Gotta love the dodging. You used the justification that the "Patriot Act makes us safer and stops terrorism, so what's the big deal". My entire point is there are 1000 other things we could do to make people safer from terrorism, with varying levels of intrusion into a normal citizen's lives. So if you are going to justify the Patriot Act by what it accomplishes, I want to know where you stop. As I've said, I'm sure you don't want a police state, very few people in this country do, and they are pretty much insane . But what level of intrusion do you consider allowable and appropriate, and what justifications do you use for that level of intrusion?
Sounds like the ron paul plan! Inaction is the best course of action, always. When it comes to America, just say (or vote) NO!
Right... Ron Paul is the only president who let terrorists over here. Not Clinton. Not Bush. It's all Ron Paul's fault that the guy GTech voted for in 1994 and the guy he supports now are the ones who have presided over multiple terrorist attacks against America, and neither had the stones or integrity to hunt Bin Laden down.
I have been telling peeps here for a long time now that the only reason that they (the corrupt Bush/Cheney cabal) do not care about Bin Laden is because he served his purpose. They are about as interested in where Bin Laden is as they are interested in where you and I are. It's a total and utter sham.
I would be dodging the question if the question actually had an answer. Your line is the Constitution (which btw has yet to be fully interpreted and never will be, so your answer is not an answer either) and you have yet to show that the Patriot Act is not constitutional. People keep confusing privacy and liberty. Cameras in a public area are by definition not an invasion of privacy. They're not against the constitution so by your answer, you would support them. Wiretapping a line connected to a foreign country regardless of its origination is not a violation of the constitution. So again, you support that as well. It's on your side of the line. If Bin Laden was still alive they wouldn't be showing reruns. We don't care about Bin Laden because there are bigger fish to fry. Bin Laden just has money. The number 2 guy is the one that's leading the charge. We though Bin Laden was the most important terrorist, but as the years go by and we learn more, it becomes apparent he's not that important. And, he's probably dead anyway. He's not playing an active role anymore so he's not affecting anyone. There are more important people that need to be shown the door to their 72 virgin grapes.
Kalvin cannot read my posts because I asked him if he was a Zionist and he declines to answer one way or the other. Can someone please quote my two earlier posts for Kalvin's benefit? If he bothered to Google "Patriot Act Unconstitutional" he would have all of the information he requires.
the point of my comment is that tapping the phones isn't reducing the threat for terrorist attacks since they can simply use other means of communication. It's that simple
I agree, terrorists are going to contact each other regardless to plot the deaths of innocent people, so why don't we just let them do it over the phone without making their lives harder? Are some of you so stupid that this doesn't make sense
Yes, some of us are that stupid. We think that the ability to wiretap 300 Million Americans without judicial review, because 19 terists flew planes into buildings doesn't make a lot of sense. We might however think that giving out motor vehicle licenses to illegal aliens, having porous borders, and an inflammatory foreign policy are more important issues to address. We might even think that we should be able to wiretap the government, because the FBI tried to warn that known Al Queda members were taking flight training in the US and it was never dealt with. Perhaps we would do a better job of countering terrorism than our government if we were informed.
it won't...just like making it harder won't stop them from doing it...that's why I'm saying that listening to phone calls is futile anyway, can you please answer the question I asked in my previous post?
I think we should learn to stop worrying and learn to love the [suicide] bomb[er] It's what Ron Paul would do.
Pretty good post from the Ron Paul forums. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=286864&postcount=21
How can you maintain that, while at the same time, you and others also maintain "leaving Iraq won't help stop terrorist attacks", "Muslims will stop at nothing to destroy us" (paraphrased). So apparently getting our military off their streets and out of their holy land won't help at all for discouraging further attacks despite the fact OBL said it himself that was a primary cause for attacking on 9/11, but making it harder to make phone calls will deter terrorism? How rational.
Because it makes sense. Leaving Iraq won't stop terrorists attacks NO, do you know why? because we were not in Iraq when terrorists bombed the WTC twice for starters. You seem to think all terrorism started when Iraq was invaded. Not muslims, muslims terrorists, the extremist "virgin seekers" (gotta get that in for palsys) Your 100% correct, you getting there now. I agree fletch whatever we do like stopping terrorists from using phones just won't work at all because they will find other means to plot attacks. Like for example having Airport security won't stop hijackings of aircraft, besides terrorists could just move on to different transport types & hijack a bus or a train, so why put people through all the trauma & inconvenience of airport security checks? I'm actually starting to think your right on the matter, let terrorists do as they please, don't make things harder & just accept terrorists attacks as our punishment for not following osama bin larden's orders.
So to be clear, you ARE saying that getting out of the Middle East will not deter terrorism, but watching phone calls will? I wanted to make sure you're agreeing to that to showcase how ridiculous you sound.