Spy powers deal struck in Congress

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: bamacre

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about. Nothing wrong with trading a little bit of liberty for protection.

Sure. Let's just allow this Traitor In Chief and any future wannabe Hitlers shove their beady, snooping eyes and ears into everything everyone says and writes. We don't need no stinking Constitution!

Forget about how many Americans fought and died so we could have those rights. Let's just squander them away because, after all, if you have nothing to hide, as some moron said, "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about." :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
More trampling of our constitutional rights by this POS administration. I can't believe they are getting away with this.

What "rights" have you lost?

I hear this all the time yet no one can answer the question without strawmen and fluff.

To be honest, I'm torn both ways on this one. I can see legitimate arguments on both sides.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
Right, you really buy into that neocon BS about all the people at gitmo are "terrorists" huh?

None of them could be innocent, right? We have rights and laws in this country to protect the innocent. Why are you willing to throw that away, just for your peace of mind? Better to kill thousands of innocent so we don't let one guilty go free, huh?

When did "terrorist" = "proved with real evidence in a court of law" (or anywhere, for that matter) The people you call terrorists are in a lot of cases innocent people that were kidnapped and tortured, based on hearsay, just like in the old USSR days. All it takes is an anonymous tip from someone that doesn't like you, and bam, you are off to a fun filled all-expenses paid vacation to gitmo, where you get to have free torture sessions for as long as the US wants to hold you.

To proof, no evidence, nothing...sound like the KGB to you? Where is the proof?

Your tone suggests you actually believe many of the people being held at gitmo are totally innocent of any terrorist-related activity. You've got to be kidding me?! Well I don't.

Let's say for a second I agree there may be 1 or 2 people there that might be somewhat innocent. It's not "better to kill thousands of innocents so 1 guilty one doesn't go free." It's more like better that occassionally 1 innocent person suffers than thousands of bad people go free.

 

[lupi]

If the government has to start promising a company immunity in order to get them to do something for the government, perhaps they just shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster

What "rights" have you lost?

I hear this all the time yet no one can answer the question without strawmen and fluff.

To be honest, I'm torn both ways on this one. I can see legitimate arguments on both sides.

The same one you lost when your Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal shredded our once loved, once meaningful Constitution:

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure

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.

And they silence the voices arising,
From those who would show us the light,
With their guys with their spies in the skies watching you and your neighbor.

And Who's Watching Over Who's Watching Over You?
Tell me who's telling who's telling you what to do what to do?

R.I.P., U.S. Constitution

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: Harvey
The same one you lost when your Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal shredded our once loved, once meaningful Constitution:

R.I.P., U.S. Constitution

:roll:

/cue violins, dramatic music

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: brencat

Your tone suggests you actually believe many of the people being held at gitmo are totally innocent of any terrorist-related activity. You've got to be kidding me?! Well I don't.

Here's a clue. If there is ONE innocent person in Gitmo, or ONE innocent person who was tortured in Iraq, or ONE innocent person kidnapped and subjected to "extraordinary rendition" and shipped off to some third country to be tortured at the direction of your Traitor In Chief or any of his criminal gang of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers, IT'S ONE TOO MANY!

If you support such criminality, I'll be waiting to hear your opinion after it happens to you. Don't think it's happened? Guess again. It has, and it has happened to American citizens. :shocked:

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: Harvey
The same one you lost when your Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal shredded our once loved, once meaningful Constitution:

R.I.P., U.S. Constitution

:roll:

/cue violins, dramatic music

You're welcome to sacrifice your own Fourth Amendment rights, but stay the fuck away from MINE. :|

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Nothing wrong with trading a little bit of liberty for protection.

Ben Franklin just rolled over....

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Franklin's Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) Fri, Feb 17, 1775

Since it doesn't matter since most of you aren't doing anything wrong, do you mind if uncle George places a camera in your living room...just in case? Oh a slippery slope we are going down....and it's so ironic to see some big GOP supporters promoting big brother government to the hilt in this thread....

Your papers comrade?!!!

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Here's a clue. If there is ONE innocent person in Gitmo, or ONE innocent person who was tortured in Iraq, or ONE innocent person kidnapped and subjected to "extraordinary rendition" and shipped off to some third country to be tortured at the direction of your Traitor In Chief or any of his criminal gang of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers, IT'S ONE TOO MANY!

If you support such criminality, I'll be waiting to hear your opinion after it happens to you. Don't think it's happened? Guess again. It has, and it has happened to American citizens. :shocked:

Perhaps we should stop here because I totally disagree. An innocent getting caught up in something like this would certainly be tragic. At the same time, I'm not willing to fight terrorism with one hand tied behind our back like it seems we have to do all the time, just to protect against the least common denominator of sending 1 innocent person to jail.

