NSA Wiretap Program ruled Unconstitutional

[JimFitz]

1. We can't have the Patriot Act.

2. We can't profile people.

3. We can't wiretap.

4. We can't monitor and watch suspicous fund transfers.

5. We can't blockade our borders.

6. We can't go after illegal immigrants.

7. We have to offer the same due process to enemy combatants.


What can we do to protect ourselves?


It's the same people that fight the above causes that will complain when we get attacked again. It boggles the mind and upsets the stomach.

We can not continue to allow these people to threaten our lives or our families well being.


Please vote republican.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

1. We can't have the Patriot Act.

2. We can't profile people.

3. We can't wiretap.

4. We can't monitor and watch suspicous fund transfers.

5. We can't blockade our borders.

6. We can't go after illegal immigrants.

7. We have to offer the same due process to enemy combatants.


What can we do to protect ourselves?


It's the same people that fight the above causes that will complain when we get attacked again. It boggles the mind and upsets the stomach.

We can not continue to allow these people to threaten our lives or our families well being.


Please vote republican.

Amen.

And what's the OP comments about our President trying to be "king." Nonsense.

Our President is working hard to protect America, and most leftist and the so-called "ACLU" are doing their usual "hard work" on the other side.

 

[transparant]

1. We can't have the Patriot Act.

2. We can't profile people.

3. We can't wiretap.

4. We can't monitor and watch suspicous fund transfers.

5. We can't blockade our borders.

6. We can't go after illegal immigrants.

7. We have to offer the same due process to enemy combatants.


What can we do to protect ourselves?


It's the same people that fight the above causes that will complain when we get attacked again. It boggles the mind and upsets the stomach.

We can not continue to allow these people to threaten our lives or our families well being.


Please vote republican.

I couldn't agree more!!

 

[dcentity2000]

Thank goodness I am one of seven hundred million Europeans who live freely, without the threat of intrusion or injustice - leaving aside the few anti-"terror" laws that set out to do exactly what the terrorists want - to limit our freedoms.

Here in the UK, we fought the IRA for an age. Bombs detonated across the country every week and at one point our Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, was almost brutally murdered in the Brighton Bomb:

Clicky.

Today we live without the IRA, in peace with our greatest foe. No-one dies, no-one suffers and our freedoms are guaranteed.

My one regret is the murder of a young Brazillion man in the name of a war on terror that ironically spreads terror. God rest his soul.

Terrorists can get stuffed - we're not surrendering our freedoms to them.



Rich::

 

[Mugg Mann]

Where did you get that from?

Probably O'Reilly or someone else on Fox News. Cathryn Rose cites them quite a bit.

 

[Kendra17]

1. We can't have the Patriot Act.

2. We can't profile people.

3. We can't wiretap.

4. We can't monitor and watch suspicous fund transfers.

5. We can't blockade our borders.

6. We can't go after illegal immigrants.

7. We have to offer the same due process to enemy combatants.


What can we do to protect ourselves?


It's the same people that fight the above causes that will complain when we get attacked again. It boggles the mind and upsets the stomach.

We can not continue to allow these people to threaten our lives or our families well being.


Please vote republican.

(It's also the same people who fight the above who also state, of course, it's the West's (specifically the United States prior to Bush, and of course, now that Bush is in office, the entire Bush Administration's) fault. And, also that we're scared of something around every corner.)

 

[Mugg Mann]

Amen.

And what's the OP comments about our President trying to be "king." Nonsense.

Our President is working hard to protect America, and most leftist and the so-called "ACLU" are doing their usual "hard work" on the other side.

Joe, have you read any of the legal rulings that have come down as of late against the President's actions? That's where that comes from.

Our President is working so hard to protect America, he's just disbanded the unit in charge of finding Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind of the worst terrorist attack against America.

There's a reason this President's approval ratings have gone from 90% to the mid 30's.

 

[disneyfan67]

Amen.

And what's the OP comments about our President trying to be "king." Nonsense.

Our President is working hard to protect America, and most leftist and the so-called "ACLU" are doing their usual "hard work" on the other side.

I have to agree with you and Jim Fitz and I also thought the "Bush trying to be King" comment was cheap and uncalled for. It doesn't add anything to the debate that is helpfull to the main jist of the discussion. Just a typical cheap shot.

 

[ChrisFL]

I have to agree with you and Jim Fitz and I also thought the "Bush trying to be King" comment was cheap and uncalled for. It doesn't add anything to the debate that is helpfull to the main jist of the discussion. Just a typical cheap shot.

Not King, Dictator is more appropriate, and Dubya SAID IT HIMSELF that it would be much easier to be a dictator.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Joe, have you read any of the legal rulings that have come down as of late against the President's actions? That's where that comes from.

It's still nonsense. Our President wants to do all he can to help protect America. He is not trying to be king.

I agree with him on Osama. Terrorism networks seem to have become more decentralized over the years. If we focus too much on one person, we could be wasting resources that could be better served elsewhere in the war on terror.

