Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   George Bush protecting your civil liberties by breaking them
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 151 of 220 (282804)
01-31-2006 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by randman
12-27-2005 1:41 PM


Like I asked you before
Even you are right and it's the Democrats' fault that George Bush failed to get the warrants from the secret court and thus spied on Americans without court oversight, does it make what he did legal/ constitutional?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by randman, posted 12-27-2005 1:41 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Tal, posted 02-01-2006 11:18 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 174 of 220 (283276)
02-01-2006 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Tal
02-01-2006 11:18 AM


Re: Like I asked you before
It's legal to wiretap Americans without a warrant?
Since when?
I am not claiming that we shouldn't wiretap. To the contrary, I think it's quite important to have the ability to do so.
But when we start wiretapping citizens without judicial oversight, that is unconstitutional.
Our right to be free from our government secretly eavesdropping upon our private phone conversations unless they have shown to a court that there is good reason to do so is a large part of what makes the American Constitution and Bill of Rights two the most amazing freedom-protecting documents in the all of history.
How dare Bush decide he doesn't need judicial oversight to spy on us?
How dare he think he's above the constitution?
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-01-2006 07:20 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Tal, posted 02-01-2006 11:18 AM Tal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by NosyNed, posted 02-01-2006 7:48 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 175 of 220 (283282)
02-01-2006 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Tal
02-01-2006 1:28 PM


Re: Like I asked you before
quote:
I don't know what is so hard to understand about this. If you are talking to Al Qeada, we want to know about it.
And I think we should know about people doing this.
But you need to get a warrant from a judge so there is a record of you doing it, and that there is a record that you showed that there was just cause for you to do that.
The fact that the president isn't above getting a warrant is what makes us different from most of the governments we say we are different from.
Oh, and habeas corpus too, except Americans don't have that right anymore, either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Tal, posted 02-01-2006 1:28 PM Tal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by arachnophilia, posted 02-02-2006 6:14 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 183 of 220 (283348)
02-02-2006 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Tal
02-01-2006 2:24 PM


Re: Like I asked you before
Look, I want you to think long and hard about the next president. Pretend he's one of those liberals you hate. Pretend he's totally unhinged.
Think about the powers you've just put in his hands. Do you own a gun, Tal? Do you think that's something an ultra-liberal president might want to know about?
quote:
A Democrat is president. Al Qeada calls someone in the US. I still want that President's Intel to know about it.
You are thinking of this too narrowly, tal.
You are thinking of the situation and not the power.
Let's pretend that Hillary Clinton became president.
Do you want her to have the power to wiretap anyone, for any reason, without any record of it or any approval required from any court?
Bush has declared that he has the power to do this, as the President, whenever he judges it necessary.
I get that you trust his integrity 100%, but what if a president came along that you didn't trust? Do you still think it's ok for an untrustworthy president to be able to secretly wiretap Americans for any reason without any judicial oversight?
quote:
You guys complain that Bush didn't connect the dots for 911. Now you complain when we try to connect the dots.
We've all said the following multiple times, but I'll say it again, because you apparently are having trouble remembering that we said it.
WE WANT YOU TO CONNECT THE DOTS.
WE WANT YOU TO SPY ON AL QAIDA.
WE WANT YOU TO SPY ON AMERICANS IN CONTACT WITH AL QAIDA.
But, if you are going to spy on Americans, you need to get a warrant so there is judicial oversight and that there is a record that you have done it and there was just cause for you to do so.
Otherwise, it is illegal and unconstitutional.
My question is, if Bush decided to not get warrants for some of the spying he did, was that because he spied on people without probable cause?
If he had the warrant, he'd be able to show that he was justified in spying, but because he didn't get it, we have no way of knowing if he abused the ability to spy.
No president is above the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, tal.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-02-2006 07:22 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Tal, posted 02-01-2006 2:24 PM Tal has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 200 of 220 (283525)
02-02-2006 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Silent H
02-02-2006 4:54 PM


Re: We are not at War
quote:
But let's put that aside for a second, I'm curious about what you feel would be illegal for Bush to do at this point. Is there anything he could do, or be caught doing, that is a violation of law or of the Constitution?
Maybe lying about a blowjob?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Silent H, posted 02-02-2006 4:54 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by arachnophilia, posted 02-02-2006 7:16 PM nator has replied
 Message 206 by Silent H, posted 02-03-2006 5:07 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 202 of 220 (283531)
02-02-2006 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by arachnophilia
02-02-2006 7:16 PM


Re: We are not at War
My semen-stained dress is red.
Is that OK?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by arachnophilia, posted 02-02-2006 7:16 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by arachnophilia, posted 02-02-2006 7:36 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 209 of 220 (283580)
02-03-2006 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Silent H
02-03-2006 5:07 AM


Re: We are not at War
rotflmao
*then shaking my head sadly at the truth of it*

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Silent H, posted 02-03-2006 5:07 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024