forever - from telling anyone that the FBI demanded records, even if their identity has already been made public.

In New York and Connecticut, the ACLU has challenged the NSL provision that was dramatically expanded by Section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act. The legislation amended the existing NSL power by permitting the FBI to demand records of people who are not connected to terrorism and who are not suspected of any wrongdoing. [...]

January 23, 2004, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins ruled that Section 805 (which classifies "expert advice or assistance" as material support to terrorism) was vague and in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments, marking the first legal decision to set a part of the Act aside[10]. The lawsuit against the act was brought by the Humanitarian Law Project, representing five organizations and two U.S. citizens who wanted to provide expert advice to Kurdish refugees in Turkey. Groups providing aid to these organizations had suspended their activities for fear of violating the Act, and they filed a lawsuit against the Departments of Justice and State to challenge the law, claiming the phrase "expert advice or assistance" was too vague. [11]

Collins granted the plaintiff's motion that "expert advice or assistance" is impermissibly vague, but denied a nationwide injunction against the provision. The plaintiffs were granted "enjoinment" from enforcement of the provision.

 

[greekguy]

Which civil rights have we lost? Care to answer? What has been stricken from the constitution?

wiretapping. Americans were wiretapped by the gov., who didn't use a warrant to do so. that's a violation of 4th Amendment rights.

oh, and this, back in May of '06. NSA creating a database of American calling habits, for millions of Americans, most never suspected of any crime in their lives.

 

[Trajan12]

You know the partriot act inside out no doubt, the right to open mail, the right to use torture if the president says so. The little things.

As far as I'm concerned since no Americans are being tortured or imprisoned ect. Bush isn't trying to take away our freedoms. I don't see Guardsmen storming the Capitol anytime soon to enforce martial law. Most people understand that the constitution takes precedence over all and that if something blatantly unfair will be challenged. I still have yet to figure out what at all he benefits from locking an American up for nothing.

Two years people.

 

[Sidhe]

As far as I'm concerned since no Americans are being tortured or imprisoned ect. Bush isn't trying to take away our freedoms. I don't see Guardsmen storming the Capitol anytime soon to enforce martial law. Most people understand that the constitution takes precedence over all and that if something blatantly unfair will be challenged. I still have yet to figure out what at all he benefits from locking an American up for nothing.

A morally repugnant statement. It's OK to torture anyone as long as it's not in my back yard or an American, this sort of attitude makes me very sad for your moral health. I seriously hope that this sort of attitude isn't widespread.

The detaining of prisoners indefinately without charge is also repugnant to me as is the removal of habeus corpus rights.

 

[Trajan12]

A morally repugnant statement. It's OK to torture anyone as long as it's not in my back yard or an American, this sort of attitude makes me very sad for your moral health. I seriously hope that this sort of attitude isn't widespread.

I thought we were discussing our freedoms. What you think I support torture? What are you talking about?

 

[Sidhe]

I thought we were discussing our freedoms. What you think I support torture? What are you talking about?

It sounded to me like you support torture, and I have actually given the freedoms above as have other people if that's not the case then I withdraw my statement, sorry, read the link it lists all the measures at the bottom.

 

[Trajan12]

All Bush's new laws sound vague and unnecessary to me. I don't understand why they haven't been scrapped by the new congress already. But I don't think they will be put into practice on as large a scale as some believe. I'm thinking in two years none of this would be a problem.

 

[Red Door]

January 20th, 2009.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

War on Terror is not a national emergency

I disagree with this premise. Terrorism is a national emergency.

However, I would agree that some of the actions taken have gone to far. Why getting post search warrents is a problem I don't understand. I think everything done should be tracked and inspected by a bi-partisan commission to ensure nothing is abused.

 

[greekguy]

I disagree with this premise. Terrorism is a national emergency.

However, I would agree that some of the actions taken have gone to far. Why getting post search warrents is a problem I don't understand. I think everything done should be tracked and inspected by a bi-partisan commission to ensure nothing is abused.

But terrorism is always going to exist. With 7 billion plus people in the world, there's bound to be someone willing to blow up a bus of civilians because they think they're God is waiting on the other side with a ticket to "Paradise". terrorism can be minimized, but can't be eliminated. based on that, it can't constitute a national emergency, since then our country will always be in a national emergency.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

But terrorism is always going to exist. With 7 billion plus people in the world, there's bound to be someone willing to blow up a bus of civilians because they think they're God is waiting on the other side with a ticket to "Paradise". terrorism can be minimized, but can't be eliminated. based on that, it can't constitute a national emergency, since then our country will always be in a national emergency.

I call it a national emergency based upon the level of risk. In the 1980's terrorism was far worse in Europe than America. Certainly not a national emergency for America. In 1998 bin Laden declared war on America. For anyone paying attention terrorism became a national emergency at that time. Most didn't pay attention and we were hit hard in 2001 due to our gov't being reactionary instead of pro-active. We are still in serious danger, so it is still a national emergency. The threat will subside (though always still exist) and it will no longer be an emergency, but that point hasn't been reached yet.

 

[El_Machinae]

How much danger do you really think you're in? As a person, or even as a citizen of a city?

It's prudent to judge the opportunity cost of being too afraid.

 

[skadistic]

How much danger do you really think you're in? As a person, or even as a citizen of a city?

It's prudent to judge the opportunity cost of being too afraid.

Working in the DC metro area where the headquartes of the gov., FBI,CIA,NSA....ect...ect. are I feel very at risk. If I live Saskatone Texarkana probaly not so much.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

"War on Terror is not a national emergencey"

Huh, you've noticed?

 

[Commie #4522]

The war on terror isn't even real. When was the last time we were even attacked?

 

[nonconformist]

"War on Terror is not a national emergencey"

Huh, you've noticed?

Seeing as the chances of anyone being killed in a terrorist attack is pretty much negligable, I'm not surprised.
Instead, resources should be focused on a "War on AIDS" or a "war on Tuberculosis" or something.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Seeing as the chances of anyone being killed in a terrorist attack is pretty much negligable, I'm not surprised.
Instead, resources should be focused on a "War on AIDS" or a "war on Tuberculosis" or something.

"War on Rapid Anthropogenic Climate Change"

 

[skadistic]

The war on terror isn't even real. When was the last time we were even attacked?

Just the other day in Grease...

How many attacks have been averted by the info gleamed by the war on terror?