NSA Wiretapping

[Girafarig_Magcargo]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/w...&en=bcb92f3061f15c8e&ei=5094&partner=homepage

I'm sure most people are aware of a federal judge striking down the administration's wiretapping program as unconstitutional. Personally, I think it's still a little early to make a definitive ruling on it, but then again I'm not like the liberals declaring that we're in "OMG A POLICE STATE!!!"

Really, this whole debate is kind of silly because presidents that have been considered demi-gods have done much more to break the Constitution than Bush (allegedly) has. Lincoln locked down the Maryland legislature to keep them from voting on secession and suspended habeus corpus, while Roosevelt ordered military tribunals on six German civilians and locked up thousands of Japanese.

 

[Zeta]

Really, this whole debate is kind of silly because presidents that have been considered demi-gods have done much more to break the Constitution than Bush (allegedly) has. Lincoln locked down the Maryland legislature to keep them from voting on secession and suspended habeus corpus, while Roosevelt ordered military tribunals on six German civilians and locked up thousands of Japanese.

So because previous presidents got away with their misdeeds, this one should? I don't follow your logic.

 

[Girafarig_Magcargo]

So because previous presidents got away with their misdeeds, this one should? I don't follow your logic.

I'm saying that it's hypocritical for so many Lincoln and Roosevelt worshipers to look past their egregious mistakes and then bust Bush's balls over this (alleged) misdeed.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

That's because their mistakes aren't looked at. Everyone just looks at the GOOD they did. Y'know. Defeating Hitler. Freeing the slaves. Gimme a bin Laden or make massive reform towards the lower class and we'll talk about forgiving Bush.

What most people talk about are what they know. Sadly, most Americans don't know more about the past of this country than what they were taught in public schools. That's pathetically little. But people know more about Bush because his deeds are in the paper everyday. They're on the news everyday/night.

 

[The Big Al]

I'll be frank, this should have come long ago like when it first hit the air this was going on. I'm sorry, but the government fishing on my tax dollars and invading my privacy without warrent is a violation of my rights and freedoms of a citizen of the United States of America.

I've quoted Franklin so many times but will do it again. "Those who are willing to give up a little bit of liberty for a little bit of security will find themselves with niether liberty nor security." When asked whether I wanted to be safe or free I always say free. If you're free you make your own safety but you're not free you're never safe.

And there's the simple fact, the terrorists want to destroy our freedom. They hate our freedom. They hate the fact that an America can eat what they want, go where they want, worship what they want, and do whatever they want because in their sick minds that's against God. If we want to stick it to the terrorists, we should hold up our freedoms like we do our flag and proclaim that no one shall pry these our freedoms from our hands. That would hurt the terrorists more than anything else.

And there are better ways to keep us safe and not violate our freedoms. We could install detectors in our ports and airports to detect potential explosives. We could do better to secure and modernize our infastructure inorder to make them not only safer from terrorist attack but also other threats like hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and floods. Like I said, when you're free, you can make your own freedom.

Oh yeah. Freedom ain't free. These would require tax money but it'd be cheaper than cleaning up if didn't.

 

[Girafarig_Magcargo]

I'll be frank, this should have come long ago like when it first hit the air this was going on. I'm sorry, but the government fishing on my tax dollars and invading my privacy without warrent is a violation of my rights and freedoms of a citizen of the United States of America.

I've quoted Franklin so many times but will do it again. "Those who are willing to give up a little bit of liberty for a little bit of security will find themselves with niether liberty nor security." When asked whether I wanted to be safe or free I always say free. If you're free you make your own safety but you're not free you're never safe.

And there's the simple fact, the terrorists want to destroy our freedom. They hate our freedom. They hate the fact that an America can eat what they want, go where they want, worship what they want, and do whatever they want because in their sick minds that's against God. If we want to stick it to the terrorists, we should hold up our freedoms like we do our flag and proclaim that no one shall pry these our freedoms from our hands. That would hurt the terrorists more than anything else.

And there are better ways to keep us safe and not violate our freedoms. We could install detectors in our ports and airports to detect potential explosives. We could do better to secure and modernize our infastructure inorder to make them not only safer from terrorist attack but also other threats like hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and floods. Like I said, when you're free, you can make your own freedom.

Oh yeah. Freedom ain't free. These would require tax money but it'd be cheaper than cleaning up if didn't.

Freedom v. security is a false dilemma. Our freedoms are not being abridged because there is only a small portion of the administration's policies that are debatable at the most.

Also, this whole "terrorists hate our freedoms" thing is so overblown it's not even funny. Sure, they find our lifestyle decadent, but the real reason most of those terrorists hate is because of our troop presence in the Middle East and our support of Israel. We're not going to stop doing either one, so basically we either have to convince them to at least not fight us, and if they take up arms then we kill them.

 

[The Big Al]

Oy vey.

How can I put this? There's this thing called the Tenth Amendmant. The Tenth Amendmant states that all rights not expressed in the consitution or the bill of rights are defaulted to the people. That means the President or congress cannot claim "it's not in the constitution" and just do it. They have to go through the process of making a law regarding it. That's what the consitution says and the constitution is the law of the land and not even Bush is above that.

 

[Girafarig_Magcargo]

Oy vey.

How can I put this? There's this thing called the Tenth Amendmant. The Tenth Amendmant states that all rights not expressed in the consitution or the bill of rights are defaulted to the people. That means the President or congress cannot claim "it's not in the constitution" and just do it. They have to go through the process of making a law regarding it. That's what the consitution says and the constitution is the law of the land and not even Bush is above that.

Uh, no. Ungranted powers are delegated to the states or to the people. Obviously this is more important to the states since people can't enact laws.

Anyway, the president has the power to do what is necessary to protect the Constitution, so he can enact certain measures to bypass the legislature.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

And examples include such treasures as the Alien and Sedition Act, which allowed ANYONE who spoke against the US to be imprisoned and was mostly used to imprison anti-war protestors during WWI. Fun thing is that it was a direct violation of the first amendment, but it was overlooked because it was war time. Gotta support the country, even if doing so causes it to collapse in upon the very freedoms it was founded on. Let's bring it back into full action. See how long it lasts.

 

[The Big Al]

Uh, no. Ungranted powers are delegated to the states or to the people. Obviously this is more important to the states since people can't enact laws.

I'm not talking about powers. I'm talking about rights.

And my problem is that Bush is doing this illegally. If he went through the process of making law I wouldn't have a problem. But Bush is acting like he is above the law and above the constitution which is an impeacable offense.

Anyway, the president has the power to do what is necessary to protect the Constitution, so he can enact certain measures to bypass the legislature.

Uh, no. Obviously you were asleep in civics class or didn't bother to take it. The President is to UPHOLD the constitution. That means the President must govern within the consitution and make sure the states and people do as well. The President also has NO ability to work above the executive. That's why the legislature are the ONLY governing body capable of declaring war.

 

[Girafarig_Magcargo]

I'm not talking about powers. I'm talking about rights.

And my problem is that Bush is doing this illegally. If he went through the process of making law I wouldn't have a problem. But Bush is acting like he is above the law and above the constitution which is an impeacable offense.

Uh, no. Obviously you were asleep in civics class or didn't bother to take it. The President is to UPHOLD the constitution. That means the President must govern within the consitution and make sure the states and people do as well. The President also has NO ability to work above the executive. That's why the legislature are the ONLY governing body capable of declaring war.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You're getting the 10th amendment and 9 amendment mixed up. The 10th amendment states that powers not given to the federal government go to the states (or the people).

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Bitch, don't tell me about what I know or don't know. The President is sworn to defend the Constitution. It's right there. I don't know what kind of Constitution you learned at wherever the hell you went, but it's not the US Constitution, apparently.

The NSA wiretapping program (which is debatable on whether it's illegal) falls under the President's power to defend the Consitution, not to mention FISA.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but the President has the ability to issue executive orders to act without the legislature. I don't get what you mean when you say the President can't work above the executive (which he is), but the President (until the BS War Powers Act), as commander-in-chief, can deploy troops on his own.

 

[The Big Al]

You're getting the 10th amendment and 9 amendment mixed up. The 10th amendment states that powers not given to the federal government go to the states (or the people).

Which is why the wiretapping is illegal.

Bitch, don't tell me about what I know or don't know. The President is sworn to defend the Constitution. It's right there. I don't know what kind of Constitution you learned at wherever the hell you went, but it's not the US Constitution, apparently.

They mean the same thing bitch. Unless you're Bush in which case he's taken the word defense to mean he can do whatever he wants if he can justify it as defending America. So for safety's sake, let's call it uphold. Nevermind, let's use your "defend". How is the constitution defended? It's defended by making sure the constitution as supreme law of the land is followed. The government follows the constitution and the people follow the constitution. Bush's wars and actions are doing nothing to that end. What Bush is doing would fall under the other job of President and that's Commander and Chief of the military which is about protecting America and its citizens. However, Bush is still not allow operate outside of established law.

