Argue With Everyone Political Forums  

Go Back   Argue With Everyone Political Forums > Specific Political Issues > Terrorism

test
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 08-17-2006, 05:04 PM
graybeard's Avatar
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 4,771
Default Federal Judge orders halt to eavesdropping

NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/...uit/index.html
__________________
"If you don't know where you are going, you will probably wind up somewhere else."
- Laurence J. Peter
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 08-17-2006, 05:34 PM
Hodgepodge's Avatar
Political Guru
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 982
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by graybeard View Post
NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/...uit/index.html
Good I say. I never felt comfortable with the practice anyway. Now we can get it through the court system and get it ruled upon.

I do know one thing, this ruling by a Jimmy Carter appointed judge (semi-retired now) will drive my mother-in-law nuts!
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 08-17-2006, 05:44 PM
graybeard's Avatar
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 4,771
Default

If it justifies a warrant, then go for it. If the government can't work within the law, then change the law, don't ignore it.
__________________
"If you don't know where you are going, you will probably wind up somewhere else."
- Laurence J. Peter
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 08-17-2006, 05:45 PM
cat's meow's Avatar
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid-south
Posts: 11,827
Default

Bush can't get a break can he...

Those damn 'activist' judges...why I oughta' ^*&%$!!!!

Yeah, activist to define and enforced what presidential powers actually are supposed to be.

Now, with these rulings (is it three..four now?) you have to ask where the hell did David Addington get his law degrees and where did he practice law? Was he maybe Noriega's counsel or something?
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 08-17-2006, 05:54 PM
TheYellowDog's Avatar
Political Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tejas
Posts: 621
Default

I don't understand how either the first amendment of free speach or the fourth amendment protecting us from unreasonable search and seizure are violated by these wire taps.

First off, it never stops anyone from saying anything; it just makes people think twice about announcing the illegal stuff that they are doing.

Secondly, given there is sort of a search, but no more than if they were sitting on the sidewalk and heard these people talking and they are definately not taking anything from these people. Amendment IV protects us from having the government come into our houses and take what we have; it's not made to keep us from getting caught when we're doing something illegal.

There are certain risk people take when communicating; one of them is that someone is going to overhear you. You can almost be certain that when ever you say something everyone is going to hear it, actually. Plain and simple, if you're doing something that you don't want people to know about don't tell anyone; don't put our nation's people at risk because you don't want to get caught.

I hope that's coherent; I'm pretty tired.
__________________
"If I didn't live in Ohio I would love to live in Texas, it's the only place where drinking beer and kickin' ass is still accepted." -Roman
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 08-17-2006, 07:11 PM
cat's meow's Avatar
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid-south
Posts: 11,827
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheYellowDog View Post
I don't understand how either the first amendment of free speach or the fourth amendment protecting us from unreasonable search and seizure are violated by these wire taps.

First off, it never stops anyone from saying anything; it just makes people think twice about announcing the illegal stuff that they are doing.

Secondly, given there is sort of a search, but no more than if they were sitting on the sidewalk and heard these people talking and they are definately not taking anything from these people. Amendment IV protects us from having the government come into our houses and take what we have; it's not made to keep us from getting caught when we're doing something illegal.

There are certain risk people take when communicating; one of them is that someone is going to overhear you. You can almost be certain that when ever you say something everyone is going to hear it, actually. Plain and simple, if you're doing something that you don't want people to know about don't tell anyone; don't put our nation's people at risk because you don't want to get caught.

I hope that's coherent; I'm pretty tired.
I didn't disagree with these points and am personally willing to 'give and little to get a little' when talking about catching terrorists. That is not the problem with most people I talk to on both sides; both liberal and conservative. The issue is the erosion of legal rights we have not getting approved by legal experts and judges (outside looking in). The administartion is having to back track now because it is well documented they relied on one legal mind for the, David Addington. As counsel to the Vice President (mainly) he told gave a go ahead that then Cheney (more than anyone) went ahead with. Actually the authority and jurisdiction of the both the courts and CIA were usurped, it did not have to happen this way.

The ruling today was in response to the administrion not using the channels given to them (again). There is a United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that is there for this very thing and it was bypassed (intentionally) as was the FISA. There is a pattern and that is a bad thing. I totally agree about security but you cannot erode away the rule of law like this, and Federal Judge gave a ruling...stop doing it.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 08-17-2006, 09:57 PM
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,041
Default

Thank God. Wouldn't want to p**s off terrorists.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 08-17-2006, 10:32 PM
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skinny Fatts View Post
Thank God. Wouldn't want to p**s off terrorists.
Bush must learn to work w/i the law, plain and simple. The Presidency must abide by the law just like the congress and the judicial branches of our Government!!!

Don't worry, Bush will keep trying to exert his so called Presidential authority to attempt to acheive his personal agendas, but the tide is changing.

1. Judges have ruled against Bush's torture ambitions

2. Judges have ruled against Bush's attempt to hold so called enemy combatants with out a trial.

3. Judges have now ruled against Bush unwarranted spying and eaves dropping.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 08-17-2006, 11:13 PM
Roman's Avatar
Political Mastermind
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,142
Default

Good, way to go ACLU!
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 08-18-2006, 05:01 AM
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,425
Default

Gee and the judge was appointed by Jimmy Carter. Now what are the odds of that.
__________________
I love to relax by shooting cans.........AfriCANS, MexiCANS, Puerto RiCANS.................
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump


» Navigation

Political Links Page

Blogs by AWE Members

Advertisers support this site - if you're interested in their product, take a look!


test

$5 monthly donation:

$10 monthly donation:



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
Poltical Topsites PolitiPoll.net - Political Web Rankings