A threat from Bin Laden (possible debate)

Do I understand this right? As long as an illegal act doesn't infringe on MY rights, it's OK? And because terrorists don't pay attention to our Constitution then we don't have to either?

I'm reading such thoughts in this thread and it's really a shame.
 
richiebaseball said:
That the only one you can think of? Are you suggesting that Clinton did not lie under oath? Oh I know all about the when Clinton lied no one died line but then the same can be said of Nixon can't it?

And since I brought up Clinton, which one of you will be the first to slap my hands? "Oh you naughty boy, all you can do is blame Clinton. He's not even in office anymore." Yea, yea, yea, neither is Newt Gingrich but I'm giving even odds that many of you have brought him up in the last couple of days.

No I can think of another...Regan.
 
Judge Smails said:
No I can think of another...Regan.

Donald Regan was never President. He was Treasury Secretary and Chief of Staff under President Reagan.

Again, are you suggesting that President Clinton did not lie under oath?
 
Planogirl said:
Do I understand this right? As long as an illegal act doesn't infringe on MY rights, it's OK? And because terrorists don't pay attention to our Constitution then we don't have to either?

I'm reading such thoughts in this thread and it's really a shame.

Amazingly members of the right that claim to be the patriotic standard bearers in this country don't have a problem with a president and a party that has little regard for the Constitution. I call that un-American. By supporting this erosion of our Constitution they are in fact more comfortable with a government that centers it's power on one man rather than a system of checks and balances. That smacks of dictatorship and is decidedly un-American.
 

richiebaseball said:
Donald Regan was never President. He was Treasury Secretary and Chief of Staff under President Reagan.

Again, are you suggesting that President Clinton did not lie under oath?
Yes, Clinton lied under oath!!! He did have relations with THAT woman. Are you satisfied? Now can we move on to the current liar?
 
richiebaseball said:
Donald Regan was never President. He was Treasury Secretary and Chief of Staff under President Reagan.

Again, are you suggesting that President Clinton did not lie under oath?

No I'm not. What are you suggesting?

I guess Clinton is such a pariah that every time Bu$h gets in a jam he runs to Clinton to get him out of it. Ask the citizens of New Orleans (what's left of them) who they think did more for them Clinton or Bu$h.
 
Judge Smails said:
No I'm not. What are you suggesting?

When given an opportunity to name a President that lied under oath you responded "Nixon." When prompted there was another, you gave us "Regan (sic)". I was suggesting that you were a hypocrite. But perhaps it was only short-term memory loss.
Congratulations. Apparently your hypocrisy does indeed have bounds.



Judge Smails said:
I guess Clinton is such a pariah that every time Bu$h gets in a jam he runs to Clinton to get him out of it. Ask the citizens of New Orleans (what's left of them) who they think did more for them Clinton or Bu$h.

Okay. Any New Orleans citizens here care to tell me who did more for them, Clinton or Bush?
 
richiebaseball said:
When given an opportunity to name a President that lied under oath you responded "Nixon." When prompted there was another, you gave us "Regan (sic)". I was suggesting that you were a hypocrite. But perhaps it was only short-term memory loss.
Congratulations. Apparently your hypocrisy does indeed have bounds.









Okay. Any New Orleans citizens here care to tell me who did more for them, Clinton or Bush?

You asked and I responded, correctly, both times. Sorry if my answer didn't suit you. That is not hypocricy.
 
Aidensmom said:
If you accept illegal wiretapping and don't have a problem that it is a violation of your liberties granted by the Constitution, where exactly do you draw the line? While on the surface this may look like a good way to help combat terrorism, the acceptance of it by the citizens of the US is opening a door for other freedoms to be infringed upon. If illegal wiretapping is OK, why stop there? Would it also be OK if the government searched homes of "suspected" terrorists without a warrant? Would it still be OK if you were suspected for some reason and it was your home being searched?


Actually, they can already do that under the provisions of the PA. They still have to get a warrant, but they don't need to show any evidence to obtain that warrant as long as they say "we think they might be terrorists."
 
