Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 45
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    369
    Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor: AF


    Anybody who rationalizes George W. Bush’s illegal use of secret,
    warrantless wiretaps against American citizens is no friend of
    democracy. They may call themselves “conservatives.” But they might with
    equal accuracy dub themselves Martians or Zoroastrians. In reality, they
    are ideologues who place party over country, enemies of the Constitution
    and its freedoms. There’s evidently no outrage they won’t rationalize so
    long as a Republican’s doing it. For reasons best left to historians,
    the Republican right has made itself captive to a brand of callow
    authoritarianism that’s found its hero in this swaggering mediocrity who
    appears invariably to draw the wrong lessons from what few scraps of
    history he knows. The last time no-warrant, presidentially authorized
    wiretaps came before the Supreme Court was 1972, courtesy of President
    Richard M. Nixon, who used the FBI to spy on political foes and famously
    decreed that “when the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.”
    The court voted 8-0 against Nixonian presumption. In his concurring
    opinion, Justice William O. Douglas quoted his illustrious predecessor,
    Justice Louis Brandeis : “Those who won our independence by revolution
    were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt
    order at the cost of liberty.”

    Here’s the Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Take a good look,
    because if Bush’s latest power grab stands, it may as well be repealed.

    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers
    and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be
    violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported
    by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
    searched and the persons or things to be seized.”

    Bush and his legal enablers hold to an extremist interpretation of the
    “commander-in-chief” clause of the U. S. Constitution that would give
    him virtually unlimited executive powers in times of war—even a “war on
    terror,” a metaphorical struggle against an abstract noun which
    theoretically could go on forever.

    It’s an absurd argument. The president commands the armed forces, not
    the United States. The Founding Fathers meant to assure civilian control
    of the military, not to establish a wartime strongman.

    It’s not much of an exaggeration to say that Bush is claiming powers
    surrendered by the English monarchy in the Magna Carta of 1215 (although
    medieval monarchs regained them ). In a nation of laws, not men,
    warrantless surveillance should be seen as the recipe for a police
    state.

    Bush asks us to trust him, our wise and benevolent leader. To
    Republicans inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, I offer this
    rebuttal : “President Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

    No, I don’t think she can be elected, either. But are you willing to
    stake your liberty on it? Because at the rate the Iraq war is spawning
    Islamic extremists, the war on terror won’t end in your lifetime or
    mine.

    If warrantless surveillance is such a swell idea, why has Bush been
    untruthful about it? “[A ] ny time you hear the United States government
    talking about wiretap, it requires—a wiretap requires a court order,” he
    said on April 20, 2004. “Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re
    talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a
    court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to
    understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in
    place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland,
    because we value the Constitution.”

    Does anybody think would-be terrorists don’t know that their phones and
    e-mails might be monitored? It’s not as if warrants are hard to get.
    Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, the government
    has three days after initiating a wiretap to notify a secret court that
    meets on demand at the Justice Department. Thousands of warrants have
    been issued, a tiny handful denied.

    But Bush evidently doesn’t want even a secret court to know who’s being
    spied on. He may have good reason. NBC News reported that the Pentagon
    is up to its old tricks. Papers obtained by the ACLU reportedly show the
    FBI gathering intelligence on a “Vegan Community Project,” People for
    the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Greenpeace and the Catholic Workers,
    all about as likely to launch a terrorist attack as my basset hound
    Fred. Even worse, police states don’t even work. As one-time Soviet
    dissident Vladimir Bukovsky explained in a recent Washington Post column
    about torture, lawlessness drives out talented investigators and floods
    the system with bad information. “In its heyday,” he wrote, “Joseph
    Stalin’s notorious NKVD (the Soviet secret police ) became nothing more
    than an army of butchers terrorizing the whole country but incapable of
    solving the simplest of crimes.” I’m with Ben Franklin : “Those that
    would give up essential liberty in pursuit of a little temporary
    security deserve neither liberty nor security.”

    GENE LYONS, Arkansas Democrat Gazette
    Havin'a good time is what life is all about.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    400
    Hey I remember Fred the basset hound from Smokey and the Bandit .
    is this really happening or not

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    369
    I love it when he runs over the bikes at the red-neck bar...Whoo-Hooo!
    Havin'a good time is what life is all about.

  4. #4
    Sick liberal propoganda! (stomach turning, nausea setting in, feeling annoyed)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    4,917
    Originally posted by ryan_the_furnace_guy
    Sick liberal propoganda! (stomach turning, nausea setting in, feeling annoyed)
    Good, because the right wing propaganda induces the same nausea, and sick feeling in my stomach...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    369
    The truth hurts...especially when it slowly dawns on the most patiotic that their loyalty has been rewarded with the betrayal of our countries most basic foundation of law ... it's no wonder your stomach is turning.

    Here's the 4th amendment again:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers
    and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be
    violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported
    by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
    searched and the persons or things to be seized.”

    Get sick and purge the lies and self-delusion from your body...only then will you truly be free.AF

    Havin'a good time is what life is all about.

  7. #7
    Originally posted by addfreon
    The truth hurts...especially when it slowly dawns on the most patiotic that their loyalty has been rewarded with the betrayal of our countries most basic foundation of law ... it's no wonder your stomach is turning.

    Here's the 4th amendment again:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers
    and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be
    violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported
    by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
    searched and the persons or things to be seized.”

    Get sick and purge the lies and self-delusion from your body...only then will you truly be free.AF

    I would rather live in a nazi death camp than your politically-erect devoid-of-soul society.

  8. #8
    Originally posted by ryan_the_furnace_guy
    I would rather live in a nazi death camp ...
    You may just get your chance here shortly.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    369
    Continue with the self delusional belief in a man like george bush above the constitutional backbone of this great republic and your wish may come true(re-education camp)


    I wonder what your defintion of "souless" is, though?

    The freedoms enumerated in flawless language and natural poetry of the preamble and "bill of rights" are soul-less to you...I guess you belive the current president is a great inspirational orator?

    Jeez..dude....walk out of the yellow rain...
    Best of Luck....AF

    Havin'a good time is what life is all about.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Posts
    68,981
    If you are not free enough to give up a few freedoms in order to preserve your freedoms in general, then you do not deserve to be free.

    We must work for our freedoms, and that sometimes will cost us some of our freedom. No biggy for those who are not on a list of known participants with known terrorists and don't make overseas calls to known terrorist types.

    You idiots just don't have a clue as to what needs to go on in order for you to have the freedom to condemn those who do what is needed for you to condemn them.
    Government is a disease...
    ...masquerading as its own cure…
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 NIV


  11. #11
    Originally posted by RoBoTeq
    If you are not free enough to give up a few freedoms in order to preserve your freedoms in general, then you do not deserve to be free.

    We must work for our freedoms, and that sometimes will cost us some of our freedom. No biggy for those who are not on a list of known participants with known terrorists and don't make overseas calls to known terrorist types.

    You idiots just don't have a clue as to what needs to go on in order for you to have the freedom to condemn those who do what is needed for you to condemn them.
    I think it's just a trust issue really.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Dothan, Al
    Posts
    3,453
    Originally posted by RoBoTeq
    If you are not free enough to give up a few freedoms in order to preserve your freedoms in general, then you do not deserve to be free.


    My problem with this is who decides what feedoms should be given up and to what extent they are to be preserved. I just don't trust the people asking us to give up those freedoms, they have already taken enough.

    Richard

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,406
    If you are not free enough to give up a few freedoms in order to preserve your freedoms in general, then you do not deserve to be free.
    You should enter that one into the "Let's See Who Can Contradict Themselves in One Breath the Most", contest.


Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event