In article <1147857005.522938.178140@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> ray wrote:
> > In article <1147752205.635073.42870@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> [..]
> > > > If Bush were truly doing anything that can be a clear
> > > > violation of the law,
> > >
> > > What do you mean, 'if?' It's happened. He actually went on TV and
said
> > > so.
> >
> > Yes, and he also said it was discussed in detail with his legal team
who
> > assured him he was in full compliance with all laws and Constitution.
> > And this is where the "if" part comes in. His rivals are saying just
> > the opposite, that he is in violation with law and Constitution. This
> > is why the matter is controversial; it's not clear-cut. It's one
> > groups opinion over another.
>
> Wrong. It's absolutely clear-cut. Nixon tried to peddle the same ****
> you're selling, and it didn't work for him.
I'm not selling anything. I'm telling you what has been said.
> > > > the Democrats would have taken action by now--even
> > > > if it meant failure because of the Republican majority.
> > >
> > > So you're saying that Democratic inaction is proof that the
President
> > > is innocent of all charges. What a tool!
> >
> > No, what I'm saying is that they are not so certain themselves, and in
> > fact, are probably using this situation to make Bush out to be the bad
> > guy. All they have to do is make the accusation and as far as the
media
> > is concerned, whatever the Democrats say is Gospel.
>
> As far as the media is concerend, whatever the Democrats say is
> ignored.
>
> > Now if it were a clear-cut case with no doubt about it, the Democrats
> > would have already swung into action because they win either way. [..]
>
> D00d. Simply restating your position is not the same thing as
> addressing my criticism of it. You're saying that non-action by
> Democrats is proof of Bush's golden-god-hood.
>
> And that makes you a tool.
>
> > > > > > Now, we don't know what is being done with this information,
but
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > do know is that nobody has been charged or arrested with this
> > > > > > information collected. It's impossible to say what they are
doing
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > this information because it is (or supposed to be) secret.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which is precisely why it should fall under FISA and thus
> > > > > constitutionality, rather than the 'trust big government'
doctrine
> > > > > now
> > > > > prevalent.
> > > >
> > > > So we should place courts in charge of this war on terror?
> > >
> > > No, we should place the courts in charge of protecting our rights.
> > > You'd have to be an idiot to believe I even implied what you just
said.
> >
> > By giving the courts full power as to who they issue warrants for, you
> > are placing them in charge.
>
> Wrong. They are in an oversight position, not 'in charge.' As I stated,
> and which you wish to ignore, the courts would be in charge of
> protecting our rights. You're not against protecting the rights of
> Americans, are you?
You're not interested in the harm that could come from that, are you?
> > If the NSA is on to something and they do
> > know who they are listening to but can't provide enough evidence to
> > convince FISA and it ends up that we do have an attack that the courts
> > could have prevented, they are in full charge.
>
> When has that happened? You'll recall that the US intelligence
> apparatus warned the Bush administration that an attack was imminent
> shortly before 9/11 occurred, and, as far as we know, none of that
> intel was taken from American citizens without a warrant.
>
> The machine works, ray, and there's no need for any of them to break
> the law. None at all.
And you state this law has been broken with no proof. Again, this is
yet to be decided and certainly not by you or I. And it doesn't work.
This is why FISA denied a warrant for one of the hijackers. When the
NSA story came out, Bush stated that they were on to something by the
terrorists but they aborted communications once the story came out.
> > Besides, the courts are
> > a branch of the Federal Government. But what you are saying is that
you
> > trust our Judicial branch over our Executive branch to conduct the
> > protection of this country and our boys overseas. And I don't know
that
> > I'm all too comfortable with that.
>
> Yeah, because if you were, you couldn't WAVE YOUR HANDS AND SAY OH MY!
> THINGS ARE SO BAD! WE MUST GIVE THE PRESIDENT THE POWER OF A
> MOTHER****ING MONARCH!
>
> When did you first decide that you hated America? How long after 9/11
> did your irrational fear of international terrorism cause you to
> develop this hatred of the American way of life? Were there other
> side-effects such as adult-onset bed-wetting?
>
> Seriously. Why do you hate America so much that you want to permanently
> alter its system of government to be more like a banana republic?
Why do you hate America so much that you would rather chance another
terrorist attack in this country just so you can be insured that nobody
is listening to your conversation with your mother on a cordless phone?
I'm willing to sacrifice some possible privacy interruptions in my life
for these boys overseas and our citizens here. It is YOU that would
rather risk tragedy just so you can exist in comfort, not I.
--
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
|