We're the most fair and just nation on earth, yet catch the most sh:t constantly from the self-righteous. How the heck is this possible?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: Harvey
Here's a clue. If there is ONE innocent person in Gitmo, or ONE innocent person who was tortured in Iraq, or ONE innocent person kidnapped and subjected to "extraordinary rendition" and shipped off to some third country to be tortured at the direction of your Traitor In Chief or any of his criminal gang of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers, IT'S ONE TOO MANY!

If you support such criminality, I'll be waiting to hear your opinion after it happens to you. Don't think it's happened? Guess again. It has, and it has happened to American citizens. :shocked:

Perhaps we should stop here because I totally disagree.

You're right. You should stop right there because, no matter how much YOU disagree, YOU are not the one to forfeit anyone else's Constitutional rights. THEY ARE NOT YOURS TO FORFEIT!

For that matter, neither is your wannabe führer and Traitor In Chief or any of his gang of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers.

 

[brencat]

Psst, Harvey...Bush isn't running any more. You can calm down now. Perhaps decaf at the next Starbucks run?

 

[MadRat]

You cannot embellish all forms of spying as designed to prevent or detect a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation of a terrorist attack, against the United States" and expect to avoid prosecution. Last time I checked the motivations for doing something are open to determination by the Judicial Branch and therefore there is no real change in the situation. Quite frankly the do-gooders of America have caused far more problems post-9/11 than anything the towel heads could have ever dreamt up.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: brencat
Psst, Harvey...Bush isn't running any more. You can calm down now. Perhaps decaf at the next Starbucks run?

Psst, brencat... The questions are about the Bushwhackos' illegal search of American citizens' telephone and e-mail communications, whether those grievous breaches of our Fourth Amendment rights should be continued and whether those who committed those breaches should be retroactively excused from having to answer for their crimes.

Psst, brencat... You already posted that YOU are foolish enough to be willing to squander YOUR Constitutional rights. You still have the right to your own opinion... until the überlords among the powers that mistakenly or otherwise decide they don't like what you're saying, and they come to take YOU away.

You do NOT have the right to squander anyone else's Constitutional rights.

The fact that your Traitor In Chief isn't running anymore doesn't give me any comfort. His wannabe clone, McSame, has already clicked his jackbooted heels, given his stiff-armed salute, shouted a resounding SEIG HEIL and endorsed continuing the same policies, including unwarranted searches and seizures. :|

It also brings me no comfort that fools like you are willing to toss everyone else's Constitutional rights down the toilet.

"Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone."
~ Joanie Mitchell

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: brencat

Your tone suggests you actually believe many of the people being held at gitmo are totally innocent of any terrorist-related activity. You've got to be kidding me?! Well I don't.

Here's a clue. If there is ONE innocent person in Gitmo, or ONE innocent person who was tortured in Iraq, or ONE innocent person kidnapped and subjected to "extraordinary rendition" and shipped off to some third country to be tortured at the direction of your Traitor In Chief or any of his criminal gang of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers, IT'S ONE TOO MANY!

If you support such criminality, I'll be waiting to hear your opinion after it happens to you. Don't think it's happened? Guess again. It has, and it has happened to American citizens. :shocked:

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: Harvey
The same one you lost when your Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal shredded our once loved, once meaningful Constitution:

R.I.P., U.S. Constitution

:roll:

/cue violins, dramatic music

You're welcome to sacrifice your own Fourth Amendment rights, but stay the fuck away from MINE. :|

Just a quick question for all the people mourning the loss of their Constitutional rights (and I'm not mocking that loss at all - I'm agreeing it's a loss) - where were you when the gov't was busy establishing policies that made some people more equal than others (affirmative action), or when certain members of Congress (usually Democrats) were attempting to erode 2nd Amendment rights? It's great so many people are looking askance at gov't, but a little consistency would be nice.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Just a quick question for all the people mourning the loss of their Constitutional rights - where were you when the gov't was busy establishing policies that made some people more equal than others (affirmative action), or when certain members of Congress (usually Democrats) were attempting to erode 2nd Amendment rights? It's great so many people are looking askance at gov't, but a little consistency would be nice.

