| Author | Message | ||
     Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1022 Registered: 9-2004 |
You Bush Regime supporters go for this? | ||
| Grrrrrrrrrrr Citizen Username: Oldsctls67 Post Number: 412 Registered: 11-2002  |
In the name of fighting terrorism, yes. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1990 Registered: 8-2003  |
I guess it's ok now that all the evildoers are Muslim. how many of us might have been under surveillance when the IRA was blowing up stuff, do you think? | ||
| Duncan Supporter Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 5996 Registered: 12-2001  |
What is the point of our constitution and bill of rights if warrentless searches are ok? Kind of defeats the whole purpose of our freedoms. Why then should we be in such a hurry to spread democracy and freedom if our own is under assault. | ||
| Grrrrrrrrrrr Citizen Username: Oldsctls67 Post Number: 415 Registered: 11-2002 |
Duncan, you're acting like this has never happened before. I'm not using the "but it happened before so it's OK" defense, but I really think it's an overstatement that individual rights and freedoms have been eroding since 1940 or so... | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1991 Registered: 8-2003 |
maybe I'm wrong, but I don't know of another time in our history when a president brazenly admitted doing such a thing, said he will continue to do it, and a sizeable proportion of our citizens applauded it. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2635 Registered: 6-2002 |
How hard is it to get a search warrant, especially in a "terrorism" case? Don't you think the law enforcement offficers investigating "terrorism" have the phone numbers of Judges who can authorize warrants over the phone or can sign them via fax? Doesn't FISA authorize retroactive warrants? I think the administration's proponents of wireless searches have another agenda. | ||
| The SLK Effect Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1112 Registered: 10-2005 |
anon- Which is? Please, the suspense is killing me... -SLK | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10976 Registered: 5-2001 |
Watergate II? Seriously, the bar for obtaining a warrant in national security cases is pretty low. Any administration that wouldn't comply with the rules probably have other items on their agenda. JFK loved the juicy tidbits H. Edgar fed him. LBJ spied on his poltical enemies under the guise of national security. Nixon carried the whole thing to its illogical conclusion. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4571 Registered: 5-2001 |
What if the current administration wanted an America where power and wealth are concentrated in fewer hands, where government operates in league with wealthy corporations in secrecy to further that aim, and where dissent is marginalized and the public is kept in line by fear? If that were so, what would they be doing differently than they are now? | ||
| Duncan Supporter Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 6000 Registered: 12-2001 |
actually grrrrrrrrrrr, I am not. as many have noted, getting a warrant for a terrorist suspect is pretty freaking easy. So easy in fact that there should be no need to engage in warrantless searches. But beyond that...how much power do you want the president to have? Cause that is the underlying question. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1027 Registered: 9-2004 |
Righ on, Brother TOM, Very well said. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2640 Registered: 6-2002 |
SLK: I said I "thought" they had another agenda. I didn't say I knew what it was. But tom has a pretty good theory. Why do you think they engage in Warrantless searches? Are they just too lazy to get Warrant? | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 99 Registered: 1-2006 |
Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, shut down newspapers, threw editors in jail, arrested Maryland State legislators and orchestrated an election to ensure a pro-union outcome. He also wanted to arrest the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but no one was willing to execute the warrant. I'm not a fan of Mr. Bush, but if NASCAR sponsored an Abuse-of-Power 500, he wouldn't have pole position. Cheers | ||
| Grrrrrrrrrrr Citizen Username: Oldsctls67 Post Number: 419 Registered: 11-2002 |
Excellent analogy 3-ring...I go into one of the old Ballantine Buildings on Ferry Street all the time... | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 100 Registered: 1-2006 |
Grrrrrrrr, Thank you. Ballantine was my favorite beer back when I was in high school. Some years ago I took a refrigeration course taught by the former chief engineer at Ballantine. May I ask what you do when you go into the old buildings on Ferry Street? Cheers PS Do you know what qualities the 3 rings stand for? (Without Googling) | ||
| Grrrrrrrrrrr Citizen Username: Oldsctls67 Post Number: 423 Registered: 11-2002 |
I work in the clothing business and a place I do business with has a warehouse on the 2nd floor of one of the old buildings. They have a mosaic ballantine design in the floor of the lobby. Purity, body, flavor...Had to google it, sorry. Started out drinking Bud in cans, and then graduated to Natty-Bo in college. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4574 Registered: 5-2001 |
You've got to admit, the Civil War was rather a more urgent and serious threat than what we face now. It's not like anything that terrorist organizations can do to destroy the United States. Also, the Constitution explicitly allows the suspension of habeus corpus in times of "rebellion or invasion." | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4575 Registered: 5-2001 |
