1
   

Where are they now?

 
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2007 07:55 am
@92b16vx,
92b16vx;36730 wrote:
But you are not there. Your being there in "spirit" is great and all, but it doesn't get you killed. Volunteer or not, being put in harms way for profits is a travesty of their service..
You feel that way now but i'm sure you didn't complain when you were collecting the checks. Would you try an have us believe that your were not there for profit? Why is it ok for you?
0 Replies
 
kmchugh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2007 01:20 pm
@wvpeach,
wvpeach;36708 wrote:
I like Keith Olberman

He did some really great work when Bush did away with our rights under the patriot act.


I hate to hijack this thread, but could you point to specific rights that have been lost under the Patriot Act? And could you show me in the actual Patriot Act where those rights were lost? Cause I keep hearing about the rights we've lost, but when I ask "which ones", I can't get anyone to give me a straight answer.

Oh, I get rambling, general answers, but so far no one has been able to point to the actual document and show me even a single lost right.
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2007 01:43 pm
@kmchugh,
kmchugh;36850 wrote:
I hate to hijack this thread, but could you point to specific rights that have been lost under the Patriot Act? And could you show me in the actual Patriot Act where those rights were lost? Cause I keep hearing about the rights we've lost, but when I ask "which ones", I can't get anyone to give me a straight answer.

Oh, I get rambling, general answers, but so far no one has been able to point to the actual document and show me even a single lost right.


Every heard of this thing called the, what is it now...oh yea, "Fourth Amendment"? It's in some fanatical fringe document I believe they call it a "Constitution" or somethng like that, anyway, after Googling it I found the fringe text in question, and boy is it looney....

Amendment IV

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.

Now the Patriot Act keeps us safe from the boogey man, we know this because our decider told us. We need to be able to pry into peoples personal lives because they are trying to kill us with bombs, and terrorism.
Freeman15
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2007 01:44 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;36777 wrote:
Neither are you.


He's not espousing a belief in the war, Pinochet is.

If somebody says, "we should all swim with sharks", but doesn't do so himself, what does that make him? Manipulative or a coward, but usually a little of both.
Red cv
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2007 01:51 pm
@92b16vx,
Quote from 92b: Now the Patriot Act keeps us safe from the boogey man, we know this because our decider told us. We need to be able to pry into peoples personal lives because they are trying to kill us with bombs, and terrorism.
__________________
I agree it's an attempt by the government to use Terrorism as an excuse to spy on the Unwashed Masses. We know who the enemy is: Radical Islam, not the SPCA or Joe Smoe.
0 Replies
 
kmchugh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2007 02:32 pm
@92b16vx,
92b16vx;36859 wrote:
Every heard of this thing called the, what is it now...oh yea, "Fourth Amendment"? It's in some fanatical fringe document I believe they call it a "Constitution" or somethng like that, anyway, after Googling it I found the fringe text in question, and boy is it looney....

Heard this argument before. Am always willing to accept it, on the condition you can show that it is true. I'll even help you out. You can find the full text of the PATRIOT Act here:

EFF: USA PATRIOT Act

Please reference for me the exact portion that violates the Fourth Amendment. (Warning: This won't be as easy as you think.) (And, by the way, that was one of those "rambling, general answers" I referred to in my first post.)
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2007 03:25 pm
@kmchugh,
kmchugh;36871 wrote:
Heard this argument before. Am always willing to accept it, on the condition you can show that it is true. I'll even help you out. You can find the full text of the PATRIOT Act here:

EFF: USA PATRIOT Act

Please reference for me the exact portion that violates the Fourth Amendment. (Warning: This won't be as easy as you think.) (And, by the way, that was one of those "rambling, general answers" I referred to in my first post.)


Your own source has a good look at it, and the expansion in power it gives intelligence agencies, both foreign, and domestic...

EFF: EFF Analysis of USA PATRIOT Act (Oct. 31, 2001)

It would also help to post a link to a text of it that doesn't have all the thousands of corrections, as they muddle trying to actually read it.
0 Replies
 
Freeman15
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2007 04:05 pm
@kmchugh,
kmchugh;36850 wrote:
I hate to hijack this thread, but could you point to specific rights that have been lost under the Patriot Act? And could you show me in the actual Patriot Act where those rights were lost? Cause I keep hearing about the rights we've lost, but when I ask "which ones", I can't get anyone to give me a straight answer.

