More ILLEGAL SPYING: Monitoring of Muslims Done Without Search Warrants

Why should they be abolished?

http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/12...A letter.pdf

But then wouldn't it be prudent to note what part of the constitution has been violated, if one was going to suggest "all of our rights are destroyed?"

 

I don't think anybody is interested in killing you or any other religious fanatics. History has shown us exactly the opposite; religious fanatics are the one who are dangerous and always want to force their crazy beliefs on others.

Morons are always good for a laugh. Once the world population is educated and won't be fooled by religious superstition, we can put those morons who still believe in religion on TV and have a comedy channel.
Religion is only dangerous when people are uneducated and ignorant, among educated intelligent people, religion is just funny.

 

I haven't read all 9 pages of this thread, but I decided to put my two cents in anyways... I think Benjamin Franklin said it best:

 

The branch of Government that is SUPPOSED to judge "probable cause" is the JUDICIAL BRANCH (THE COURTS).

 

So it is the Fourth Amendment you take issue with, not all of the constitution and amendments?

Is it unreasonable to detect nuclear material in the air?

Info on Ben Franklin regarding the liberty quote

 

Are you disappointed that Bush is only breaking the fourth amendment?

I know that you would like him to abolish the whole Constitution, so you can take out your brown shirt out of the closet.

 

I don't think China or NK will loose on it.

 

Wouldn't it be necessary to establish in what way Bush is breaking the fourth amendment? How is detecting nuclear material in the air breaking the fourth amendment? Or laws, for that matter?

If I cook steaks in my backyard and my neighbor smells it, did he break the law?

 

bomb


Now lets see if the computers at the NSA pick up on this thread They stated they dont pysically listen to all of the conversations, just ones that keywords are picked up on. These makes it sound like many more than we know of are tapped, just not noted as recorded until something "offensive" is said.

I guess I should work on developing a tinfoil hat to keep the government out of my head.

 

I think there are a couple of things happening here that are really scary. First and foremost is that since 9-11, the popular opinion in this country has leaned towards "national security is more important than individual freedom". In my opinion, individual freedom is the most important construct of national security. Take away freedoms that people take for granted, such as the freedom against unreasonable searches and seizures or the freedom of speech and the populous as a whole will tend to work against the government.

The other thing that is happening is that while many of these things are coming to light is that people are trying to find some sort of "reasonable ground" between things that our government is doing that is utterly ridiculous - and essentially negotiating away our own rights little by little without any reason or cause to do so.

The world has not changed since 9-11. More tragic than the trade center incident is the amount of propoganda spread since then.

 

Court Opens Door To Searches Without Warrants
The New Orleans Channel | March 27 2004

It's a groundbreaking court decision that legal experts say will affect everyone: Police officers in Louisiana no longer need a search or arrest warrant to conduct a brief search of your home or business.
-------------------------------------------------

Oregon Law Would Jail War Protesters as Terrorists

An Oregon anti-terrorism bill would jail street demonstrators for at least 25 years in a thinly veiled effort to discourage anti-war protests, critics say. Actual bill states that protesters would be imprisoned in forced labor gulags.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/archive_police_state.html

 

New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
http://www.wdsu.com/news/2953483/detail.html

"An Oregon anti-terrorism bill...."

 

So are saying you are going to take up arms against this country? That is a complete misuse of the second amendment is I ever saw one. Our gorvemntment while not perfect is much better compared to other governments around the world.

 

I think this is "LEGAL" because it has legal presidence. Supreme Court upheld Japanese Interment Camps and Automatic Arrest/Imprissionments of AntiWar Protestors in WW2. I don't remember ever hearing those decisions were struck down after FDR was out of office; so those steps might not have been made Illegal. That's why I said it might be still "LEGAL".

tom

 

The whole reason we have the amendment and right to bear arms is for militia. The whole purpose of the militia is to stop a rogue government.

How is taking up arms against the rogue government a misuse? It's the whole reason the amendment exists

The 2nd amendment isn't about self defense like many people think, it's about a militia capable of keeping our country free.

Of course, we kill and imprison way more people than anyone!

 

It says security, which isnt the same as overthrowing the US gov as you are suggesting.

 

I suggest you look into the reasoning of the 2nd ammendment...What yo yo stated is exactly the purpose of it....

 

Maybe so, but it is up to interpretation under the circumstances you would overthrow the existing gov. There are many non violent ways to express disent rather than using the 2nd amendment to atempt to overthrow the US gov.

Read this

http caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/115/sections/section_2385 .html

 

I agree with you to that point

--edit
I don't see no matter how much you dislike the current government a need to use the 2nd ammendment in that way, I agree with Iamned to that extent, there currently is not a reason to do so...

 

What if it was proven fact that they had prior knowledge of 911 and did nothing to stop it?