Now the list has expanded to include this;


Google rebuffs feds over access to search data

Bush administration wants details of what users look for

The Associated Press
Updated: 8:24 p.m. ET Jan. 19, 2006


SAN FRANCISCO - Google Inc. is rebuffing the Bush administration’s demand for a peek at what millions of people have been looking up on the Internet’s leading search engine — a request that underscores the potential for online databases to become tools for government surveillance.

Mountain View-based Google has refused to comply with a White House subpoena first issued last summer, prompting U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this week to ask a federal judge in San Jose for an order to hand over the requested records.

The government wants a list all requests entered into Google’s search engine during an unspecified single week — a breakdown that could conceivably span tens of millions of queries. In addition, it seeks 1 million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases.

In court papers that the San Jose Mercury News reported on after seeing them Wednesday, the Bush administration depicts the information as vital in its effort to restore online child protection laws that have been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yahoo Inc., which runs the Internet’s second-most used search engine behind Google, confirmed Thursday that it had complied with a similar government subpoena.

Although the government says it isn’t seeking any data that ties personal information to search requests, the subpoena still raises serious privacy concerns, experts said. Those worries have been magnified by recent revelations that the White House authorized eavesdropping on civilian communications after the Sept. 11 attacks without obtaining court approval.

“Search engines now play such an important part in our daily lives that many people probably contact Google more often than they do their own mother,” said Thomas Burke, a San Francisco attorney who has handled several prominent cases involving privacy issues.

“Just as most people would be upset if the government wanted to know how much you called your mother and what you talked about, they should be upset about this, too.”
The content of search request sometimes contain information about the person making the query.

For instance, it’s not unusual for search requests to include names, medical profiles or Social Security information, said Pam Dixon, executive director for the World Privacy Forum.

“This is exactly the kind of thing we have been worrying about with search engines for some time,” Dixon said. “Google should be commended for fighting this.”


Other search engines complied
Every other search engine served similar subpoenas by the Bush administration has complied so far, according to court documents. The cooperating search engines weren’t identified.

Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Yahoo stressed that it didn’t reveal any personal information. “We are rigorous defenders of our users’ privacy,” Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako said Thursday. “In our opinion, this is not a privacy issue.”

Microsoft Corp.'s MSN, the No. 3 search engine, declined to say whether it even received a similar subpoena. “MSN works closely with law enforcement officials worldwide to assist them when requested,” the company said in a statement.

(MSNBC.com content is distributed by MSN. MSNBC.com itself is a Microsoft - NBC joint venture.)

As the Internet’s dominant search engine, Google has built up a valuable storehouse of information that “makes it a very attractive target for law enforcement,” said Chris Hoofnagle, senior counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

The Department of Justice argues that Google’s cooperation is essential in its effort to simulate how people navigate the Web.

In a separate case in Pennsylvania, the Bush administration is trying to prove that Internet filters don’t do an adequate job of preventing children from accessing online pornography and other objectionable destinations.

Obtaining the subpoenaed information from Google “would assist the government in its efforts to understand the behavior of current Web users, (and) to estimate how often Web users encounter harmful-to-minors material in the course of their searches,” the Justice Department wrote in a brief filed Wednesday

Google — whose motto when it went public in 2004 was “do no evil” — contends that submitting to the subpoena would represent a betrayal to its users, even if all personal information is stripped from the search terms sought by the government.

“Google’s acceding to the request would suggest that it is willing to reveal information about those who use its services. This is not a perception that Google can accept,” company attorney Ashok Ramani wrote in a letter included in the government’s filing.

Complying with the subpoena also would threaten to expose some of Google’s “crown-jewel trade secrets,” Ramani wrote. Google is particularly concerned that the information could be used to deduce the size of its index and how many computers it uses to crunch the requests.

“This information would be highly valuable to competitors or miscreants seeking to harm Google’s business,” Ramani wrote.

Dixon is hoping Google’s battle with the government reminds people to be careful how they interact with search engines.

“When you are looking at that blank search box, you should remember that what you fill can come back to haunt you unless you take precautions,” she said.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

© 2006 MSNBC.com

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10925344/
 
I don't care if the FBI, CIA, ATF or whoever is peeking in my bedroom windows...if it prevents another attack on US soil and saves inocent lives I'm for it.
 
didtn read all nine pages but this makes sense to me
if you do it then do it right


wvrevy said:
There is a secret court, right there for easy use, that can, will, and has issued subpoenas for just such cases. There is no reason at all to avoid that court unless you were trying to do something that you knew you could not get a subpoena for.

