Comments on: “… the only thing outrageous about this policy is the outrage itself”

By: NC Cop

NC Cop — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 04:57:48 +0000

“If all of you dictatorial fascists want to live in a place that takes your rights away so that you can “feel” secure perhaps North Korea is a place you might want to live.”

That’s an interesting comment coming from a self proclaimed communist!

Your posts are as hypocritical as they are irrelevant, Steve, get a new show this one has run it’s course.

By: PCD

PCD — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 21:02:55 +0000

steve, my you are myopic. We are not talking about domestic spying (What are you hiding?), but communications to known terrorists outside of the country. Are you talking to terrorists, steve?

By: steve

steve — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:53:24 +0000

How about Article II, Section IV? That’s the part about Impeachment when the President breaks the law. Not showing probable cause and getting a warrant before wiretapping a person is breaking the law. That is an impeachable offense under Article II Section IV. Do you have a different understanding of Article II? Peace

By: PCD

PCD — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 19:43:36 +0000

steve, for the good of the republic, people like you must be faced down and relegated to the dust bin of history. You are wrong and ignorant of the law and religion.

Can you quote article II of the Constitution? Why do you think an act of Congress trumps the Constitution?

By: steve

steve — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 19:37:04 +0000

This is a nation of laws. If all of you dictatorial fascists want to live in a place that takes your rights away so that you can “feel” secure perhaps North Korea is a place you might want to live. The President is given limited powers except in a time of war. To be at war the Congress must pass a formal Declaration of War. In order to violate a persons “right to be secure in his person and papers” the law says you first must show “probable cause” and then have a judge or court issue a warrant. bush and Co. broke the law, in spirit and in fact, and must be impeached for the good of the Republic. Peace

By: Kevin

Kevin — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 19:17:19 +0000

Let’s focus like a laser beam (little Michael Medved language) and focus on the real problem.

No Baklava, let’s not. Everyone knows that liberals are attempting to diminish our ability to conduct the war on terror (whether they intend to or not). We, as rational people have to ignore that and move on. We have to ignore the cries of “what about the terrorist’s feelings” or whatever they are spouting at the moment. We must do whatever it takes to catch them. But we HAVE to preserve our freedoms. It’s what makes us so great.

As I said earlier, I’m willing to lose some (any, to be more precise) rights to privacy (aka secrecy) to help our country catch terrorists. I’m not willing to sacrifice any privacy to catchg a murderer, thief, or jaywalker. Do you disagree?

By: Baklava

Baklava — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:43:38 +0000

Kevin wrote, “I’m just not comfortable with the law as it stands.

I’m not comfortable with the terrorists existing.

Kevin wrote, “Again, Bush has done nothing I disagree with. I’m only hoping for a law saying he can’t do anything I would disagree with.

I’m for Bush doing what is right and the liberals not accusing Bush of doing something wrong. Let’s focus like a laser beam (little Michael Medved language) and focus on the real problem. This war on terror is being HAMPERED by the liberals and we need to start some proceedings to get them to stop.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:29:10 +0000

No, I would be happy as well if an Al-Qaeda guy was nabbed (although in this hypothetical case he wasn’t). I would also be happy if a burglar was nabbed. But I am concerned over HOW the burglar was nabbed.

I’m perfectly willing to let the government impinge on my privacy to catch terrorists. This is life or death for the nation. I am decidedly not willing to let the government encroach on my liberty for something as mundane as burglary, murder, or drug-dealing. That is coming too close to a police-state for me. Of course Bush is not using this aspect of his power for anything except terrorists. But he or any future president could. Clinton in fact did use it to nab some mobsters.

I’m just not comfortable with the law as it stands. I’m ok with spying on terrorists, possible terrorists, foreign spies and such, but the information gathered should only be used to counteract those specific crimes imo, and a law should be created saying so.

Again, Bush has done nothing I disagree with. I’m only hoping for a law saying he can’t do anything I would disagree with.

By: Baklava

Baklava — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:53:11 +0000

I read your original post and you were clear. I don’t have to accept the premise if I never have nor ever will rob anything. The accepted premise is that I would be HAPPY to be involved in helping the government catch some Al Qaida. Lord knows it’s hard enought already.

I’m guessing you wouldn’t be happy as you’d be involved in some shady things… Great country to live in huh.

Thank you for your 12:48 post.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:48:43 +0000

Steve,

Probable cause – They are suspected terrorists. So it’s probable that they are worth spying on.

End of story.

And if you need a declaration of war to understand when we are in one, you must believe the last war we fought in was in WWII.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:38:21 +0000

I must not have been clear . The reason my phone call was tapped was because they already knew about my friend being in Al Qaeda (though I did not), but they used the spy info to get me for burglary, while my now Al Qaeda friend did not get in any trouble at all, nor did they find out anything useful to terrorist prevention.

Re-read my original post if you don’t mind with this post in mind Bak. I am curious to know if you are concerned about it as I am.

By: Baklava

Baklava — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:40:59 +0000

Kevin wrote, “Say for example I call a friend of mine from years back, who has since become an Al-quaeda operative

I’d be HAPPY that I was a involved in helping the government catch Al Qaida. I might even write a book about how proud I was. That’s the difference between the Democrat obsessed (not wanting to reqaing Democrat power anytime soon) and me (who has the best interest of the U.S. at heart – not Al Qaida).

By: PCD

PCD — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:34:03 +0000

steve, you are insane.

The President has powers under Article II of the Constitution that trump your petty arguments.

By: steve

steve — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:30:08 +0000

4th ammendment-Probable cause. And the lack of a formal Declaration of War. Those are the only arguments and because bush ignored both of them he broke the law and must be impeached. And anyone who continues to support lawlessness is not a patriot. Peace

By: andrew

andrew — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:02:30 +0000

hrm. where did my comments go?

Well. I only cited to orrin’s argument about separation of powers because that’s teh issue here.