The terrorists have won

[Anonymous]

Disagreeable:

Show me a president in modern history that authorized wire taps on American citizens in the US without a warrant?

From what I've heard on radio, every President from Jimmy Carter to present.

Cal- you are correct... I used to buy bodywires, birddogs ( vehicle tracking devices) and surveillance cameras from an outfit as far back as in the 70's-- got to now a couple of the guys that worked for the outfit real well (lot of toddies and miles together) , as they seemed much more knowledgeable than the normal electrical equipment salesman...All were CIA trained employees working for a government (CIA) financed major company that developed surveillance equipment ( that they also sold to local government for drug and major criminal investigations) - altho we never got the good stuff for 10-15 years until the top secrecy label was removed)- when I did get involved with a few major federal cases (FBI- DEA) they brought in the big stuff, the satelittes that could read the license plate number off any vehicle they wanted to look at or track to every stop it made between Montana and Oklahoma- or record every conversation made from any number requested...Even then ( before cell phones) all phone calls were monitored, recorded, and scanned for key words involving US security......

Never really bothered me- Didn't have any mistress's or girlfriends, no political or financial misdealings, nothing really to hide from anyone ( reason I could never call myself a Democrat --- couldn't fit the profile :wink: :lol: ..)

 

[Itrap4u]

Unwarranted information coming from cell phones and wireless phones is not acceptable in court. I see today that lawyers for some accused terrorist are going to try to find out if their clients were wiretapped without a warrant. Wouldn't that be a kicker: those guys get off because Bush refused to follow the law?

If all your worried about is what will hold up in court then you must have something to hide? Why not answer how one can be listened too by another on a scanner and know what your whole conversation is about it shouldn't matter to you if it is talk that may land someone in jail or not the infringement of privacy rights is what you base this all off of. Right?

Thats the problem with liberials they have given the accused and criminals more rights than the victums in the US, I highly doubt those with terrorist acts and charges against that will be taken away because of wire tapping, poilce can run wires and tape conversations all the time and hold up in court. Other types of law enforcement can do the same as well. Without a judges approval.

Your answer is because that is what judges do? Are you saying all judges are great at their jobs? Are you also saying a judge has more power than the President of the US when it comes to war time matters and timeing issues when it comes to stopping a bomber or another act like 9/11 taking place in the matter of a few hours? We are going to ham string the US intelligance that may stop an iminant threat taking place? I have find that sicking to know you would rather worry about the rights of a terrorist blowing up people versus stopping him from attacking our people on our soil!!!!

If your a US citizen and helping terrorist then you have no rights as far as I'm concerned, you deserve the maximum the law can give if found guilty, no matter how they get the facts doesn't take away from you were trying to damage others, which they have no rights to do. Liberials have no common sense and only want to further their agenda of thinking the goverment will protect me, take care of me and that government knows what is better for the US people than the US people do, keep with that line of thought and you will never gain control of congress or the presidentcy for along time disagreeable.

 

[Steve]

If your a US citizen and helping terrorist then you have no rights as far as I'm concerned, you deserve the maximum the law can give if found guilty, no matter how they get the facts doesn't take away from you were trying to damage others, which they have no right to do.

Well Said..

When your Right to Privacy infringes on My Right to live ........Your rights end.............

 

[Disagreeable]

Unwarranted information coming from cell phones and wireless phones is not acceptable in court. I see today that lawyers for some accused terrorist are going to try to find out if their clients were wiretapped without a warrant. Wouldn't that be a kicker: those guys get off because Bush refused to follow the law?

If all your worried about is what will hold up in court then you must have something to hide? Why not answer how one can be listened too by another on a scanner and know what your whole conversation is about it shouldn't matter to you if it is talk that may land someone in jail or not the infringement of privacy rights is what you base this all off of. Right?

No, I base this on my belief that the government doesn't have any right to listen on my private conversations. Actually, no one else has the "right" either, but they're not the intrusion that I feel a government agency deliberately listening is.

Thats the problem with liberials they have given the accused and criminals more rights than the victums in the US, I highly doubt those with terrorist acts and charges against that will be taken away because of wire tapping, poilce can run wires and tape conversations all the time and hold up in court. Other types of law enforcement can do the same as well. Without a judges approval.

:roll: Show me any law enforcement agency here in the US that can wiretap without a judge's approval. I'm not worried about the accused and criminals. I'm worried about my own civil liberties and you should be worried about yours. If Bush is so confident he's in the right on this thing why did he lie, time and again, to Americans before this last election and assure them that they wouldn't be wiretapped without a warrant?

