Nice summary however you've deliberatly distorted the Democrats position on what you call "monitoring".
The objection Democrats ( and most Republicans) have is to warrantless wiretapping within the United States.
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.
There is no evidence whatsoever that these controverial secret spying programs that this administration has put into place has contibuted to these arrests.
Get a warrant!
As you know, I don't often agree with President Bush however I do agree with this statement he made.
Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. 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."
Unfortunately he was lying.
Paul,
It's a bit more complicated than that of course. Purely foreign conversations have always been allowed to be wiretapped with no warrant (since 197
for security purposes. The new law allows the govt to surveil those international calls involving Americans so long as the govt certifies that the target is primarily overseas.
This german incident perfectly illustrates our need to do so. This man was German born. A muslim convert. The same could easily happen here. An American born, muslim convert. We must be able to listen to those communications to overseas extremists just as we were able to with strictly foreign communications.
You make it sound as if getting a FISA warrant is just so simple and quick. And it isn't. In these times of grave national security we need to listen when we need to listen! This is what you guys don't get. If they are talking about where the bomb will go off, time is of the essence! Also, this law will be revisited when Bush leaves office, so if the danger is less, then the law can revert.
The Democrats, of course, opposed this bill. I didn't distort anything.
Which of the democrats is it that you believe is opposed to the U.S. government listening to conversations of foriegn nstionals in a foriegn country?
Do you honestly brlieve that much of the spin you are fed, or are you simply uninterested in the actual disagreement over domestic spying by your government?
You make it sound as if getting a FISA warrant is just so simple and quick. And it isn't.
what makes you think it isn't simple? FISA over the years have been relative rubber stamps to whatever our government wanted to do. Relatively few warrants are turned down. FISA just gives us an additional set of eyes on what our government is going. I remember back in the Clinton days the distrust we gave to FISA to look out for our rights, and now not even rubber stamping is good enough for republicans. Wake up and see it for the power grab that it is. David Addington and Cheney are just out to grab power for powers sake...
So, I guess since Germany is harboring terrorists, we need to bomb them too?
The point isn't whether the warrants are turned down (although I'm betting Clinton appointees would turn them down) it's about how quickly we can get them. One never knows when a conversation will be vital to our national security.
And who have we bombed lately haboring terrorists? Geeze.
And who have we bombed lately haboring terrorists? Geeze.
Wasn't that like reason #24 why we invaded Iraq???
With FISA, you can get warrants after the fact, you do not have to wait on a warrant before you start wiretapping.
Our country has survived over 200 years being the beacon of freedom in the world, and you have no problem giving up ALL those freedoms because your dear leader says you should be afraid. Frankly,
OBL has won more by us destroying our OWN freedoms than he ever could have on his own. Bush has helped OBL achieve every single objective he had. !) No more bases in SA, 2) Get us into a protracted war on THEIR turf to destroy our military, 3) Drain our national treasure and resources. 4) Ruin our rep as the beacon of freedom, justice and democracy. So exactly WHO is supporting terrorists? That would be Bush...
The terrorist lose when we 1) Don't give up our hard fault freedoms, 2) Keep the respect of the world community, and 3) spend our moneys fixing our infrastructure instead of our military machine
OBL has won more by us destroying our OWN freedoms than he ever could have on his own.
It's this kind of statement that makes me realize that there can be no reasonable discussion with the left. They would rather bash Bush than face the real danger of terrorism.
t's this kind of statement that makes me realize that there can be no reasonable discussion with the left. They would rather bash Bush than face the real danger of terrorism.
Please explain to me which fact you dispute, you can't, so you resort to partisan attacks, typical....
So for the bombing comment, you just have Iraq?
look, considering that if Osama had his way, I would be wearing a burka and you would be chanting to the east 5 times a day whether you wanted to or not...or he would just chop off your head. Maybe if you or I were gay, we would be hung by a crane in the middle of a square. So pardon me if I think Bush wanted to listen in on terrorists takes away more freedoms that Osama ever could.
What scares me the most is that RWS actually believes that Osama has a shot at ruling America. She actually fears that he could come here and take control of the laws and behavior of Americans.
I'm betting JoeTx, Paul, and many more like them would be more than able to protect you and stop Osama before he posed any type of real threat to you RWS. Apparently, RWS you have no faith in the ability of the American people to protect themselves form actual threats, and must rely on the government and their super-powers to feel safe.
By the way, how's ole G.W. doing in rounding up Osama?
Domestic wiretapping requires warents. This has always been the case. People claiming the Bush administration has or is domestically wiretapping is simply lying.
What strikes me is the chauvanistic attitude of the Left. They want American laws and rights to apply to foreignor living abroad.
well, I am certainly not worried about Osama while a Republican is President, but as you aptly demonstrate, you guys don't get it.
What do you think a nuclear weapon would do to our cities? Do you not believe Iran would use one if it could?
We forget the fall of Rome. They were arrogant too. We forget what Europe allowed Hitler to do. Well, at least some of us forget.
RWS:
You point out what Osama Bin Laden would do differently if he was in power in the United States. You fail to mention what Larry Flint would do if he had dictatorial powers over the United States. You also fail to point out the negative aspects of a supreme rule by Eric Randolf (The abortion clinic and Olympic games bomber).
You also fail to even consider the negative aspects of allowing men such as Dick Cheney and George W. Bush too much power.
Your fear is so narrowly focused on Middle easterners that you fail to see any other threats to the American way of life, and those who do recognize those threats you dismiss as unpatriotic (which is actually pretty ironic.)
Bigdog:
Bush has openly admitted to violating FISA, and has pushed Congress to amend the law to allow the programs which he has had in place since 2001 (which he has admitted) to become legal. So far, he is winning, the question is who is on the losing side of the battle. RWS and many here see this as a victory for America, others see it as a loss for the American people and the constitutional protections we were once guaranteed under the 4th and 5th amendment. It's hard to believe that only a few years ago there was actual questions on the constitutionality of the FISA court itself, and now there are a some Americans arguing that even the "secret court" does not allow our government enough ability to track those it selects as suspect.
Our disagreement (and that of most hawks and doves) is not over how much devastation a nuclear weapon could do in New York or any other major city.
We disagree on how best to stop a nuclear weapon from being detonated in any of our major cities. I don't think the war in Iraq has offered any direct protection to our cities.
I do allow that there is a possibility that the Sunni's may ally with terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda in order to regain power in Iraq if they thought it would work, and that many of the people in these areas may then continue to support Islamic Jihad's against the west after the alliance was ended, which would serve to strengthen Al Qaeda. However, I do not see how training and arming Sunnis in Iraq is a good long term strategy (and see it as being on a par with training and arming Osama Bin Laden and his followers in their battle against the Soviet agressors in Afghanistan).
I don't think this has to do with Republican/Democrat. It has much more to do with long term goals for American Foreign Policy, and whether or not we should continue to allow the current administration to attempt to shape them. I think, and have thought for a while that they have been given enough rope, hung themselves, and continue to only throw American lives and money into Iraq as though it were a wishing well thinking that their hopes will all come true if they just get another $300 billion. The Iraqi people are not going to do what is necessary for us to achieve our goals, we need to realize that before we make any future decisions on what is best for our country.
Commenting by HaloScan