As for your "logic" that it will somehow stop a terrorist attack...yes, it may. And stopping all gun sales will stop gun deaths...and stopping all alcohol sales will stop drunk driving...and stopping all free speech will stop all kinds of nasty things from slander to hate speech to riot incitement.

So...just how many of your rights are you willing to give up before you stop cowering in fear of the .00000001% chance that you could die in a terrorist attack ?
 
Planogirl said:
Yes, Clinton lied under oath!!! He did have relations with THAT woman. Are you satisfied? Now can we move on to the current liar?

:rotfl2: :rotfl2: to funny but so true
when bush does something wrong they just say Clinton
ahhh everyone makes mistakes bushs are just ruining our futures and our kids futures
lets see theres the environment, the war, the tax breaks for the wealthy, the crazy deficit, torture, wiretapping, changes to the supreme court
 
Alicnwondrln said:
:rotfl2: :rotfl2: to funny but so true
when bush does something wrong they just say Clinton
ahhh everyone makes mistakes bushs are just ruining our futures and our kids futures
lets see theres the environment, the war, the tax breaks for the wealthy, the crazy deficit, torture, wiretapping, changes to the supreme court

You forgot Abramoff and Plame.
 
CathrynRose said:
pirate: Where is the OP who started this whole mess???

<<<shake fist>>>>
Sorry I left everyone, I left work at about 4:45 and I have a 2 hour commute...one way. I then went to see my wife, we are both housesitting two different houses and haven't seen much of each other. I'm just now getting caught up on all the postings.
 
I find it hilarious that the apologists for Bush have completely ignored the posting of the Fourth Amendment that was made earlier. Here, let's look at it 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.

Why is it so hard for you apologists to understand ? Are you really willing to give up all of your rights, just out of fear ?

:sad2:

Man...I really thought Americans were made of sterner stuff than that. So much for, "Give me Liberty, or give me death!" Republican apologists have changed it to "Take my liberty, just don't let the scary darkskinned men get us!" Our forefathers must be achieving high RPM's right about now.
 
Why is it so hard for you apologists to understand ? Are you really willing to give up all of your rights, just out of fear ?

If you think about it, those who are letting fear guide their support of this looser presidental administration (which is increasingly eroding the Constitution and civil liberties) are actually supporting the terrorists (whose sole purpose is to create "fear" which will alter the American way of life)

Congratulations Bu$h supporters, you've helped the terrorists accomplish their goal.
 
Seeing that I am not a Clinton fan I have no problem stating here and now that, "Yes he lied under oath, yes he should have had to face the consequences of his actions." There - everyone satisified - good.

Therefore I also do not feel hypocritical in saying - I want an investigation of these so called wire taps, and if they are found to be illegal (which I think they will be) then I also believe that President Bush should be held responsible for his actions.

Of course - many people would rather nail Clinton for *** then see Bush in trouble for illegal wire tapping. Just goes to show - sex sells.

~Amanda
 
The Mayor said:
I don't care if the FBI, CIA, ATF or whoever is peeking in my bedroom windows...if it prevents another attack on US soil and saves inocent lives I'm for it.

WOW! So you really have no problem with the government searching people's homes without a warrent? Listening to their phone calls, going through their personal finances, all without a judge saying "okay, what evidence do you have that makes this person suspect?"

So what's next, arresting and holding suspects without telling them what the charge is or letting them go before a judge or speak to a lawyer? All the goverment has to say is "well, we think they might be linked to terrorists" for you to be okay with this?

Do you realize if we let stuff like this happen, the terrorists WIN, don't you?
 
Judge Smails said:
Now the list has expanded to include this;


Google rebuffs feds over access to search data

Bush administration wants details of what users look for

The Associated Press
Updated: 8:24 p.m. ET Jan. 19, 2006



© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

© 2006 MSNBC.com

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10925344/

Theyre looking for child-porn offenders. You concerned about their rights, too?
 


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom