Specifically? Well let's take a look: Him, can't find anything in the Patriot Act that takes away any of these rights. Nothing in the Patriot Act takes guns away from honest, law abiding American citizens. Many a liberal has tried through other methods. Can't see anything in the Patriot Act that does that. If it did, would that make the libs happy? Nope, not seen any one soldier quartered in any house that I know of. Of course even if we did, it would be acceptable, given this is not a "time of peace", it is a time of war, lest we forget. Nope, still nothing. Hint, the key word here is "unreasonable". You can debate that one till you are blue in the face. Key word here is "time of war". Nope, nothing violated here by the Patriot Act that is not otherwise clearly allowed in a "time of war". Looks like all terrorists still living are getting that speedy public trial, though not entitled to it under the US Constitution, given they are not US Citizens. In any event, as US Citizens are concerned, there is nothing here in the Patriot Act that is violated. Nope, no provision in the PA covering suits above 20 bucks. Nope, none of this is proclaimed in the Patriot Act. I don't see any provision condoning fines, bail, or "cruel and unusual punishment." This one has always intrigued me. Gonna have to consult FDR historians on that one, and the internment of 110,000 of my fellow Americans into concentration camps here in the US. Nope, still nothing in the Patriot Act that infringes on this right. Well, last I looked, each state from the state government down to local governments, as well as individuals like myself still seem quite capable and legally able to use those powers. Nope, nothing in the Patriot Act even comes close to infringing on my "pursuit" of life, liberty and happiness. Me thinks you are victim of a rouse by the press here.
huh? I was showing a supreme court decision that made what Mia said false, nothing more nothing less. No actually 'you guys' was to those chearing on the subject because Clinton did something similiar, yet still not the same as Bush it made it right somehow. I am firm in my position on Clintons, it was BS and should not have been allowed as I believe the supreme court agrees. I still have not taken a position on what Bush did as I've layed out if what happened does not included US citizens I would support him, if it does include US citizens I wont support him. I do not take what others did to try to chear and make my candidates positions right, that's the difference. Absolutely incorrect. Those saying what Bush did was somehow right simply because what a previous president did, especially when parts of the previous presidents executive order appears to have been ruled unconstitutional previously to me is like when a child says 'Well Tommy did it, why can't I' To me it's an excuse to justify something, even if it is illegal and unconstitutional. Again what does it matter what a previous administration did, firm in ones positions is fine as long as it's constitutional. You appear to be far more worried about getting terrorists above keeping the constitution in tact. Best interests for our national security as long as it doesn't trample the one thing that matters the most, what our country was founded on, take the constitution away and what's the point. Sigh, again you realy need to read what I have posted. If Bush went after non US citizens with the NSA secret activities I give him props, if he went after US citizens he broke the constitution, there is no denying it. I have stated what Clinton did was wrong, which the Supreme court's decision 'that was only one' shows in pretty much clear english that yes what Clintion did was wrong and unconstitutional. If something is ruled unconstitutional even if not directly to the president, it states the act is unconstitutional which = the president not having the right to authorize such activities does it not? Carter was for non us citizens, I don't see a problem there. Bush, we don't know the truth yet, again I have stated non us citizens I support him, US citizens I do not!
What I defend here is the imprisoning of an "Enemy Combatant", which is what Padilla is. This guy has been a scum bag all his life. From his early years in juvenile hall, to the group assaults, robberies, stabbing, murders, and gang involvement, this dirt bag has been the poster child for what it is to be a scumbag. I especially like his road rage problem. Seems he likes firing guns at other drivers. Let's couple this with the fact that while in prison he mysteriously finds religion. Instead of emerging a born again whacko, he goes to work at Taco Bell and decides to find Islam. At a Taco Bell of all places. God help us all. It is at this time he begins supporting terror, by helping the BIF funnel money to terrorist organizations. Around 1994 like so many dimwits with a lost soul and lust for a new identity changes his name to Ibrahim. (meaning total f@$Ktard who works at the Bell and thinks ISlam is Kewl) Now while a lot of people convert to ISlam, like that boxer dude, Ali, only a small few of the real nut cases become terrorists. On his way to to becoming the terrorist he is, he traveled to terrorist Egypt to make his way to the Pakistan and Afganny border to throw customs officials off. Once he got into Pakistan the nut job changed his name yet again to Abdullah al-Muhajir, because God forbid a muslim be happy with just one name and one name change. Padilla (we will call him since I obviously have no respect for his stupid name changes), was later assigned by his Al Kada (that's Qaead for those that give a shit) lieutenant Abu Zubayda, to seek out uranium for using in radiological dispersion devices (that's dirty bomb). Shortly there after "Time Magazine" in 2002 had an blurb that mentioned Padilla came to Zubayda proudly brandishing schematics to build a nuclear warhead. He had found the plans on the internet, (you know, that place that is so full of pure fact about every side of an issue). "Time" called the plans "laughably inaccurate" and suggested they might have come from a parody Web site. He should have stayed with the last name, Ibrahim, which again meant total f@$Ktard who works at the Bell and thinks ISlam is Kewl. What a genius. While not smart by any means, Padilla was and is a terrorist, and any enemy combatant. He is NO American citizen. He is a traitor and part of the terrorist network we are at war against. The only reason he came back to the US (just prior to be captured) was scout out targets for which to explode dirty bombs. Thanks to post Clinton intelligence, (or lack there of), a tip lead to his arrest as he deplaned in Chi-Town. Yeah, this is just the type of guy we need out on the streets. Letting him go without separating his neck from his spine first is an act of treason. Merry Christmas!