Your answer is because that is what judges do? Are you saying all judges are great at their jobs? Are you also saying a judge has more power than the President of the US when it comes to war time matters and timeing issues when it comes to stopping a bomber or another act like 9/11 taking place in the matter of a few hours? We are going to ham string the US intelligance that may stop an iminant threat taking place? I have find that sicking to know you would rather worry about the rights of a terrorist blowing up people versus stopping him from attacking our people on our soil!!!!

A judge is elected or appointed to do his job; one of those jobs may be to approve or disapprove wiretaps. President Bush claimed Al Gore trusted the government while he trusted the people. Add one more lie to his growing list. He wiretapped us secretly. The FISA court has been set up for quick warrants; Bush can wiretap for 72 hours and then request a warrant. Why didn't he? Congress has asked the White House over and over if there's anything they could do to make tracking terrorists easier and the White House has never asked that the FISA court be changed. Bush's atty general is on record as saying they didn't ask for any changes because they didn't think they'd get them! Why not? It's a Republican Congress. There are about seven FISA judges. They are specially appointed and one is on call at all times. Spin all you want, there's no excuse for this.

If your a US citizen and helping terrorist then you have no rights as far as I'm concerned, you deserve the maximum the law can give if found guilty, no matter how they get the facts doesn't take away from you were trying to damage others, which they have no rights to do. Liberials have no common sense and only want to further their agenda of thinking the goverment will protect me, take care of me and that government knows what is better for the US people than the US people do, keep with that line of thought and you will never gain control of congress or the presidentcy for along time disagreeable.

Thank God you're not in charge of anything. As a US citizen anyone deserves a trial. Liberals have plenty of common sense; that's why we object to Bush's taking our civil liberties under the guise of portecting us. We'll see who gains seats in the House and Senate next year. There are lots of Republicans starting to sweat about now.

 

[Itrap4u]

Disagreeable you have no common sense! You state your worried about the government listneing to your phone calls more than a citizen? The gov is made up of people and those that can listen in on your phone calls that are locals might just be the ones who listen to figure out when your home and when your not to rob you blind!!! If you are for the freedoms then why not outlaw all scanners? All cell phones and all cordless phones?
Your freedoms were/are protected by the people who fought for this country.
Quote Mr Bush making the statement that he claimed no wire taps without a warrant? Give me the exact place I can find that quote please?

Yes wiretaps need to be secret as not to tip off those that are being tapped that they maybe being tapped!!!! What do you want a nightly news to tell who,were,when and why someone is being tapped? get real.

The liberials are all about taking away rights of people, look who is anti hunting, anti trapping, anti business, and who back unions the left of this country, you all want to take care of others and think you know as a small minority what is best for all people of the US, lefty's are real funny when they state their for individual freedoms!!!! You are for more government control and think the people of the US should all be the same. If not you want to make all people the same.

As far as gaining seats you better hope you do or you will be in even a bigger minority than now! It all is on a cycle and that moves up and down you may gain seats but in time people see the same old same old from the left and they come back. The left can't admitt defeat, they blame their short commings on anything they can but the truth! The people didn't understand, fixed elections, fraud votes BLAH, BLAH until the lefty's admitt there short commings you won't gain much with the american people.

 

[Disagreeable]

Disagreeable you have no common sense! You state your worried about the government listneing to your phone calls more than a citizen? The gov is made up of people and those that can listen in on your phone calls that are locals might just be the ones who listen to figure out when your home and when your not to rob you blind!!! If you are for the freedoms then why not outlaw all scanners? All cell phones and all cordless phones?

Does this mean you can't come up with a law enforcement agency that legally wiretaps without a warrant? I didn't think so. More hot air from the Bush Bunch: make claims that you can't back up. I've got plenty of common sense. Bush won't always be President. Will you be ok with this secret program if Hillary Clinton is the next president? I don't know what the government will do with the information they pick up on me. Will it go to the IRS, local police, FSA? I'm not especially worried about being robbed; it's a long way out here and the roads aren't paved. Most burglers prefer to stay on the pavement. On the other hand, I'd sure hate to be called in for an IRS audit. Yes, I pay my taxes on time and in full, but it would be a hassle. Or I'd hate to have to stop and explain to Homeland Security why I checked out a particular book from the local library. It's none of their business.

