They BETTER bring the Patriot act back

[X. Benedict]

Yep, at a time of war, people talking to the enemy shouldn't be monitored. Anyone talking to Al Queda should have ALL of their calls monitored from that point on.

Yep, I don't love the country. I'm glad we cleared that up. I don't want it to be overrun by people who side with the terrorists, and I want those people snuffed out as quickly as possible. THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T LOVE THIS COUNTRY.

551502[/snapback]

 

Why does the government have to listen when I call a terrorist coffee house to see if Sahmbudhi Jusfahted is there? It's like calling Moe's.

[Adam]

Ah.  War trumps the Constitution.  Thanks for clearing that up.  

551612[/snapback]

So you consider it ok that the media ran the story on Bin Laden's cell phone......some call it freedom of the press....what it really is was aiding the enemy we are at war with.....making whoever ran the story the enemy.

 

Whoever ran that story cost us Bin Laden

 

As a matter of fact, doesn't the Constitution mandat e that the government protect us? So there is no conflict there- whether the Patriot act exists or not.

[X. Benedict]

As a matter of fact, doesn't the Constitution mandat e that the government protect us?

551697[/snapback]

 

The US one? Not unless you think it is implied.

 

 

 

common defence, maybe...

Edited January 4, 2006 by X. Benedict

[Mickey]

So you consider it ok that the media ran the story on Bin Laden's cell phone......some call it freedom of the press....what it really is was aiding the enemy we are at war with.....making whoever ran the story the enemy.

 

Whoever ran that story cost us Bin Laden

 

As a matter of fact, doesn't the Constitution mandat e that the government protect us? So there is no conflict there- whether the Patriot act exists or not.

551697[/snapback]

That is an urban myth.

 

Urban Myth

 

It is a story that just won't seem to die, like Mikie and the pop rocks.

 

As for the Constitution, here are the Presidential Powers:

 

Section. 2.

 

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

 

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

 

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

 

Section. 3.

 

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

 

You may not the absence of the power to suspend the constitution. Most war powers actually reside in the Congress. The Congress has the following "war" powers:

 

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

 

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

 

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

 

To provide and maintain a Navy;

 

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

 

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

 

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

Again, no powers are here to permit suspension of the Constitution.

 

Besides, FISA is a federal law, it is not only binding on the President, he is obligated to execute and enforce that law.

 

The defense of Bush on this is getting increasingly ridiculous. The notion that he has any legal authority at all to do what he did is almost laughable. Worse, there was no need. He could tap anyone he wanted for any reason for a whole year without having to ask anyone for permission, a court order or a warrant. All he had to do was to inform the classified Fisa court and a few congressional committee heads so that the other branches of government at least have a vauge idea as to whether the executive is running amok or not. That carte blanche wasn't carte blanche enough. This isn't about security and civil rights, FISA permits civil rights to be obliterated in the name of security all for the low, low price of a sealed letter to a FISA judge an a senator or two.

[Adam]

That is an urban myth.

 

Urban Myth

 

It is a story that just won't seem to die, like Mikie and the pop rocks.

551715[/snapback]

The Washington Post is a credible source.....right up there with the Boston Globe.

 

Not to say that that specific story may or may not have truth to it.

[bobblehead]

Yep, I don't love the country. I'm glad we cleared that up.

551502[/snapback]

 

Ok, ok. We get it. It's clear that you are not the "give me liberty or give me death" type, you are more the submissive type. To each his own.

 

I will say, though, your proclivity to resort to hypothetical situations regarding "the terrorists" and their phone habits also make it clear that you watch too many action movies.

[Adam]

Ok, ok. We get it. It's clear that you are not the "give me liberty or give me death" type, you are more the submissive type. To each his own. 

 

I will say, though, your proclivity to resort to hypothetical situations regarding "the terrorists" and their phone habits also make it clear that you watch too many action movies.

551733[/snapback]

No- you are wrong on that (well, I do like the movies! )

 

I am all for give me liberty or give me death, but I am also for the greater good of the country first.

 

I try not to pigeionhole myself based on the beliefs of other, or the 2 comical politicized parties.

 

If we risk giving the terrorists aid, we have to do everything we can to preserve our country- that is the only way we can teach those types of people that they have to live the right way.

