Thread: Politics

I fail to understand is the root of your argument.

Are you completely against the US going to war?
or
Are you just opposed to the way we went about it?

Originally Posted by BigHub

Originally Posted by Hartman

Bush on the other hand is throwing people in jail with no trial, conducting illegal wiretaps, and blatantly disregarding international law concerning the treatment of prisoners.

Now thats bullshit, i have already discussed this.

Originally Posted by BigHub

I still think Bush was in the clear with the wire taps. Yes you need a warrant to obtain a wire tap, but when your country is in danger and is threatened.... Im pretty sure you have every right to wire tap suspected terrorists or people that are linked with terrorists.

Its kind of like, when somebody breaks into your house. You only have the right to take that persons life if they approach you in a threatening manner, or looks like he is about to harm an innocent 3rd person. I study this shit.

Or its kind of like, warrantless searches... They can be done. They can do it under exigent circumstances, vehicle searches, lawful arrests, or emergency searches. Wire tapping will fall under exigent circumstances and emergency searches.

Exigent Circumstances means somebody is about to commit or has committed a crime.

Vehicle Searches means the cops can search your car without a warrant.

Lawful Arrest means the cops can search you without a warrant if you have been placed into custody.

Emergency Searches means, well you should pretty much get it. They can search for what they are looking for, as long as its an emergency (somebody(s) life/lives are at danger).

Terrorists have committed and were about to commit a crime and this is also an emergency to the US. Therefor, giving us the right to undergo wire taps.

So what i am backing up, is that he had EVERY right to use wire taps to help defend and protect this country and the people within. What i am not defending is how he used them, did he tap innocent people? I dunno... but if he did, thats when he should get busted. He shouldn't be busted upon the fact that he is using wiretaps without a warrant, he had every right to do so.

These wire taps are to help defend this country and the people within. If something was gunna go down, wouldn't you want some intel on some shit like that, don't you want to know before hand? Too bad we didn't use wiretaps before 9/11.

And I have already responded to this (Apparently you missed the 18 point font with your name on it):

[size=18px]BigHub[/size]

Originally Posted by BigHub

And to add, If you go over to Iraq and ask the troops if they want to be there... They will say yes. 3/4 of the troops there want to be there. They know they are doing the right thing. My brother is in the military and he can't wait to go...

Well, I watch a show on the Discovery Times Channel called “Over There�, and I have to disagree with you. Most of the soldiers they interview aren’t real sure what they are suppose to be doing, and really just want to come home. There are plenty who are gung-ho and ready to stay, but there are more who’d rather be home.

Originally Posted by BigHub

I still think Bush was in the clear with the wire taps. Yes you need a warrant to obtain a wire tap, but when your country is in danger and is threatened.... Im pretty sure you have every right to wire tap suspected terrorists or people that are linked with terrorists.

When has this country ever not been threaten? This country was under direct threat the day The Constitution was written.

And by the logic that The White House is using, everyone in America is linked to a terrorist. It’s like that game “Seven Degrees of Kevin Bacon�. There are very few actors who can’t be linked within seven steps. The White House has put no limit on the number of links, so conceivably, they could link any person in America with any other person in America. That means they can spy on anybody they want.

Originally Posted by BigHub

Its kind of like, when somebody breaks into your house. You only have the right to take that persons life if they approach you in a threatening manner, or looks like he is about to harm an innocent 3rd person. I study this shit.

Well, staying with this (rather tenuous) analogy, the government is saying that it’s ok to shoot the person in your house because they look like the type of person who might harm someone, not because they are actually moving to do something.

Originally Posted by BigHub

Or its kind of like, warrantless searches... They can be done. They can do it under exigent circumstances, vehicle searches, lawful arrests, or emergency searches. Wire tapping will fall under exigent circumstances and emergency searches.

Exigent Circumstances means somebody is about to commit or has committed a crime.

Vehicle Searches means the cops can search your car without a warrant.

Lawful Arrest means the cops can search you without a warrant if you have been placed into custody.

Emergency Searches means, well you should pretty much get it. They can search for what they are looking for, as long as its an emergency (somebody(s) life/lives are at danger).

Terrorists have committed and were about to commit a crime and this is also an emergency to the US. Therefor, giving us the right to undergo wire taps.

Ok, so get a FISA warrant. You can get one retro-actively, after the tapping is already done. And, by all measures, the FISA court is a rubber stamp, so it’s not like the White House actually had to worry about being denied a critical wire tap.

So why didn’t the White House play by the rules? The ONLY answer I can think of for the White House to want to circumvent the FISA court is because the FISA court has to send a report to Congress every year showing how many wire taps it has authorized. We already know that that number has quadrupled in the years since 9/11. So, just how many wiretaps are we talking about? Perhaps we’re talking about so many wiretaps, the FISA court couldn’t possibly keep up. Perhaps we’re talking about so many wiretaps, that the report sent to Congress would have be incendiary. If that’s the case, then I can’t see any way that the NSA wouldn’t be stepping all over American civil liberties.