Oh, I get rambling, general answers, but so far no one has been able to point to the actual document and show me even a single lost right.


Sec. 803: Requires US citizens to turn in those they know are contemplating terrorist activities, or face fines and a prison term no more than ten years. Violates privacy rights.

Sec. 215: Amends FISA (already unconstitutional) to make disclosure of FBI surveillance or searches to those being investigated a crime.

Sec. 213: Delays the disclosure of a warrant until "a reasonable period of its execution". Who decides what's reasonable?

Sec. 106: Unconstitutionally allows the president to use military force without Congressional Oversight and strips non-citizens of their Constitutional rights.

Happy?
scooby-doo cv
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2007 04:07 pm
@Red cv,
Red;36697 wrote:
Let us be clear now at this moment Al Q. is in Iraq now, and it's growing globally so what's the problem? Fight them now and finish the job or return in ten years when they are an even bigger force to deal with.

Cutting and running will have Radical Islamists (including in the free West and Eurabia) dancing in the streets and we wonder why they scorn us. At this moment the battle is being fought and you leave. How can the globe respect the US after that?


yeh it is in iraq now,it wasnt before,by invading iraq the US has created more jihadists,the should have concentrated on fighting AQ,and not a crazy war in iraq.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2007 04:07 pm
@Freeman15,
Freeman15;36860 wrote:
He's not espousing a belief in the war, Pinochet is.

If somebody says, "we should all swim with sharks", but doesn't do so himself, what does that make him? Manipulative or a coward, but usually a little of both.

And it could mean neither as well.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2007 04:20 pm
@Freeman15,
Freeman15;36889 wrote:
Sec. 803: Requires US citizens to turn in those they know are contemplating terrorist activities, or face fines and a prison term no more than ten years. Violates privacy rights.

Sec. 215: Amends FISA (already unconstitutional) to make disclosure of FBI surveillance or searches to those being investigated a crime.

Sec. 213: Delays the disclosure of a warrant until "a reasonable period of its execution". Who decides what's reasonable?

Sec. 106: Unconstitutionally allows the president to use military force without Congressional Oversight and strips non-citizens of their Constitutional rights.

Happy?
Quote:
Violates privacy rights.

And which would those be?
Quote:
Sec. 215: Amends FISA (already unconstitutional) to make disclosure of FBI surveillance or searches to those being investigated a crime.
How is this taking away a right?
Quote:
Sec. 213: Delays the disclosure of a warrant until "a reasonable period of its execution". Who decides what's reasonable?
They decide what is reasonable. Again this has nothing to do with taking away a right?
Quote:
Sec. 106: Unconstitutionally allows the president to use military force without Congressional Oversight and strips non-citizens of their Constitutional rights.

Since when do non-citizens have Constitutional rights? How does the president use military force without Congress funding it? And again this has nothing to do with taking away a right?
Freeman15
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2007 04:28 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;36896 wrote:
And which would those be?

The right to privacy is a well-established derivative of the fourteenth amendment as per our Supreme Court. Roe v. Wade was decided under the right to privacy.

Quote:
How is this taking away a right?

Four Amendment says I am to be secure in my home and person. If you search my home without telling me you have a warrant, you have violated those rights. READ THE CONSTITUTION.

Quote:
They decide what is reasonable. Again this has nothing to do with taking away a right?

See above

Quote:
Since when do non-citizens have Constitutional rights?

Only amendments or articles expressly mentioning citizens do not apply to non-citizens (ie, voting). The Constitution applies to the country.


Quote:
How does the president use military force without Congress funding it? And again this has nothing to do with taking away a right?


Congress and Congress alone has the authority to declare war. Congress has no right to pawn off this responsibility on the president, nor does the president have authority to use it. Once again, read the Constitution.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2007 04:42 pm
@Freeman15,
Freeman15;36902 wrote:
The right to privacy is a well-established derivative of the fourteenth amendment as per our Supreme Court. Roe v. Wade was decided under the right to privacy.