Your freedoms were/are protected by the people who fought for this country.

Tell me exactly which of my freedoms is being protected in Iraq?

Quote Mr Bush making the statement that he claimed no wire taps without a warrant? Give me the exact place I can find that quote please?

I did. There are several places on the net to find quotes from Bush assuring the American people they won't be wiretapped without a warrant. He lied. This from the White House website, I've included the link:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. 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."

Yes wiretaps need to be secret as not to tip off those that are being tapped that they maybe being tapped!!!! What do you want a nightly news to tell who,were,when and why someone is being tapped? get real.

Spin, spin, and wrong. Law enforcement people get warrants for wiretaps every day without it appearing in the news. Do you think the mob knew they were being wiretapped, but the Feds got a warrant.

The liberials are all about taking away rights of people, look who is anti hunting, anti trapping, anti business, and who back unions the left of this country, you all want to take care of others and think you know as a small minority what is best for all people of the US, lefty's are real funny when they state their for individual freedoms!!!! You are for more government control and think the people of the US should all be the same. If not you want to make all people the same.

Spin, spin again. It was under the Bush Admistration that the Supreme Court allowed a city to take private homes to build a mall, a new use of eminent domain. It's not the liberals eavesdropping on the private conversations of the American people without cause. It's the Republican President George W. Bush. And he has a court that is at his beck and call for a warrant. The rest of this is just a typical rant from a Bush Groupie who refuses to admit that his hero has feet of clay.

As far as gaining seats you better hope you do or you will be in even a bigger minority than now! It all is on a cycle and that moves up and down you may gain seats but in time people see the same old same old from the left and they come back. The left can't admitt defeat, they blame their short commings on anything they can but the truth! The people didn't understand, fixed elections, fraud votes BLAH, BLAH until the lefty's admitt there short commings you won't gain much with the american people.

I guess we'll see next Novermber.

 

[Itrap4u]

Disagreeable I have no spin that is the Dems best defense!!! Look up all bills voted on anti hunting,trapping, etc, the majority votes are Dems that is fact not spin!!!! It is on public record. The supreme court made that call because of the way the laws were, had nothing to do with George Bush, could have happened under any president, those that voted the way they did on this matter were moderates or Dems not the true conservative judges on the court!!!! They told the states to pass laws and some states have done so and more will be doing so in the near future.

Nice sound bite but not in context he also said, "Administrative subpoenas mean it is -- speeds up the process whereby people can gain information to go after terrorists. Administrative subpoenas I guess is kind of an ominous sounding word, but it is, to put everybody's mind at ease about administrative subpoenas -- we use them to catch crooked doctors today. It's a tool for people to chase down medical fraud. And it certainly makes sense to me that if we're using it as a tool to chase medical fraud cases, we certainly ought to use it as a tool to chase potential terrorists. "

Our laws never defined terrorist acts enough to see were they fall under the laws!!! I would rather have my government error on the side of caution to protect many than to be foolish and wait until it's too late!!!!

Not my hero, but he is the president of the US and the only one in many years that had the balls to go get the very people that infringe on our right of freedom!!!! His father didn't do it, and either did slick willy he was too busy worrying about his legacy and messing sround with woman, sure he lobbed a few bombs at Osama bt then called it good, if he would have had the balls durring his 8 year term in office 9/11 maybe wouldn't have happened, but the legacy of William Jefferson Clinton was what his mind was on the last 1.5 years in office, not to mention all the last second pardons he gave out to very rich men, I'm sure that made it into either his pocket or the Dems bank account!!!!

 

[Disagreeable]

You can continue to spin all you want, but Bush continually went out and told the American people not to worry, wiretaps required a court order. All the while he had a secret program going that listened in on domestic calls of American citizens, as well as others. Simply put, he lied. Of course, that's just a small lie in comparison to skewing intelligence to make his case for war with Saddam, but still a lie. It's more black and white, easier for those with an open mind to understand. And there's that pesky fact that the FISA court is ready and waiting to approve 99.99% of the requests for warrants put before it by the Administration. That fact won't go away either.

The Bush Administration argued in the Supreme Court that the city be able to take private homes and allow a developer to build a mall. So spin all you want there, too. Why you think that's any different than the anit-hunting, etc., is beyond me.

You can give up your liberties, but I'll stand by MS Sage's Ben Franklin quote:

 

[Itrap4u]

Disagreeable your theorys are full of holes and less facts than anything. Saddam needed to go period! As I stated others before him had the chance and found it to be too much a political hotbed, weak in my book!!!