Anyway, those willing to give up our civil liberties need to stop being so afraid. Sure, 9/11 was scary. But so was the cold war. Don't let your fear overwhelm your reason. There are many, many ways you could die or be seriously injured that are far more likely, and yet you willingly take those risks. | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 102 Registered: 1-2006 |
Tom, You said: Also, the Constitution explicitly allows the suspension of habeus corpus in times of "rebellion or invasion." This is true, but it appears in Article I, which covers Legislative responsibilities, not Article II, which covers the Executive. President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus on his own authority, which did not meet with universal approval. This is what almost got Chief Justice Taney arrested when he pointed this out. There seems to be precedent in common law that suspension would be a legislative prerogative. Lincoln later strong-armed the Congress into ratifying his decision, so I guess the point was mooted. Anyway, if the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully, there would have been no need to suspend habeas corpus. I do agree with you that the Civil War (or War between the States) was more serious than anything a modern-day terrorist could do to harm us. Cheers | ||
| Blew Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 1359 Registered: 10-2004  |
Well I don't know a couple of powerful nuclear bombs in key cities MIGHT have a higher body count and longer term destruction to our country and the worlds ecology than the civil war. (Just playing devils advocate -- especially since I don't want to give up my civil liberties to give President Bush more power). | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4576 Registered: 5-2001 |
3ring, good point about Congress' responsibility for habeus corpus, I'd missed that. Blew, the physical destruction could well be worse (though remember the body count was pretty high for the civil war) but there's no danger of the U.S. ceasing to exist as we know it. Unless of course, we bring it on ourselves by surrendering our liberties. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1029 Registered: 9-2004 |
DId we give up our civil Liberties in the cold war? Not like we have after 9-11. Whats worse? A USSR first strike with 10k nukes, or 9-11. Its totally not proportional | ||
| Blew Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 1363 Registered: 10-2004 |
Ummmmm... 600 thousand died (edited after Guy told me how stupid I was) in the Civil War (I googled and still typed the wrong number) is the figure we are trying to beat here? Now what is the total population of Manhattan, San Francisco, Washington, Chicago, L.A. and throw in a few more densely populated cities? Bigger than 6.2 for sure. AND...what about the fallout that would affect all of the surrounding areas. Also consider the long term affects. I'm sorry but a coordinated nuclear attack would probably have a higher body count AND longer term inpact (some areas might not be habitable for hundreds? thousands? of years). Would the U.S. survive an attack of that scale...? I really don't know. If I survived the blast, I feel pretty confident that I would take my family as far away from the US as possible, and I'm sure millions of other people would too. Where would you be safe I wonder? | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1672 Registered: 8-2004  |
Alley, I think you added an extra zero by mistake. The Civil War casualties were north of 600K. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4579 Registered: 5-2001 |
...and with this very threat hanging over us for forty years of the cold war, we never gave up our constitutional rights. What we need to prevent a coordinated nuclear attack is the means to keep the nukes out in the first place (port security, anyone) and the ability to effectively monitor the chatter surrounding such an attempt. Listening to a few more wires isn't going to do it if we're not analyzing what we're getting now in a timely way. If we un-make the American system, what are we saving? Don't panic. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1517 Registered: 5-2001 |
You are more likely to be killed by lightening than you are to be offed by a terrorist. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13054 Registered: 1-2003  |
Grrrrrrrrrrr wrote: In the name of fighting terrorism, yes. Until what, or until when? That's not a flippant question. Either it's a suspension of our civil rights, or it's an abolishment. If it's a suspension, what event or time will define the end of the suspension? Terrorism is a technique. It will not be defeated in the way a country is defeated in a war. The defeated country says, "We lose; we give up." You won't get a statement from the United Terrorists to that effect. Ever. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4580 Registered: 5-2001 |
Funny how these same conservatives get all worked up over smoking bans, or fight to keep assault weapons on the streets, or mock consumer safety -- all things that are incalculably more likely to harm them or someone they know. Only then is the government overreaching, infringing on the basic rights of the poor business-owner. Sometimes I think that conservatives would limit the bill of rights to just one -- you have the right to make more money. | ||
