I think I'm in love with you 98CoupeV6 ... well, my hubby might have a problem with that but I've always been attracted to articulate, smart men. The fact that I agree with you just adds to it all. (I'm not getting involved in this. I just couldn't help commenting.)

 

:chuckles: Don't tell me your husband is a liberal! My girlfriend is Canadian, so, uh, yeah. Political discussions are pointless but it keeps me sharp. We won't tell anyone :rick:

 

No ... thankfully he's on the same page as me. He'd understand why I'm drawn to you though. :love: Ha!

Seriously though, I'd better stop as this wee discussion is not on topic. Sorry for the diversion -- we all need those sometimes though.

Take care,
Erika
(I drive a 96 GSR that I still love and had since it was new.)

 

Damn Chris way to go!!!

Simply put, if you call Al Qaeda or they call you I want my government to know about it.

Besides, these are not wiretaps that you see in the movies where men in black sit outside your house in a flower delivery van. Computer programs log all the calls in the US and then the ones that meet certain criteria get flagged and then monitored. As long as you are doing nothing illegal...or more important something suspicous in a terrorsit sort of way...there is nothing to worry about.

Democrats make a stink when an Arab company is going to run ports where the security is going to remain under US government control yet argue against a clear cut method of preventing further terrorist attacks on American soil. There is a word for this...wait....its coming to me....oh yeah...PATHETIC!

As for the original topic Feingold voted AGAINST the Patriot Act...pretty clear to me where he stands on protecting this country.

 

I think you've misunderstood the scope of the case. At issue is a warrant issued by the FISA court. In the warrant, the court placed specific limits on the way the information was to be gathered and shared. The investigating agency was appealing to remove the limitations within the warrant. The case wasn't about the general legality of the FISA court, but rather whether or not they had the authority to include limitations inside the warrant. This sentence from the conclusion should clarify the point:

"we reverse the FISA court’s orders in this case to the extent they imposed conditions on the grant of the government’s applications, vacate the FISA court’s Rule 11, and remand with instructions to grant the applications as submitted and proceed henceforth in accordance with this opinion."

"Many Democrats and some Republicans have disagreed with the president's authorization of the National Security Agency to spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant."
Quoted from http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/24/nsa.strategy/

To say nothing of the fact that the evidence is all tainted. Any intelligence gathered from a warrantless wiretap is inadmissable in court, and thus cannot be used to arrest and prosecute a terrorist.

By the way -- the House of Representatives is actually part of the United States Congress.

There are lots of ways to police the subways and prevent terrorism that don't involve unconstitutional, illegal searches.

Posting pictures of horrible things was not an answer to the question, unless you're trying to say that the government is entitled to engage in any and all egregious behavior because bad shit happened. I would disagree with that, but you feel free to elaborate before I jump to any conclusions.

You're arguing with the wrong person on that. For the hundredth time, I do believe you have a right to own firearms.

I don't understand how you can cling so tightly to a gun as your check on the government's power and reject the judicial branch's checks on the president's power. It doesn't make any sense.

The legal definition is the one that matters here. For the record, its "To have knowledge of facts which, although not amounting to direct knowledge, would cause a reasonable person, knowing the same facts, to reasonably conclude the same thing."

But its beside the point, which is that our government is supposed to be built of checks and balances in order to prevent the abuses of power that historically are so easy for a monarchy to perpetrate. This is really about George W. Bush and his belief in unitary executive theory. Our government is set up to prevent the unitary executive, but Bush sure doesn't care.

His use of signing statements, for example, is infuriating. He signed anti-torture legislation and attached a signing statement that said, basically "except I'll do it anyway if I want to." He thinks he's above the law, or is too stupid to understand the consequences of his actions.

 

How does obtaining a warrant stop the government from knowing about it?

The company in question is Dubai Ports World, wholly owned by the government of United Arab Emirates. In other words, the government of the UAE would have a degree of control over the ports. Is that really acceptable to you? A foreign government having any degree of control over American ports sounds like a good idea to you?

 

For arguments sake lets say the FISA courts do not approve a warrant to listen to certain conversations. And to continue the argument lets say they are wrong and did not prevent a terrorist attack. Would it not be better to have listened without a warrant?

There still has not been any argument put forth that any rights have been violated by innocent American civilians.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...t_of_dp_world/

The above link has a right wing slant to it but it is the best I can find at the moment. DPW's Website appears to be down. Irregardless it does highlight the point that I want to make and that is that the senior management is American with a European sprinkled in. Duabai and these managers are in it to make money, not promote terrorism.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...rts-flap_x.htm

Security is still handled by the US, and while a debate over the level of security is applicable, trying to make it seem like Dubai would have control is false.

As you can see Dubai would not be the first foreign owner of the ports deal...where is the outrage over the other foreign countries that own interests in the ports?

 

What don't you understand:

About that?

Nice job getting off track with your anti-Bush liberal talking points about how stupid he is and how everything he does is wrong Are we debating the constitutionality of the wiretapping program, or how shitty Bush is?

There's absolutely no point in debating with you. You're a typical left wing lunatic with your own agenda. Your 'arguments' are full of personal opinion. I don't see any basis in fact or reality from your side dude.

 

So what you're saying is that it's better to violate the rights of the people and avoid the due process of law because if we don't a terrorist attack might occur?


Now then... which country will you be protecting with this strategy? Because it won't be the United States of America when we're done implimenting this policy. More like the United States of East Germany. Someone call the Stasi.

 

Here's the pertinent SCOTUS ruling
Which, in summary
I'm not going to argue everything again, but if the warrantless wiretaps Bush put in place affected any US citizens, no matter how suspicious they may be, he has violated the US Constitution, which, to me, does warrant at least investigation, if not impeachment.

Whether these rights expand to foreigners in the United States is a little more tricky. The 4th amendment is not explicit in whether it applies to non citizens of the US, but the 14th amendment explicitly "individuals", not "citizens," so it could be argued that due process is a right of any person charged in the US. However, this argument is much more tenuous, and I feel that in light of the last 5 years, monitoring of foreign nationals is not necessarily inappropriate.

Bottom line is that I would like to know the full extent of these wiretaps, and if US citizens were involved.