Four Amendment says I am to be secure in my home and person. If you search my home without telling me you have a warrant, you have violated those rights. READ THE CONSTITUTION.


See above


Only amendments or articles expressly mentioning citizens do not apply to non-citizens (ie, voting). The Constitution applies to the country.




Congress and Congress alone has the authority to declare war. Congress has no right to pawn off this responsibility on the president, nor does the president have authority to use it. Once again, read the Constitution.
Quote:
The right to privacy is a well-established derivative of the fourteenth amendment as per our Supreme Court. Roe v. Wade was decided under the right to privacy.
Please quote where in the Constitution there is a right to privacy? No derivatives please, just the original words from our founding fathers?
Quote:
Four Amendment says I am to be secure in my home and person. If you search my home without telling me you have a warrant, you have violated those rights. READ THE CONSTITUTION.
I have, not once have i seen a right to privacy? Got link?
Quote:
See above
I will when you quote the Constitution giving you a right to privacy?
Quote:
Only amendments or articles expressly mentioning citizens do not apply to non-citizens (ie, voting).
Since when?
Quote:
The Constitution applies to the country.
Nope, it applys to the legal citizen.
Quote:
Congress and Congress alone has the authority to declare war. Congress has no right to pawn off this responsibility on the president, nor does the president have authority to use it. Once again, read the Constitution.
As we all know, you don't need a declaration to have a war, take Iraq for example. If it's unconstitutional why are we still there? You must be wrong then.
Freeman15
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 01:40 am
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;36907 wrote:
Please quote where in the Constitution there is a right to privacy? No derivatives please, just the original words from our founding fathers?

It isn't in the direct text, but the Supreme Court has authority of judicial review as per Article III, and they have interpreted the fourteenth amendment to denote a right to privacy.

Quote:
I have, not once have i seen a right to privacy? Got link?I will when you quote the Constitution giving you a right to privacy?

The Fourth and fourteenth amendments are different both in number and in content. The fourth guarantees my right to be secure in my home and requires warrants for all searches (rendering FISA illegal).


Quote:
Nope, it applys to the legal citizen.

Really? So our laws don't apply to legal residents then? The Constitution governs the land, and to deny that the Constitution applies to everybody is to say that the laws passed as a result of the Constitution (ie, all Congressional statutes EVER) only apply to citizens. Somebody visiting from Germany can rob a bank, no problem, because the Constitution doesn't apply to them.

Quote:
As we all know, you don't need a declaration to have a war, take Iraq for example. If it's unconstitutional why are we still there? You must be wrong then.

We're still there because Congress didn't follow the Constitution and still isn't. Just because the government does something doesn't make it legal. Clinton lied under oath, but oh wait he was the president, so that makes it acceptable. Article I clearly gives Congress authority to declare war, it does not give them the authority to let the president decide for them.
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 03:32 am
@Freeman15,
Freeman15;36889 wrote:
Sec. 803: Requires US citizens to turn in those they know are contemplating terrorist activities, or face fines and a prison term no more than ten years. Violates privacy rights.

Sec. 215: Amends FISA (already unconstitutional) to make disclosure of FBI surveillance or searches to those being investigated a crime.

Sec. 213: Delays the disclosure of a warrant until "a reasonable period of its execution". Who decides what's reasonable?

Sec. 106: Unconstitutionally allows the president to use military force without Congressional Oversight and strips non-citizens of their Constitutional rights.

Happy?


We're at war. We were attacked on 911. This is serious. We've always compromised the Constitution during war, when and if it becomes necessary for national defense purposes. Lincoln and FDR had to do it, rather frequently and aggressively. America must win. That's the bottom line.
kmchugh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 04:58 am
@Pinochet73,
Freeman15;36889 wrote:
Sec. 803: Requires US citizens to turn in those they know are contemplating terrorist activities, or face fines and a prison term no more than ten years. Violates privacy rights.
in some cases,
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 07:57 am
@Freeman15,
Freeman15;36983 wrote:
It isn't in the direct text, but the Supreme Court has authority of judicial review as per Article III, and they have interpreted the fourteenth amendment to denote a right to privacy.


