Comments on: New poll finds support for warrantless wiretaps

By: PCD

PCD — Sat, 28 Jan 2006 18:46:19 +0000

GBA, Libertarians are usually the ones with pipes and a stash, not ultra conservatives.

By: Baklava

Baklava — Sat, 28 Jan 2006 05:25:30 +0000

Write more US Vet !!!!!

By: Big Bang Hunter

Big Bang Hunter — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 23:30:05 +0000

Bang, I moved your comment to this thread. --ST

By: Severian

Severian — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 22:31:45 +0000

People don’t seem to understand that the Geneva Conventions aren’t all carrot, there’s a stick in there too. As in, if you don’t sign the convention, and if you don’t abide by the rules of war and treat your prisoners by the rules of the Geneva Convention, then don’t expect to receive good treatment. Enemy combatants, under the GC, may be summarily executed when caught, if they are not wearing the uniform of a military organization. We executed German spies we captured in both the US and Europe in WWII. That’s, personally, what I’d like to see happen to most of these enemy combatants, summary execution. Regardless of what the hand wringing liberals say, it’s legal under the GC. We afford these animals more rights and priviledges than they deserve.

By: US Vet

US Vet — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 22:19:54 +0000

Okay a couple of things here.
1. The issue of exit strategy. Tell what the exit strategy for WWII was. The answer is the exit strategy is to win by defeating your enemy by either totally destroying them or they surrender. End of the exit strategy question.
2. What does Bill Clinton have to do with warrentless wire taps. This is what he has to do with it, he used warrentless wire taps and warrentless searches on spy Aldrich Ames who was caught spying for Russia. Why wasn’t he accused of violating the law? Two reasons, one, until now, not many knew about it. Two, because it was the right thing to do to stop the damage Ames was doing to the country.
3. Warrentless wire taps. First, unless you have some evidence that noone esle has, no American citizens’ rights have been violated. Wire traps are NOT being conducted on Americans talking to Americans. The wire taps are being conducted on calls from known or suspected terrorists from outside the US to numbers/persons inside the US. This falls under intelligence gathering. Article II of the Constitution and the vote in Congress give the President the power. It is not Bush’s fault if Democrats vote to give autorization on actions they do not read or understand. If you say “how do we know if he has broken the law or not” then you have to say that about every president that has held the office.
The only crime that has been committed here is the crime the person who revealed the program committed. This is absolutely a matter of national security. The terrorists do not stop plotting because we are no longer able to eavesdrop on their phone calls. The reason we can no longer eavesdrop is because since they now know, they have stopped calling and are using another means to communicate. The revealing of this program and the Democrats using it as a political weapon have now made us less safe.
4. The question of Iraq. The answer to the question is, NO, Iraq did not attack us!!! But, neither did Germany, what it wrong to declare war on Germany? Saddam was a danger to the region and the world. He could not stike the US directly, but he could give weapons (WMDs) to terrorist organizations that could bring them into the US.
5. Teorrorists. This is a war and POWs/enemy combatants do NOT fall under DUE PROCESS of the LAW. POWs fall under the Geneva Conventions. Enemy Combatants do NOT. Why, because they do not fight for a state (hence stateless) nor do they wear the uniform of a state. Terrorist organizations are NOT signatories of the Geneva Conventions, therefore they are not required to follow them. Why should we give them rights under the Geneva Conventions if they have not signed them and do not give our soldiers the rights?

By: GBA

GBA — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 21:03:16 +0000

Whatever PCD.

I was not aware that you were omnicient.
Put the pipe down pal.

By: PCD

PCD — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:54:56 +0000

GBA, you are no libertarian. A LIBERAL, yes, a Libertarian, no.

By: GBA

GBA — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:49:22 +0000

PCD

What wrong with being a Libertarian?

By: PCD

PCD — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:47:00 +0000

Bang, when a Lib says that they don’t understand…, what they are saying is that I don’t accept…, and that they won’t accept… no matter what.

By: Big Bang Hunter

Big Bang Hunter — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:38:34 +0000

- PCD – the only place in government right now that the Dems have any influence is in the Congress. So of course they’d try to extend congressional powers to limit the President. They can’t win at the ballot box, so in the same theme as what they’ve done in the past, packing the SCOTUS with Liberal activist judges to legislate from the bench for their pet unpopular socialist ideas, they seek to somehow change the seperation and balance of power. Won’t work of course, but its all they’ve got, like Hulls sudden “not understanding” when the other side has the temerity to say it like it is. Sort of: “Me no understand Jane”….”Well its like this….You Tarzan, Me Jane, no Cheetah…. *snort*

By: PCD

PCD — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:15:54 +0000

andrew, you are flat dead wrong. See my previous post to Hull.

By: Big Bang Hunter

Big Bang Hunter — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:14:41 +0000

Andrew – thats the whole point your side tries to hide behind. Certainly espionage, sabotage, sedition, any of this sort of activity can be called criminal in nature. But to then assert its a domestic criminal matter is just silly. The left hates war so much they refuse to deal or accept the realities your enemies force upon you. Of course if the left can get any traction with the “law enforcement” meme, then the next thing will be; “Well if its just criminal then there is no WOT”. Pitifully transparent. That was the same scam Clinton ran with so he could avoid really dealing with it, and you see what THAT got us. Give me a break.

- Actually the President, and our government in general has been very understated, and acted with overly much precaution in the WOT.

- If Bush had wanted too, he’d have been within his Constitutional rights to declare Marshall law when we were attacked on 9/11. If you think you’re worried now, you can’t imagine what that would be like. Curfews, travel restrictions. all sorts or “real” liberty limits, instead of these trumped up false ideas you’re putting forth.

- Bang

By: PCD

PCD — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:14:28 +0000

No Cigar, Hull, You refuse to accept the reality the Executive Branch is a CO-EQUAL branch of the government as you demand CONGRESS or the JUDICIAL branches are superior to the Executiive.

Not tomato or tomatoe, but just a Lib, you, tapdancing.

By: Big Bang Hunter

Big Bang Hunter — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:01:57 +0000

- No Hull …. its more like your opponent says “Tomato” and you respond with “alligator”.

- My statement was reffering to the topic at hand. Namely “eavesdropping on innocent Americans”, as the Liberals insist on mischaracterizing the NSA program of “counter-espionage spying on enemy, and suspected enemy combatants”, the true nature of the process.

- You cannot show a single instance, so you veer off into an entirely different area. No cigar, as your philandering darling Clinton might say.

By: andrew

andrew — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:57:52 +0000

“andrew, the President. This is a war, not a Police matter.”

And that’s your side of the argument. On my side is that its not just police matters that a neutral magistrate decides, and that there isn’t, in this case, a fine line between police work and war.