+1

Exactly right. I'm not looking to throw away or sacrifice anything. People like Harvey go off the deep end because our form of law enforcement or the way we're fighting terrorism isn't perfect in protecting every last single solitary innocent from a possible dragnet. I challenge the self-righteous then to find another country that's better or fairer than the USA in guaranteeing and safeguarding our freedoms.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Just a quick question for all the people mourning the loss of their Constitutional rights (and I'm not mocking that loss at all - I'm agreeing it's a loss) - where were you when the gov't was busy establishing policies that made some people more equal than others (affirmative action), or when certain members of Congress (usually Democrats) were attempting to erode 2nd Amendment rights? It's great so many people are looking askance at gov't, but a little consistency would be nice.

That's your choice of battles. As long as you're fighting to support the Constitution, go for it.

But if you want to protest against governmental erosion of your rights, be careful what you say on the phone or in e-mails if they succeed in eviscerating the Constitution and strip out minor items like Habaes Corpus (Article 1, Section 9) or freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures (Fourth Amendment).

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Ok, I'll bite. Can you tell me how exactly you know they were listening on "terrorists" without any oversight whatsoever? Who exactly verified who or what they were monitoring?? Nobody. That was the whole point of going around the FISA court setup, they wanted to be absolutely sure there was no oversight of their activities. If they were just trying to monitor the bad guys, why exactly would they need to do it without the secret court oversight that was set up specifically for that purpose?

I guess that's the difference. I'm willing to cut my govt some slack in looking out for us and you and others are not. You accuse people like me of worrying about terrorists when people like you are more worried about your own govt -- the govt of the greatest and most free nation on earth.

Secondly, I don't have a problem with them "taking the gloves off" with regard to terrorists either. But I could see how if not checked, that power would eventually be abused.

So...here we are today. A compromise bill has been proposed where you get your oversight, and we can still listen to terrorist phone calls. What's the problem??

Sounds like a big-govt pseudo conservative to me. Who wants to protect their rights anyway?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Just a quick question for all the people mourning the loss of their Constitutional rights (and I'm not mocking that loss at all - I'm agreeing it's a loss) - where were you when the gov't was busy establishing policies that made some people more equal than others (affirmative action), or when certain members of Congress (usually Democrats) were attempting to erode 2nd Amendment rights? It's great so many people are looking askance at gov't, but a little consistency would be nice.

Bull.

Affirmative action was about *correcting* some small bit of the wrongs done previously which left some people unfairly at a disadvantage from the legacy effects of earlier discrimination.

Your attempt to try to pretend that everyone starts out equally now and there are no lasting effects and that you are oh so wronged is about as classy as complaining that you didn't get any of that money the 9/11 victim families did, who didn't do anything more than you did to earn it. Centuries of slavery followed by a century of racism left a legacy of some people who are not getting the same opportunities as others because their fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers didn't get to get an education and move to a better part of town.

As for the 2nd amendment, there's a little phrase in there called 'well-regulated militia' that you are not following the constitution by ignoring.

You can debate the exact meaning of the amendment, but there's enough variance in interpreting it that current gun laws are not comparable to clear violations of rights.

Here's a hint: the people who passed gun control laws don't need Congress to give them immunity. You can take those laws to court if they were unconstitutional.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: brencat

Your tone suggests you actually believe many of the people being held at gitmo are totally innocent of any terrorist-related activity. You've got to be kidding me?! Well I don't.

Here's a clue. If there is ONE innocent person in Gitmo, or ONE innocent person who was tortured in Iraq, or ONE innocent person kidnapped and subjected to "extraordinary rendition" and shipped off to some third country to be tortured at the direction of your Traitor In Chief or any of his criminal gang of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers, IT'S ONE TOO MANY!

If you support such criminality, I'll be waiting to hear your opinion after it happens to you. Don't think it's happened? Guess again. It has, and it has happened to American citizens. :shocked:

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: Harvey
The same one you lost when your Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal shredded our once loved, once meaningful Constitution:

R.I.P., U.S. Constitution

:roll:

/cue violins, dramatic music

You're welcome to sacrifice your own Fourth Amendment rights, but stay the fuck away from MINE. :|

Just a quick question for all the people mourning the loss of their Constitutional rights (and I'm not mocking that loss at all - I'm agreeing it's a loss) - where were you when the gov't was busy establishing policies that made some people more equal than others (affirmative action), or when certain members of Congress (usually Democrats) were attempting to erode 2nd Amendment rights? It's great so many people are looking askance at gov't, but a little consistency would be nice.

I think you would see the consistency if you choose to factor in protecting individual rights and either working to enact or oppose legislation/law towards those ends. Whereas affirmative action worked to protect minority's in the workplace (individual rights) while opposing this new FISA revision again is advocating protecting individual rights.

its not rocket science. You just need to choose to see the consistency in either agreeing with or opposing legislation that impacts individual freedoms.