The Fourth and fourteenth amendments are different both in number and in content. The fourth guarantees my right to be secure in my home and requires warrants for all searches (rendering FISA illegal).



Really? So our laws don't apply to legal residents then? The Constitution governs the land, and to deny that the Constitution applies to everybody is to say that the laws passed as a result of the Constitution (ie, all Congressional statutes EVER) only apply to citizens. Somebody visiting from Germany can rob a bank, no problem, because the Constitution doesn't apply to them.


We're still there because Congress didn't follow the Constitution and still isn't. Just because the government does something doesn't make it legal. Clinton lied under oath, but oh wait he was the president, so that makes it acceptable. Article I clearly gives Congress authority to declare war, it does not give them the authority to let the president decide for them.
Quote:
It isn't in the direct text, but the Supreme Court has authority of judicial review as per Article III, and they have interpreted the fourteenth amendment to denote a right to privacy.
That is legislating from the bench, SCOTUS does not make law, period. That is unConstitutional.
Quote:
The Fourth and fourteenth amendments are different both in number and in content. The fourth guarantees my right to be secure in my home and requires warrants for all searches (rendering FISA illegal).
And what right have they taken away from you is what you still haven't explained? Right here right now? You don't have one example of what has been taken? You keep pointing to some right to privacy but when i ask where in the Constitution you beat around the bush because you know it's not there. You probably believe separation of church and state in the there too? Take my word for it, it ain't.
Quote:
Really? So our laws don't apply to legal residents then? The Constitution governs the land, and to deny that the Constitution applies to everybody is to say that the laws passed as a result of the Constitution (ie, all Congressional statutes EVER) only apply to citizens. Somebody visiting from Germany can rob a bank, no problem, because the Constitution doesn't apply to them.
I thought we were talking rights, now you want to change to LAW? In any case, show me where it says the Constitution applys to those only in our borders? I can't take your word for it because you thought there is a right to privacy in the Constitution.
Quote:
We're still there because Congress didn't follow the Constitution and still isn't. Just because the government does something doesn't make it legal.
So in your opinion if you think it's not legal it must be illegal? What does the Constitution have to say about it? Nothing. If something doesn't make it legal that don't automatically made it illegal.
Quote:
Clinton lied under oath, but oh wait he was the president, so that makes it acceptable.
WE can prove Sklinton lied, you need to prove intent to get Bush. If you guys had it he would already be gone.
Quote:
Article I clearly gives Congress authority to declare war, it does not give them the authority to let the president decide for them.
So you think they were forced to vote under threat? Didn't they just giver him another 50 billion in appropriations, they don't seem so opposed wouldn't you think?

Note: I may not reply till next week.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 08:03 am
@kmchugh,
kmchugh;36999 wrote:
in some cases,
Very nice post, thank you.
0 Replies
 
Freeman15
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 11:54 am
@Pinochet73,
Pinochet73;36989 wrote:
We're at war. We were attacked on 911. This is serious. We've always compromised the Constitution during war, when and if it becomes necessary for national defense purposes. Lincoln and FDR had to do it, rather frequently and aggressively. America must win. That's the bottom line.


And Lincoln and FDR were both wrong. The Constitution is the document from which the government derives their authority. They have neither the right nor the ability to compromise it.

Oh, and we're not at war, Congress has yet to declare it.
0 Replies
 
Freeman15
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 12:07 pm
@kmchugh,
kmchugh;36999 wrote:
in some cases,


As I said, nowhere in the Constitution is the right to privacy guaranteed, but your analysis is shallow and ignores basic principles of Constitutional law:

Wire taps technically speaking are not searches in the Constitutional sense, so why are warrants required as per the courts? Courts have indicated a right to privacy derived through interpretation of the fourteenth amendment and it has become precedent. Rarely do federal courts make rulings exclusive to the subject matter, you're educated enought to know this, you simply chose to cherry-pick.

Simply knowing of a plot and doing nothing about it is not aiding and abetting, it's depraved indifference in most states, which is at its heart unconstitutional. Now I did misinterpret the fourth amendment, that I'll admit, but the first amendment clearly permits peacable assembly. If I am not implicated in the plot, the assembly and association is peaceful, and thus protected.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 06/25/2024 at 06:11:02