[Adam]

The defense of Bush on this is getting increasingly ridiculous.  The notion that he has any legal authority at all to do what he did is almost laughable.  Worse, there was no need.  He could tap anyone he wanted for any reason for a whole year without having to ask anyone for permission, a court order or a warrant.  All he had to do was to inform the classified Fisa court and a few congressional committee heads so that the other branches of government at least have a vauge idea as to whether the executive is running amok or not.  That carte blanche wasn't carte blanche enough.  This isn't about security and civil rights, FISA permits civil rights to be obliterated in the name of security all for the low, low price of a sealed letter to a FISA judge an a senator or two.

551715[/snapback]

 

For a whole year- thats my problem right there- are we suddenly safe at the end of that year. Until we exterminate the terrorists, they are still there, and dont dissapear after a year. I don't want to see thousands more innocent people die like they did five years ago.

[Alaska Darin]

No- you are wrong on that (well, I do like the movies! )

 

I am all for give me liberty or give me death, but I am also for the greater good of the country first.

 

I try not to pigeionhole myself based on the beliefs of other, or the 2 comical politicized parties.

 

If we risk giving the terrorists aid, we have to do everything we can to preserve our country- that is the only way we can teach those types of people that they have to live the right way.

551761[/snapback]

The "greater good of the country" is what politicians use to get people like you to give up your freedoms a little bit at a time.

 

The reason the war on terror exists has everything to do with our government having too much power in the first place. There's little doubt giving them more will only lead to disaster, not solace. But we can ignore history and pretend everything is puppies and flowers.

[X. Benedict]

I am all for give me liberty or give me death, but I am also for the greater good of the country first.

 

 

551761[/snapback]

Liberty dies at the feet of this kind of Utilitarianism. Especially when the greater good = security. Constitutional protections and checks and balances are meant to limit our government, not empower it. But of course if you want to subordinate liberty to threats real or imagined, there are safer countries to live in.

[KRC]

The US one?  Not unless you think it is implied.

common defence, maybe...

551712[/snapback]

 

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

 

From FindLaw, for those who are interested:

Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government,  the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution.  ''Its true office,'' wrote Joseph Story in his COMMENTARIES, ''is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, 'to provide for the common defense.' No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted?''

 

Linky Thingy

[X. Benedict]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

 

From FindLaw, for those who are interested:

Linky Thingy

551936[/snapback]

I think that the statement: the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government is what I was trying to get at, though not very well. Adam's point seemed to be that the Constitution itself obviated the need for the Patriot Act because of powers already delineated. This is far overreaching.

 

 

Good post.

[KRC]

I think that the statement:  the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government is what I was trying to get at, though not very well. Adam's point seemed to be that the Constitution itself obviated the need for the Patriot Act because of powers already delineated. This is far overreaching.

Good post.

551945[/snapback]

 

I wanted to especially emphasize the part about the creation of powers.

[Adam]

The "greater good of the country" is what politicians use to get people like you to give up your freedoms a little bit at a time.

 

The reason the war on terror exists has everything to do with our government having too much power in the first place.  There's little doubt giving them more will only lead to disaster, not solace.  But we can ignore history and pretend everything is puppies and flowers.

551908[/snapback]

Some people may be robots- but thats not why I believe in the war on terror- I'm not one of those CNN or Fox watching idiots that believes everything thr politically slanted media spoon feeds them....These animals need to be disposed of. And the sense of comfort that makes us think we're safe right now is what caused 9/11....not the Clinton Administration, and not the Bush Administration- our own stupidity

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

The defense of Bush on this is getting increasingly ridiculous.  The notion that he has any legal authority at all to do what he did is almost laughable.  Worse, there was no need.  He could tap anyone he wanted for any reason for a whole year without having to ask anyone for permission, a court order or a warrant.  All he had to do was to inform the classified Fisa court and a few congressional committee heads so that the other branches of government at least have a vauge idea as to whether the executive is running amok or not.  That carte blanche wasn't carte blanche enough.  This isn't about security and civil rights, FISA permits civil rights to be obliterated in the name of security all for the low, low price of a sealed letter to a FISA judge an a senator or two.

551715[/snapback]

 

Tell that to Time magazine: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/03/bus...tion=cnn_latest

 

Even though I disagree with the wiretaps, they apparently ARE defensible. Legally defensible, no less.