| Grrrrrrrrrrr Citizen Username: Oldsctls67 Post Number: 429 Registered: 11-2002 |
Tom R, that's an excellent point. Maybe my outlook is a bit McCarthyist, but I want the world, I want my country to be a safer place. The other "Tom", you're beginning to sound like the Broken record that is Tulip...Your statements are broad generalizations. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13056 Registered: 1-2003 |
Could you be more specific please? How will we measure the safety and know that it's time to resume our civil rights? You see, without answering these questions, the suspension of civil rights is utterly unjustifiable. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1518 Registered: 5-2001 |
Grrrr, Your country is about as safe as it's going to get without imposing marshall law. If you live in a perpetual state of fear, living in a free country will be bad for your health. I'm willing to accept a small amount of risk for a great amount of freedom (which is really what we're talking about here). Unfortunately, the fear-mongers and the people who listen to them are having their way these days. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1995 Registered: 8-2003 |
some people act like we live in Baghdad, when just leaving your house means you could die before you return. ironically enough however, a lot of the Bush Admin apologists (like Cheney and Rummy), will tell you things in Iraq are a lot better than we think (hey - people in 15 provinces aren't getting blown up every day), while they tell us here in the U.S. that we should be very afraid. so just to recap: Iraq - pretty safe U.S. - very dangerous This is what the typical Bush supporter believes, yet they have the nerve to say that "libs" are silly... | ||
| The SLK Effect Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1117 Registered: 10-2005 |
tom- I am with Grrrrr, that last post was pure stupidity.... what, hangig with RL these days? -SLK | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 2692 Registered: 12-2001  |
In every case where standards of civil liberty are breached, it is justified as "necessary". So saying "oh, I'm for it only when it is necessary" is really saying nothing. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1520 Registered: 5-2001 |
I agree with themp when he is right. | ||
| Grrrrrrrrrrr Citizen Username: Oldsctls67 Post Number: 431 Registered: 11-2002 |
I never said any of those things...You guys are definitely putting words in my mouth at this point. SLK, I'm very happy to be having adult discussions WITHOUT RL these days, let's leave him out of all this and keep it that way please. A lot of this goes back to the definition of "wartime". Are we at war now, with no clear-cut enemy? Or are we NOT at war now, since there is no clear-cut enemy? People on both sides get pretty liberal with this depending on how it suits their needs. I believe we are at war now, and people suspected of terrorism should be investigated. Please don't come back with the "Chicken Little rebuttal", that soon we will have no more civil liberties. It's almost as annoying as the "No Blood for Oil" argument. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13060 Registered: 1-2003 |
I believe that if we don't defend our civil liberties vigilantly and constantly, they will most certainly erode. I can't prove that, though. Well, maybe I could if I dragged out some history, but I won't bother. Anyway, you have declined to define the end of this so-called wartime, which means you have declined to justify the suspension of our fourth amendment rights. Failure to justify it is a very serious violation by our government, and you have failed to defend such a deplorable action. That's because it is an indefensible action. Remember, this is supposed to be a nation of laws, not men. The fact that you trust Bush doesn't mean we should trust all presidents. I'm sure you can list at least one person you wouldn't trust as president. Laws should be in place that restrict the actions of all conceivable presidents, not just the "bad" ones. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 956 Registered: 10-2004  |
War on Terror, war on poverty and war on drugs are all the same kinds of 'war' and are not actual wars. Wars are fought against soveriegn nations - Iraq war, Afghanistan war but not against a tactic. Its a misnomer and it is wrong every time its used. | ||
| Innisowen Citizen Username: Innisowen Post Number: 1734 Registered: 3-2004 |
Grrrrrrr: I quote you. "Please don't come back with the "Chicken Little rebuttal", that soon we will have no more civil liberties. It's almost as annoying as the "No Blood for Oil" argument." The No Blood for Oil argument that you dislike may be something that we could work on and agree about. If we are going to spill or shed blood for oil, and even Kevin Phillips believes we are so doing, then I'd like to see some young Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld family members stepping up to the plate, volunteering to put themselves in harm's way, dodging a few bullets or evading an IED for a change. Once I see family members of the current administration in desert camo and serving in Iraq, then I will be more favorably disposed to the president's campaign to "spread freedom and democracy." That's not happening. It looks as though the family members are happy to stand off to the side when their dads make the speeches, but they aren't happy to stand behind mud walls when the bullets are flying. |