 

[ChrisFL]

1. We can't have the Patriot Act.

2. We can't profile people.

3. We can't wiretap.

4. We can't monitor and watch suspicous fund transfers.

5. We can't blockade our borders.

6. We can't go after illegal immigrants.

7. We have to offer the same due process to enemy combatants.


What can we do to protect ourselves?

Hmm, maybe start by capturing the people who terrorize us to begin with? The ones who spread their hatred around to other poor people who blame the invading U.S. soldiers onto (in their minds) sacred muslim land? Maybe try to put some effort into understanding and undoing the hatred of the U.S.?

Meanwhile we should go after illegal immigrants, it's Bush thats not going about that properly. We need strong borders, not lies and claims that they're doing a better job.

They can wiretap all they want, with a warrant.

Profiling is such a slippery slope it isnt even funny.

This country is founded upon the belief of "innocent until proven guilty" yet we keep prisoners in Guantamo for so many years they try to kill themselves, and to my knowledge have never been tried in a court of law.

Thats what due process is. Who is going to police the governments control and manipulation of information if we let them change all of our freedoms?

There would be nothing left of the constitution to fight for.

 

[Mugg Mann]

I have to agree with you and Jim Fitz and I also thought the "Bush trying to be King" comment was cheap and uncalled for. It doesn't add anything to the debate that is helpfull to the main jist of the discussion. Just a typical cheap shot.

Not a cheap shot. It's contained in the actual legal decision.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/060817_NSA_Wiretaps.pdf

You'll find it on page 44.

Couple that with Bush's attempt to circumvent the law via the signing statements, and one can make a rather credible case that our President has habitually decided that the law does not apply to him, even though he has now twice sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution.

Sounds like a monarchy as opposed to a presidency to me.

 

[Mugg Mann]

It's still nonsense. Our President wants to do all he can to help protect America. He is not trying to be king.

I agree with him on Osama. Terrorism networks seem to have become more decentralized over the years. If we focus too much on one person, we could be wasting resources that could be better served elsewhere in the war on terror.

Legal rulings are nonsense? Wow....

 

[ChrisFL]

correct, 800 signing statements about circumventing the law...think about that number, eight hundred. That's equivalent to one every 3 days of his presidency.

That is what people who want absolute power do to get it, they do anything to go around the checks and balances of the system in place. If that isn't clear I dont know what else is.

 

[Charade]

"Bush trying to be King" comment was cheap and uncalled for. It doesn't add anything to the debate that is helpfull to the main jist of the discussion. Just a typical cheap shot.

That's their M.O.

 

[JimFitz]

Maybe try to put some effort into understanding and undoing the hatred of the U.S.

This is a pacifist view that will not work when dealing with radical Islamic Fascists that want us dead. Do you realize why they hate the US? They hate us becuase they hate western society. They hate the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Russia, China, and many many other countries.

The old "they hate us for our foreign policy" is getting really old.

If it weren't for us, they would still be sitting in sand dunes wondering what this black sticky stuff was on the bottom of their shoes.

 

[Charade]

Not a cheap shot. It's contained in the actual legal decision.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/060817_NSA_Wiretaps.pdf

You'll find it on page 44.

.

It's especially a cheap shot when it comes from a Federal Judge. But it makes her sound like she's subscribes to the notion on a personal basis.

 

[ChrisFL]

This is a pacifist view that will not work when dealing with radical Islamic Fascists that want us dead. Do you realize why they hate the US? They hate us becuase they hate western society. They hate the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Russia, China, and many many other countries.

The old "they hate us for our foreign policy" is getting really old.

If it weren't for us, they would still be sitting in sand dunes wondering what this black sticky stuff was on the bottom of their shoes.

So you're saying that from birth, they're already islamic fascists?

No, sorry, they aren't. Yes, we need to find a way get rid of or change the mindset those who have the most influence over them, namely the Al-Qaeda leadership FOR STARTERS.

Just like gangs in the U.S., they are able to recruit often poor, underpriveledged men without guidance on what to do with their lives.

Yes, if it weren't for oil , no one over there would have a reason to hate us, because we'd never be there for anything.

 

[JimFitz]

Legal rulings are nonsense? Wow....

Why the WOW? Don't we have appellate courts??? Isn't it the appellate courts job to overrule the nonsense rulings?

 

[JimFitz]

So you're saying that from birth, they're already islamic fascists?

No, sorry, they aren't. Yes, we need to find a way get rid of or change the mindset those who have the most influence over them, namely the Al-Qaeda leadership FOR STARTERS.

Just like gangs in the U.S., they are able to recruit often poor, underpriveledged men without guidance on what to do with their lives.

Yes, if it weren't for oil , no one over there would have a reason to hate us, because we'd never be there for anything.

Al Qaeda does not produce these barbarians, it's the Islamic Clerics that do it. They train them from birth to hate the west, hate western society, and hate that we allow our women to live freely. They want Islamic rule and are using US foreign policy as a crutch to further their cause. I for one do not want to see our women running around in burqas. I like my eye candy

We helped them with the oil because it would help us as well....there is no foul in that.