Originally Posted by BigHub

So what i am backing up, is that he had EVERY right to use wire taps to help defend and protect this country and the people within. What i am not defending is how he used them, did he tap innocent people? I dunno... but if he did, thats when he should get busted. He shouldn't be busted upon the fact that he is using wiretaps without a warrant, he had every right to do so.

Actually, that right was expressly taken away by Congress in the 1978 FISA act. This President thinks he is above the law. Plain and simple.

Originally Posted by BigHub

These wire taps are to help defend this country and the people within. If something was gunna go down, wouldn't you want some intel on some shit like that, don't you want to know before hand? Too bad we didn't use wiretaps before 9/11.

You bet. You could put the information in a Presidential Daily Brief with a real catchy heading like “Bin Laden Determined to Attack within U.S.�.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." – Benjamin Franklin

Your move.

Originally Posted by BigHub

Why are you worried about wire taps?, you should only be worried if your a terrorist... are you hiding anything?

I vocally oppose The Bush Administration. By some standards, wouldn't that make me "An Enemy of The State"? I rank myself as a Texan first and an American second. I could be labeled a “separatist�. Uh-oh, looks likes I’m a target for the next round of NSA wiretaps. Or maybe I should just get a visit in person.

Here’s the point: You don’t know how The Bush Administration is determining who is a terrorist and who isn’t. It’s all to easy to turn that executive power against legitimate political opponents. Think it can’t happen here in America? Two words for you: Richard Nixon.

Originally Posted by BigHub

Please, tell me im wrong. I want you too.

Ok. You are wrong. At no point is it ok to justify encroachment on the civil liberties of Americans. People call it “Un-American� to dissent against the current administration. Just remember, there were good Germans who stayed silent as Nazis began to burn books. I have more fear of the enemy within than of terrorists, and if you read The Constitution and The Bill of Rights, you’ll realize that the founding fathers were too.

Originally Posted by BigHub

Throwing people in jail without trial? *cough* BULLSHIT *cough*... Name one person who has been thrown in jail without a trial... Plus Bush isn't the one who puts people in jail.

Jose Padilla. And yes, Jose Padilla has been held without trial for over three years, by executive order signed by the president. Jose Padilla is AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. PERIOD. For over a year, he was denied his habeas corpus rights and his right to counsel. When he was finally able to get a lawyer (commissioned by his family through the ACLU) she was not allowed to see him or even know the charges being levied against him. Through a heroic effort I can’t even begin to imagine, his lawyer was able to appeal his case to the Supreme Court. Two weeks before the court was to here the case, the Bush Administration attempted to transfer Mr. Padilla out of military custody and into federal custody. This was a blatant attempt to circumvent to high court by making Mr. Padilla’s case a “non-issue� to the court. The Bush administration didn’t want to have it’s conduct reviewed and ruled upon by any court. Currently, Mr. Padilla has been sent to federal prison and awaits charges. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CHARGES THAT WHAT HE WAS ORIGINALLY HELD FOR..

The Bush administration has played a shell game with at least one man’s freedom. They denied him counsel, a speedy trial, and they would have held him indefinitely if the ACLU hadn’t forced the issue through the courts.

And now a second case has come to light. I still don’t know much about the details, but it involves another US citizen by the name of Omar (first or last name unknown) who is being held in Iraq. The government claims he’s an ally of Al-Zarqawi. He claims he is a contractor who went to Iraq to help reconstruction. Here’s the kicker: The United States is trying to turn this US Citizen over to the Iraq authorities. Why would America ever turn over a US citizen to a foreign power? So that he can be tortured. That’s why.

Originally Posted by BigHub

Disregarding International Law with the treatment of prisoners? Bush had absolutely NOTHING to do with that, do they have pictures of Bush with the naked prisoners? No..... That was all acted upon free-will with the other soldiers.

Who is the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces?
Who authorized the use of “enhanced interrogation tactics�, including suffocation?
Who has argued for CIA exemptions on torture?
Who has flatly said that the Geneva Convention does not apply to prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay?
Where does the buck stop?

Bigdog is right about one thing, actions DO speak louder than words.

Hartman

Originally Posted by Dome

I fail to understand is the root of your argument.

Are you completely against the US going to war?
or
Are you just opposed to the way we went about it?

That's an excellent question Dome. Before I respond, answer one question for me:

What is the price of Freedom?




Hartman

PS - im hitting the sack now. Will do more writting tomorrow.

Originally Posted by Hartman

Like I said. A Republican Congress won't impeach a Republican President without a smoking gun. There may be a dead body on the floor, and blood all over the guy, but in that instance, they'll help cover it up. Hence all the easy questions for Gonzales.

given how many people bush has pissed off, and is still in office... nothing short of walking onto a stage dressed as hitler is going to get him tossed-out.