No one is cheering this. What we are doing is making a point. This is POLICY. It has been for a long time. It is supposed to be secret, not leaked to the press. Doing so has cost us greatly in this war.
Well, to be fair, I think the bad guy should assume that the U.S. government is keeping an eye on them.
How has leaking it cost us in the war? Like the terrorists don't know they would be tapped, bugged in anyway shape or form that we could do anyways. If Bush spied on US citizens w/o a warrant I can see how that could greatly cost us in the war on terror. I for one am glad it was leaked if what Bush was doing in anyway shape or form broke the US constitution. If it doesn't include US citizens than I give him a round of applause for doing what he's done, still don't see how leaking it hurts as it's not like who was being watched, step by step or anything that would actually cost us was leaked. Be realistic, with the secret court for issues such as this to the terrorists it does not matter if it went through the court 'which we all knew about before hand' or was bypassed by an Executive order.
Wasn't your friend, Jose Padilla, a member of al qaida? Was he tortured? Are you saying you want terrorists roaming the streets? (rhetorical question...of course you do!) Maybe that's the problem...you try to think but nothing happens. I do hope while they are looking, they note your defense of terrorists. Was a prime example of how you defend them.
I don't recall that at all. I thought you were saying "if" and setting a condition. Like "if" {condition} then I support, otherwise I don't. You are saying that is not the case? Ah, so it is I, that totally misunderstood the "who cares what a previous president did" statement to be something of quite signifigance. Have you made any further progress towards "if" those US Citizens, um, I mean terrorists that the NYT said were being targeted were US Citizens that happened to be colaborating with known terrorist enemies? I'm trying to better understand if terrorists should be victims if they are US Citizens. That is what the treasonous article reluctantly mentioned after all the hype. My bad. I thought when you said "who cares what a previous president did" you were setting a different standard. I don't recall anyone saying it must be right because others did, but I do recall a few that displayed nonchalance that other presidents had done the same thing. Do you recall that? For example, it doesn't matter what a previous president did, we should only attack this president for doing what others have done. I had no idea it really took on a different meaning. Unless I'm still misunderstanding what you actually said So now I'm back to confused. You are saying it only matters with Bush, but not with others? Is there someone saying it is unconstitutional? If I understand correctly, you are saying on one hand there is not enough information, but you almost seem convinced on the other hand there is. Doesn't a president have the responsibility to protect our country? The 9/11 commission criticized our government for NOT doing this. Are you saying that following up on terrorist activity is not a good idea? What constitutional right do you feel has been broken? Are there lines where laws conflict with the consitution? For example, liberals outlawing guns in San Francisco. I've tried my best to follow. What I'm picking up is that you seem to think that "if" already exists, but are not quite comfortable in committing to it yet, leaving open a backdoor. Since we do know for sure, based on the treasonous article the NYT wrote that the targets of this were people in the US who had direct and indirect connections to captured terrorists, if those terrorists (including the ones we've already caught as a result of this monitoring) were US Citizens, then the terrorists are victims? I wonder what those killed on 9/11 would think about terrorists being victims? I can't answer your question. I thought for sure when you said "who cares what a previous president did" that it actually meant "no big deal." But apparently it really means something else. I'd have to read what you are referring to in order to make my own informed decision. As a general statement though, I'm not against the president, whether Democrat or Republican, doing their sworn duty to protect the citizens of the US. I have a hard time concluding that is a bad thing to do. I would have never guessed that going after terrorists with fresh intel was so unfashionable. How about you? Even if those US Citizens were directly plotting to attack our country, as were those they caught? Wasn't the truth released in the NYT article? Didn't they say who the targets were? If I recall correctly, it was those poor terrorists. Does that make the terrorists they caught victims because they couldn't exercise their right to blow up our country? It is terrorists rights, correct? That is what the NYT article said were the targets.