2nd amendment rights is a different beast altogether when trying to balance stupid people with guns..I dont want to get into that

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Just a quick question for all the people mourning the loss of their Constitutional rights - where were you when the gov't was busy establishing policies that made some people more equal than others (affirmative action), or when certain members of Congress (usually Democrats) were attempting to erode 2nd Amendment rights? It's great so many people are looking askance at gov't, but a little consistency would be nice.

+1

Exactly right. I'm not looking to throw away or sacrifice anything. People like Harvey go off the deep end because our form of law enforcement or the way we're fighting terrorism isn't perfect in protecting every last single solitary innocent from a possible dragnet. I challenge the self-righteous then to find another country that's better or fairer than the USA in guaranteeing and safeguarding our freedoms.

terrorism is a freaking scare tactic. GET OVER IT.

The US was performing its fight against terrorism just fine prior to 9/11, if only we would have been paying attention.

9/11 made us change our way of life...and when that happened then we as a nation succumbed to terrorism...that is stupid and we can blame our chickensh!t administration and people like you who are afraid of the terrorism bogeyman.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Just a quick question for all the people mourning the loss of their Constitutional rights (and I'm not mocking that loss at all - I'm agreeing it's a loss) - where were you when the gov't was busy establishing policies that made some people more equal than others (affirmative action), or when certain members of Congress (usually Democrats) were attempting to erode 2nd Amendment rights? It's great so many people are looking askance at gov't, but a little consistency would be nice.

Bull.

Affirmative action was about *correcting* some small bit of the wrongs done previously which left some people unfairly at a disadvantage from the legacy effects of earlier discrimination.

Your attempt to try to pretend that everyone starts out equally now and there are no lasting effects and that you are oh so wronged is about as classy as complaining that you didn't get any of that money the 9/11 victim families did, who didn't do anything more than you did to earn it. Centuries of slavery followed by a century of racism left a legacy of some people who are not getting the same opportunities as others because their fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers didn't get to get an education and move to a better part of town.

I'm not pretending at all that everyone starts out equal, but there's precious little gov't can do to fix the past, and their solutions have harmed as much as helped (gov't played a huge hand in destroying the black family unit), not to mention reeking of unfairness. If you're going to argue that Constitutional guarantees of equality can be bypassed due to special circumstances, don't complain when Bush & Co. argue the same in undermining the 4th.

As for the 2nd amendment, there's a little phrase in there called 'well-regulated militia' that you are not following the constitution by ignoring.

You can debate the exact meaning of the amendment, but there's enough variance in interpreting it that current gun laws are not comparable to clear violations of rights.

Here's a hint: the people who passed gun control laws don't need Congress to give them immunity. You can take those laws to court if they were unconstitutional.

Luckily, the Supremes are about to issue a ruling on this issue, and most commentators are expecting it to recognize an individual right, so good-bye to your "militia' non-argument.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Just a quick question for all the people mourning the loss of their Constitutional rights (and I'm not mocking that loss at all - I'm agreeing it's a loss) - where were you when the gov't was busy establishing policies that made some people more equal than others (affirmative action), or when certain members of Congress (usually Democrats) were attempting to erode 2nd Amendment rights? It's great so many people are looking askance at gov't, but a little consistency would be nice.

That's your choice of battles. As long as you're fighting to support the Constitution, go for it.

But if you want to protest against governmental erosion of your rights, be careful what you say on the phone or in e-mails if they succeed in eviscerating the Constitution and strip out minor items like Habaes Corpus (Article 1, Section 9) or freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures (Fourth Amendment).

To me, it's not a 'choice' of battles at all - it's all about the fundamental principle of the rule of law, and strict restrictions on gov't power. If any one part of the Constitution is eroded, the whole thing is eroded. You simply can't allow the federal gov't to expand exponentially in size and power for 50+ years, and suddenly decide to put on the brakes when your pet right gets infringed. By then, it's too little, too late.

 

[ayabe]

Passed the House, be sure to ask your Representative to change his or her diapers prior to voting next time we shred the Constitution.

Here is a list of the votes:

Text

 

[Harvey]

My e-mail to my hopefully soon to be ex-Congressman:

It appears you forgot:

U.S. Constitution, Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure:

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.

You also forgot:

U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 - Limits on Congress:

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

---

Your vote in favor of the FISA law is complete capitulation to your Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers.

You have left the American people defenseless against their tyranny, and you have proven yourself to be one of the TRAITORS!

I mourn the death of our once great, once honorable, once respected nation as it passes to a totalitarian state.

 

[SAWYER]

LOL @ all the party tools who are trying to blame this all on the other side, the rats who are allowing this and supporting it crawl on both sides of the sewer.