I have no problem going to war against Sadam for any reason, the man was a dictator, a killer and was/would continue funding anyone who would try and take out the US. lets not forget the oil and food scandel and how the left wants us to take our arguments with others through the UN which is corupt and anti US as any organization out there.

The left keeps on with intel was bad and Bush new it routine with nothing to gain, many top dems had the same access to the intel as George Bush had, they voted for the war and then as a politcal move had to start to bash it and say how this is all going bad! It is not factual and even your own member who went to Iraq said things are improving and the US is doing good things their for not only the Iraqis but also for the protection of the US but Joe Lieberman gets NO Press from the main stream left TV NBC,CBS and ABC wonder why? LOL

One day the left will get there heads out of the clouds and come back to the real world, and may just gain a few seats, otherwise keep going on with the partyline outside of the box thinking and the Left will continue to shrink in this country.

 

[Faster horses]

I'm not so sure the left ever will get their heads out of where ever it is they have them.

I think they have gone beyond politics. What is frightening is they now actually BELIEVE the stuff they spew. I think it usta be politics, now I think it is more.

Most frightening indeed.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm not so sure the left ever will get their heads out of where ever it is they have them.

I think they have gone beyond politics. What is frightening is they now actually BELIEVE the stuff they spew. I think it usta be politics, now I think it is more.

Most frightening indeed.

:nod: Well said. To think that they have even the right to vote is indeed frightening.

 

[Steve]

Dis wrote:

The Bush Administration argued in the Supreme Court that the city be able to take private homes and allow a developer to build a mall.

"In dissent, O'Connor criticized the majority for abandoning the conservative principle of individual property rights."

"The former president used the example to illustrate his belief that few Americans are strictly orthodox in their political views. He said it was the first time he could remember agreeing with a dissent filed by two of the court's most conservative members, Justices Scalia and Thomas.

"I never thought it would happen," said Mr. Clinton, who once taught constitutional law while a professor in Arkansas."

", in clear contradiction to the eminent domain provisions of the 5th amendment in the Kelo v. New London case, as one of the worst SCOTUS decisions in the last ten years, something which the new (Bush conservative) Roberts/Alito additions to the court will hopefully correct."

Maybe you could explain you comment.......as it looks like another lie....




My position is that the 5th amendment is in support of individual property rights asserted in Amendment III and IV

if our Founders thought it important enough to waste three amendments on Property rights ,,,then why can't the liberals on the supreme court protect that same right????

Amendment three addresses the taking of property...."without the consent of the Owner."

Amendment four invokes the "Siezure" of "houses" again protecting property rights....

Property is again mentioned and portected in Article fourteen......"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,"

Seems the liberal court has it wrong,

 

[Disagreeable]

Disagreeable your theorys are full of holes and less facts than anything. Saddam needed to go period! As I stated others before him had the chance and found it to be too much a political hotbed, weak in my book!!!

And what theories are those? Please, take time and show me the holes in my "theories". (I'll not be holding my breath because I think you're full of hot air and don't have a single fact to back that hot air up.) You have no right to tell another country how to manage their business. I never saw the Iraqi people ask the US to come in and remove Saddam. Only those people who wanted to be in power inserted themselves into the Bush Administration's plans and claimed the Iraqi people would welcome us with open arms. It obviously was not the truth.

I have no problem going to war against Sadam for any reason, the man was a dictator, a killer and was/would continue funding anyone who would try and take out the US. lets not forget the oil and food scandel and how the left wants us to take our arguments with others through the UN which is corupt and anti US as any organization out there.

There are many other dictators around the world. Since when is it the United States of America's responsibility to oust dictators? And since when is it the US's responsibility to enforce UN sanctions? The UN wasn't too concerned. But you know as well as I do that George wanted Saddam. Daddy had failed and Georgie wanted to prove himself the better man. So he took us to war, badly. Thousands of Americans dead, billions of dollars gone, Bin Laden still on the loose, but, hey Saddam (who posed no threat to this country) is in jail.

