Welcome to PatsFans.com

Conservatives Against Illegal Spying

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by All_Around_Brown, Feb 6, 2006.

  1. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

  2. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,490
    Likes Received:
    22
    Ratings:
    +26 / 0 / -4

    My Jersey:

    Balderdash, the American people support it, if somebody is planning on killing them they want to know about it.

    Abraham Lincoln would shoot Harry Reid for treason. Can you imagine telling Lincoln not to "SPY" on the South. :bricks:
  3. gomezcat

    gomezcat It's SIR Moderator to you Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,551
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    One is left wondering who will be left in his camp in three years' time. The words duck and lame come to mind. May I be first to call these people anti-American, freedom-hating, do gooder, liberals? :D
  4. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +40 / 2 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #24 Jersey
    I've been anti-Bush for several years due to his massive spending, like the prescription drug addition to medicare, but I have no problem with the wire tapping. If we want the government to be able to stop things we need them to be able to discover things.
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2006
  5. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,247
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    The government, yes, but the president should not be allowed to make law; otherwise, we're a dictatorship, perhaps a benign one, but a dictatorship nonetheless. Our founders created a system of checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power. No one denies the government may need special powers in order to fight terrorism, but for the president to simply usurp those powers creates a dangerous precedent that could lead to all sorts of abuse.
  6. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    As long as its legal for the Admin to get the warrant up to 72 hours after starting to eavesdrop, there's no legitimate reason for Bush to be breaking the law.
  7. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Since when have the "American people" been one voice? Seems like lots & lots & lots of American people find this reprehensible.
    Lots of differences there. That's called a "fallacy".
  8. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    wow...thats radical. You don't care much for the US constitutions 4th amendment huh?
  9. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +40 / 2 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #24 Jersey
    I have relatives in England, the government can pick up the phone and listen in all they want. I'll give that up if it increases the chance a little bit that next time I get on a plane it's not blown out of the sky. Life's full of give and take, this give is worth the take for me.
  10. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    But Harry, that was a WAR with a real enemy army.
  11. DIXIE

    DIXIE Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Real enemy army :confused:
  12. patriotspride

    patriotspride Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    4,214
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    have some bricks :bricks:
  13. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I'll take that as a yes. You will sacrifice the 4th amendment for a little feeling of security. (I wonder if gomezcat has seen any bombings in his country lately, considering that is your argument)

    How about the second amendment. Does England have one of those? Would you give that one up to?

    How about the first? Would you be fine if they just banned the internet and jail people for wearing T-shirts with political statements?
  14. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Yup. You know: Real army enemy of traitor bastids trying to break up the country who ended up gettin they buts wooped but good. As opposed to a ragtag band of un-uniformed, 19th century technology weilding terrorists...Isn't that the image the government gives us?
  15. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    You're trying to convince him of your view by mocking him? Belichickfan has a very valid fear about security, and it's always about trying to find a balance between competing interests: it's never as clear cut as yes you would or wouldn't sacrifice the 4th amendment.
  16. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +40 / 2 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #24 Jersey
    I didn't say I'd give up the entire 4th amendment. But listening in on international calls, one side of which is in the U.S. is fine with me. Everyone says "the government needs to stop these things before they happen" but they don't want to give them the tools. Like this. And racial profiling. I'm not saying all Arabs should be put in jail but they should be more heavily profiled than me or some old lady. We have to be smart about things and this small piece of the 4th amendment is sacrificeable to me.
  17. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    The question is "how far until the tools go too far?" The system we have in place under our legal framework allows the President to wiretap somebody for up to 72 hours (in intelligence investigations, not criminal ones) before obtaining a court order. He can then get the court order from the top-secret FISA court (by the way, there is always a FISA judge on-call, day or night). The FISA court doesn't have a public record or publish opinions, and the hearings are classified. It consists of federal judges and is a bona fide Article III court (meaning it has the right to act as part of the Judicial branch of the United States, unlike some administrative courts). Through the end of 2004, 18,761 warrants were granted, while just five were rejected (many sources say four).

    It seems like the President has the tools and the discretion to do his job already, but with a few safeguards that don't seem all that trite. Abuse of power is real, and it ALWAYS happens. I think recently the scales been tipping toward complacency, and I don't like the always-slippery slope.
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2006
  18. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    It most DEFINITELY is as clear-cut as yes or no when it comes to the Bill of Rights - particularly the 4th Amendment, and particularly when there's a perfectly workable mechanism in place to enable the security apparatus to function under the intact constitutional gauranty.

    I just LMFAO when I hear people say it's OK to let a peice of our freedom go down the john so we can "feel safe". That small piece of your rights will not come back UP the toilet EVER. You need a warrant to conduct a search.
  19. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    No, it's not as clear cut as "sacrifice the 4th amendment" because the 4th amendment, like the rest of the constitution, is written in broad language as a collection of ideas rather than am exact step-by-step guide. Someone can say, and I think they'd be wrong, that the President under his Article I powers can evesdrop on international telephone calls. I think they can say that while still believing in the fourth amendment, they're just taking it to a certain point and we're taking it to another point.

    I do think our point better fits with the original intent most of the drafters had.
  20. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams Moderator PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,171
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    No matter how you frame this to fit the left's needs. They are only intercepting calls with the follwing creteria and only the following creteria:

    One end of the call is outside the United States AND

    One of the parties has a known tie to terrorism.

    I would be enraged if they weren't doing this!

    More phone calls are being intercepted in the United States by Nigeria scam artists (they stand by you with a scanner and "clone" your cell phone) than the NSA.
  21. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Me too, but where is the point at which encroachment on the 4th makes it invalid? Who defines that? This is, IMO, a slope I won't step on.
  22. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    And you know this how? This is not a left-right issue. I'm sure the Bushies would like to make it so, but it isn't. This is a matter of presidential power and the fundamental checks and balances that constitutes our division of power- that makes our government ruled by the people for the people.

    I don't think anyone disagrees that we need to wiretap calls. As Pujo and others mentioned though, there is a legal mechanism in place to do this.

    This mechanism came as a result of Nixon using broad presidential powers to eavesdrop on political opponents. Through Ford and Carter, it became FISA, putting courts into an oversight position over presidential abuse of power.

    There is still no justification for going around the court, in fact, it is an impeachable offense to do so. The legal argument for ignoring the law here is a very slippery slope, as Pujo said. The legal argument amounts to this: I am the president so therefore what I do is legal. How did that work out for Nixon?

    Now if the argument becomes "FISA is incapable of allowing us the tools to surveill on Al Qaeda", then by all means, use the Republican majority in Congress to fix the damn thing and simply say the president now has the power to do whatever he wants. Then take your lumps at the ballot box.

    It is reprehensible that people can accept a flagrant abuse of power such as this, a clear cut case of illegal activity by the executive branch, and still justify it with their own fear. If we allow the constitution to be amended so dramatically as a result of our fear, then Al Qaeda has already defeated us.

Share This Page