And I sure am glad they are! Would have never guessed in a million years (well, except for gworld...no better friend does a terrorist have) that the NYT reluctantly admitted the actual targets were terrorists and that going after said terrorists were such a bad thing. Takes all kinds, I suppose.
What I cannot really figure out here is the timing? Why did the NYT decide to print this story a full YEAR AFTER THEY HAD THE STORY??? Why did they sit on the story for a FULL YEAR? (that's like 365 days in some countries) Hmmmm... If this information about spying was so detrimental to the US Constitution and the people of this country, why on earth did the NYT sit on it for a year? Don't they have an obligation to bring these horrible things to light as soon as they can? They waited a year? Odd that the release of the story conincides with the authors book release on the same subject. Interesting. Freedom of the Press still belongs to those that own one.
Of course there is an 'if' that was not the point though, but ok I'll play your little game. So in otherwords you're saying you have no conditions on support? If it was abused and it started to spy on every citizen in this great land you'd still support it, afterall you can't have an 'if' I have laid out how I will support it and how I will not. Who cares as in it does not make it right, especially since I have shown part of Slick Willy's executive order already being ruled unconstitutional. Again lets go back to 'Well Tommy did it, why can't I' Us citizens no matter what they are in political/social nature are still US citizens and protected under the constitution of this great land, do you somehow think we should pick and choose who gets constitutional protection and rights? Please reread the posts, it was not you who did it was Mia who did. The who cares statement was meant simply for you or whomever to lay out why it means anything, which Mia attempted to and was not successful... Again lets go back to the 'Well Tommy did it, why can't I' Please also see above, this has already been answered Are you flippin serious? I have already listed an example and shown what I believe! Spying on US citizens with no warrant, can it get any simpler than that? Non US citizens no problem, US citizens big problem. You keep trying to argue for Bush, yet you're failing miserably. Yes a president has the obligation and duty to protect the Nation, he also has the duty and obligation to uphold the constitution. As far as guns, you know my position on that already 'or at least you should' there should be absolutely no ban on gun ownership. You can try to twist what I say all you want but it's pretty damn simple if he spied w/o a warrant on non US citizens I have no problem, w/o a warrant on US citizens = big problem...Get it now? Yes connections, point to me where it shows the actions spied on a US citizen w/o a warrant and I'll gladly state I do not support Bush, I have made my opinion so simple my 6 year old son could follow it. But yet again Spy w/o warrant on Non US citizen I support, Spy w/o warrant on US citizen = no support. Do you finally get it? This is no backdoor, this is straight and to the point of where I will lend my support. Your support appears to be follow GWB no matter what he does, he's just swell. Sigh, yet again how did an ex president expecially when part of his executive order is already ruled unconstitutional have anything to do with Bush on this instance? Answer it doesn't = the big deal I speak of = Mia attempting to make a case = me showing how it doesn't = you trying to somehow make a case where there isn't one. I am all for going after terrorists. I also would have never thought destroying our constitution should be allowed under any circumstance, how about you? No actually the article stated a couple were caught, how about all the others? Again trying to twist something into something it's not to try to make a failing argument. Even if they are 'terrorists' there is still a peice of paper called the US constitution that trumps safety, is there not? The constitution has rights in it given to all US citizens does it not? Especially with how easy a warrant could be gotten for US citizens in the case of terrorism, bypassing this does = no support from me if used against US citizens.
Yes it does appear odd to me, on the other hand if they would have rushed it out without fact checking, I could see those supporting it saying the exact opposite. How dare they rush to release such a damaging report, couldn't they have at least taken some time to make sure it's accurate...
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article334476.ece The elections in Iraq tell a story of a country more divided than ever. Instead of heading for a democratic american loving Iraq - we're heading for civil war! Good old Cowboy George meanwhile says "we're winning" the battle why he continues to spy on Americans and break our constitutional rights!!!
When Iraq was formed originally, little care was taken for historical hatred. So the country was made from 3 groups of people who historically hated each other. Go figure; they still do Just like Clinton did: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm
Wow, that's news. I'll have to unlearn the last thirteen years of Democratic rhetoric. Bill Clinton is now evil. Got it. Thanks!
I didn't see anyone in the thread saying anything good about clinton in terms of spying, did it miss it? I admit I only skimmed the thread
I knew that was coming... Without "fact checking"? Come on. Since when has the NYT taken the time to check the facts on story before printing it? I'm not buying that. The timing, the story and the release were all contrived for an obvious reason. But I have come to expect this from the NYT.