The left keeps on with intel was bad and Bush new it routine with nothing to gain, many top dems had the same access to the intel as George Bush had, they voted for the war and then as a politcal move had to start to bash it and say how this is all going bad! It is not factual and even your own member who went to Iraq said things are improving and the US is doing good things their for not only the Iraqis but also for the protection of the US but Joe Lieberman gets NO Press from the main stream left TV NBC,CBS and ABC wonder why? LOL

No, they didn't have the same intel. Much of the intel they saw came from Bush sanitized. He presented it without the questions from some intelligence agencies. He used intelligence from a German source named "Curveball" to make his case for war, even though the German intelligence services had said he wasn't reliable. He claimed Saddam was trying to buy yellowcake, even though the State Department told him it was unlikely. He was finally forced to admit that statement should not have been in the SOU speech. Joe Libermann got plenty of press.

One day the left will get there heads out of the clouds and come back to the real world, and may just gain a few seats, otherwise keep going on with the partyline outside of the box thinking and the Left will continue to shrink in this country.

And one day you'll wake up and find your civil liberties are gone. As for the election, I guess we'll see next November.

 

[Disagreeable]

Dis wrote:

The Bush Administration argued in the Supreme Court that the city be able to take private homes and allow a developer to build a mall.

"In dissent, O'Connor criticized the majority for abandoning the conservative principle of individual property rights."

"The former president used the example to illustrate his belief that few Americans are strictly orthodox in their political views. He said it was the first time he could remember agreeing with a dissent filed by two of the court's most conservative members, Justices Scalia and Thomas.

"I never thought it would happen," said Mr. Clinton, who once taught constitutional law while a professor in Arkansas."

", in clear contradiction to the eminent domain provisions of the 5th amendment in the Kelo v. New London case, as one of the worst SCOTUS decisions in the last ten years, something which the new (Bush conservative) Roberts/Alito additions to the court will hopefully correct."

Maybe you could explain you comment.......as it looks like another lie....




My position is that the 5th amendment is in support of individual property rights asserted in Amendment III and IV

if our Founders thought it important enough to waste three amendments on Property rights ,,,then why can't the liberals on the supreme court protect that same right????

Amendment three addresses the taking of property...."without the consent of the Owner."

Amendment four invokes the "Siezure" of "houses" again protecting property rights....

Property is again mentioned and portected in Article fourteen......"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,"

Seems the liberal court has it wrong,

Don't see a link. Making stuff up again, Steve?

 

[Steve]

Don't see a link. Making stuff up again, Steve?

Nope. just facts you can't dispute!

Can't dispute it or defend your (lie) made up story about Bush so you resort to it doesn't have a link crap...

 

[Anonymous]

Disagreeable- You like and seem to believe in polls...On billoreilly.com they asked the poll question of whether the President should have the power to wiretap without a warrant if it involves issues of national security---Almost 95,000 respondents- 88% said yes 12% said no.....

Sounds like a nonissue to me--- except for the guilty terrorist supporters and the bleeding hearts....

 

[$$]

except for the guilty terrorist supporters and the bleeding hearts....

Hey, Dis, which one are you?

If it's easier for you, we can make it multiple choice:

(a) terrorist supporter
(b) bleeding heart liberal
(c) both a & b

 

[Disagreeable]

Don't see a link. Making stuff up again, Steve?

Nope. just facts you can't dispute!

Can't dispute it or defend your (lie) made up story about Bush so you resort to it doesn't have a link crap...

I know it's hard for you to understand, but they're not facts just because you say so, Steve.

 

[Disagreeable]

Disagreeable- You like and seem to believe in polls...On billoreilly.com they asked the poll question of whether the President should have the power to wiretap without a warrant if it involves issues of national security---Almost 95,000 respondents- 88% said yes 12% said no.....

Sounds like a nonissue to me--- except for the guilty terrorist supporters and the bleeding hearts....

What would you expect from a biloreilly poll?

I've asked this question several times and haven't got a single response, Oldtimer. So I'll ask you: Will you be so happy with this program if Hillary Clinton is the next president of the United States?

 

[Disagreeable]

except for the guilty terrorist supporters and the bleeding hearts....

Hey, Dis, which one are you?

If it's easier for you, we can make it multiple choice:

(a) terrorist supporter
(b) bleeding heart liberal
(c) both a & b

I'm an American citizen who refuses to give up my civil liberties for a false sense of security.

It's amazing to me how scared you people seem to be. I thought the "Big Sky Country" part of the US was full of brave, independent minded Americans, able to take care of themselves. Instead I find on this board a bunch of scared, sniveling, scareddy cats, willing to do anything if only the government will protect them from those bad ol' terrorists. What an eye opener!