The NSA wiretapping program (which is debatable on whether it's illegal) falls under the President's power to defend the Consitution, not to mention FISA.

One question. How is wiretapping defending the constitution? Especially when it violates the constitution.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but the President has the ability to issue executive orders to act without the legislature. I don't get what you mean when you say the President can't work above the executive (which he is), but the President (until the BS War Powers Act), as commander-in-chief, can deploy troops on his own.

President can delpoy troops but he cannot declare war and the president cannot give themself wartime powers.

 

[Girafarig_Magcargo]

Which is why the wiretapping is illegal.

They mean the same thing bitch. Unless you're Bush in which case he's taken the word defense to mean he can do whatever he wants if he can justify it as defending America. So for safety's sake, let's call it uphold. Nevermind, let's use your "defend". How is the constitution defended?

One question. How is wiretapping defending the constitution? Especially when it violates the constitution.

President can delpoy troop but he cannot declare war and the president cannot give themself wartime powers.

No, the wiretapping goes under the President's power to defend the Consitution. And it's pretty hypocritical for you to talk about the 10th amendment when liberals love to rip it apart on so many other levels.

I don't know why you're so fixated on "uphold" since the President's oath is specifically to "preserve, protect and defend," but enough on semantics. The wiretapping program taps into conversations between terrorists that allow us to crack potential plots before they happen. Sure, it doesn't go out and kill terrorists, but it's still defending the nation.

Thanks, Captain Obvious, you just affirmed what I said. As for wartime powers, the President does have the ability to do whatever he needs under the Constitution to defend the nation. Just about everything he's done is constiutionally valid, and it's only programs like these that are debatable. However, I bet the government will win in appeals and a non-retarded judge will rule the program constitutional.

 

[The Big Al]

Okay, alright, I see I'll have to make as clear as possible for.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW!

The President cannot do squat not afforded to the office of the President by law. Under no circumstances can the President violate the law.

That's not say the president does not have powers to defend the country, it's just that these powers include other branches of government to avoid abuse. If he want to wiretap the communications of person A, he goes to the FISA court and gets a warrent (he can even begin wiretapping and then get the warrant if it's that urgant). Fast, effective, and perfectly legal.

And what about other areas we need to invest to much America better prepared? What about protecting our infastructure and making America more resistant to attack? What about making closer diplomatic relationships with Arabic countries and make ourselves a friend of the islamic community, removing the base right out from under the terrorists? What about more funding to our first responders so they are more prepared to stop or handle attacks? There's so much that could be done to protect America. Yet Bush wants to waste time with a program that has yet to produce fruit in a conviction on terrorism charges.

 

[Girafarig_Magcargo]

Okay, alright, I see I'll have to make as clear as possible for.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW!

The President cannot do squat not afforded to the office of the President by law. Under no circumstances can the President violate the law.

That's not say the president does not have powers to defend the country, it's just that these powers include other branches of government to avoid abuse. If he want to wiretap the communications of person A, he goes to the FISA court and gets a warrent (he can even begin wiretapping and then get the warrant if it's that urgant). Fast, effective, and perfectly legal.

And what about other areas we need to invest to much America better prepared? What about protecting our infastructure and making America more resistant to attack? What about making closer diplomatic relationships with Arabic countries and make ourselves a friend of the islamic community, removing the base right out from under the terrorists? What about more funding to our first responders so they are more prepared to stop or handle attacks? There's so much that could be done to protect America. Yet Bush wants to waste time with a program that has yet to produce fruit in a conviction on terrorism charges.

It may be "fast" in our case but it's not always adequate for situations requiring lightning-fast decisions. There's actually a bill by Specter which would increase the time a wiretap could be conducted warrantlessly and would write the President's earlier action as legal.

And you say that as if it's WIRETAP OR NOTHING!!!, which is isn't. The administration is lacking some in its funding and other efforts, but the wiretaps are hardly on their own impairing other efforts.

 

[The Big Al]

I think delyed warrents is enough.

It's not that money going into wire tapping is the problem. The problem is Bush likes to punish below who don't vote for him. Michigan had major cuts to defense funding despite having the longest water border with another country. It took a lot of artwisting to get the funds needed to protect our border.

 

[Girafarig_Magcargo]

I think delyed warrents is enough.

It's not that money going into wire tapping is the problem. The problem is Bush likes to punish below who don't vote for him. Michigan had major cuts to defense funding despite having the longest water border with another country. It took a lot of artwisting to get the funds needed to protect our border.

There's no proof that Bush decided that states voting against them would get cuts in funding.

 

[The Big Al]

No but the trends still there.