America... Spying on Americans

Tico,

Quote:

We've made these arguments before, and neither of us will change our minds until the Supreme Court has weighed in and decided the matter. I can't imagine what your "links" are regarding the AUMF argument having been "shown to be false." I wasn't aware the Supreme Court had decided this issue .... Or are you just referring to some law professor's opinon(s)?

I'm aware of the fact we've made these arguments before. The problem is, you act as if my argument is the same as your argument - an opinion. My argument is not an opinion. It is currently existing law. My opinion is backed by force.

This is why the Administration, and by the same boat your argument, fail in this case; they may be of the opinion that FISA - a limit on Executive authority - does not or should not encroach upon their authority, but the law specifically says that it does, and furthermore, it was approved by the Executive branch! Your boy Bush is bound by the decisions of previous presidents.

The matter has already been decided.

The president, even if he believes a law to be wrong, does not have the authority to arbitrarily decide to break that law, and escape the consequences of doing so.

And, as to the AUMF, then yes, it is 'law professors' opinion,' but then again, the argument that AUMF permits this sort of skullduggery is also just a 'law professors' opinion.'

Cycloptichorn

Debra_Law wrote:

Tico seems to think that the United States is the boss of the entire world. Perhaps Tico needs to join the armed forces so that he will have a direct, front line role in helping the United States enforce its dictatorship over countries that seem to think they have a right to rule themselves.

You haven't answered the question either, Debra. Although I think we can infer what your response will be, I'd like for at least one of the leftists on this thread to take a clear position:

Do you think it is acceptable for the US to allow Iran to have nuclear weapon capabilities?

Yes, indeed. And what does that mean? .....

It means you cannot tell me the AUMF argument has been "shown to be false."

Ticomaya wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

Tico seems to think that the United States is the boss of the entire world. Perhaps Tico needs to join the armed forces so that he will have a direct, front line role in helping the United States enforce its dictatorship over countries that seem to think they have a right to rule themselves.

You haven't answered the question either, Debra. Although I think we can infer what your response will be, I'd like for at least one of the leftists on this thread to take a clear position:

Do you think it is acceptable for the US to allow Iran to have nuclear weapon capabilities?

It is UNACCEPTABLE for the United States to become a terrorist nation under the guise of fighting terrorism.

Terrorism consists of acts that appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

It is a war crime for one country to engage in a war of aggression against another country. And yet, you support the threat of a preemptive war of aggression against Iran to intimidate the citizens of Iran and to coerce the Iranian government to halt its nuclear energy program. If Iran does not change its energy policies to your satisfaction, you advocate using our armed forces to bomb Iranians, to kill Iranians, and to overthrow the Iranian government.

Since you're the one who claims the authority to tell other countries what you will allow or will not allow under the threat of mass destruction, you're the terrorist, Tico.

Since you're the one who claims the authority to tell other countries what you will allow or will not allow under the threat of mass destruction, you're the terrorist, Tico.

Until a law has been declared UnConstitutional, then it is by definition a Constitutional law. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

The FISCR opinion does not provide the President with the authority to break the law. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Quote:

Yes, indeed. And what does that mean? .....

It means you cannot tell me the AUMF argument has been "shown to be false."

That's the whole point - it was never 'proven' correct in the first place. I can provide you with links to exactly what you predicted I would - law professors who explain - also known as 'show' - just how silly this idea is. In the AG's own words, this interpretation of the law was 'discovered' one or two years after the program had already begun. This gives credence to the idea that the AUMF explanation is just a band-aid the Administration found to cover up their crimes after the fact; not an original justification for the program, not a plausible one, and not a legal one.

Cycloptichorn

Debra_Law wrote:

Since when did the WORLD put the United States in charge of determining which countries will be allowed to have nuclear power plants, and which countries will NOT be allowed to have nuclear power plants?

The world didn't, Debra. The world (e.g., the UN, and the IAEA) has shown time and again that it is willing to issue strong warnings and condemnations about such matters, but it has no backbone/capability to do anything about it. The US, on the other hand, has shown very clearly that it has ... despite all the sniveling leftists in this country that think we ought to just allow sovereign countries develop WMD (after all, the US and Israel have nukes, so it's only fair if Iran has them too ).

One thing is clear: If the Democratic party issues a clear statement supporting Iran's right to have nuclear power (weapons), it will guarantee the Republican party will be in power for many years to come, because it will have shown -- yet again -- that it cannot be trusted with matters of national security.

Where's your proof that Iran is developing weapons of mass destruction?

Do you think it is acceptable for the US to allow Iran to have nuclear weapon capabilities?[/size]

Debra_Law wrote:

It is UNACCEPTABLE for the United States to become a terrorist nation under the guise of fighting terrorism.

Terrorism consists of acts that appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. . . .

No, it appears you instead believe that someone who merely talks about preventing Iran from having nuclear weapons is a terrorist, which -- besides being obviously nutty -- seems to fly in the face of all you've parroted in the past about how the right of free speech must be inviolate in America. Leaving me to ponder whether you are a hypocrit, incompetent, or just not on your game today.

Where's your proof that Iran is developing weapons of mass destruction? Iran wants a power plant to supply the energy needs of the country's people.

The point is Iran should not be permitted to become a nuclear power (just as N. Korea should not have been).

Powerful Voices Within Tehran Criticize Iran's Nuclear Policy

. . .

"Nuclear energy is our irrefutable right."

. . .

"The Islamic Republic of Iran considers retreat over the nuclear issue, which is the demand of the Iranian people, as breaking the country's independence that will impose huge costs on the Iranian nation," he said.

"Peaceful use of nuclear technology is a must and is necessary for scientific growth in all fields," Ayatollah Khamenei said. "Any kind of retreat will bring a series of pressures and retreats. So, this is an irreversible path and our foreign diplomacy should defend this right courageously."

. . .

Are you seriously suggesting allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is something we should allow to occur?

Ticomaya wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Why are you so sure Iran will? Will you destroy over a million Iranian lives on your guess?

Are you seriously suggesting allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is something we should allow to occur?

The article states that Iran is seeking to develop a nuclear energy program.

Quote:

Nuclear power plants provide about 17 percent of the world's electricity. Some countries depend more on nuclear power for electricity than others. In France, for instance, about 75 percent of the electricity is generated from nuclear power, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. In the United States, nuclear power supplies about 15 percent of the electricity overall, but some states get more power from nuclear plants than others. There are more than 400 nuclear power plants around the world, with more than 100 in the United States.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm

Since when did the WORLD put the United States in charge of determining which countries will be allowed to have nuclear power plants, and which countries will NOT be allowed to have nuclear power plants?

Tico seems to think that the United States is the boss of the entire world. Perhaps Tico needs to join the armed forces so that he will have a direct, front line role in helping the United States enforce its dictatorship over countries that seem to think they have a right to rule themselves.

Debra_Law wrote:

Where's your proof that Iran is developing weapons of mass destruction?

I never said I had proof. My simple thesis is Iran should be prevented from acquiring nukes.

Now, how about answering my question which you have thus far refused to answer:

Earlier Tico wrote:

Do you think it is acceptable for the US to allow Iran to have nuclear weapon capabilities?[/size]

Ticomaya wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

It is UNACCEPTABLE for the United States to become a terrorist nation under the guise of fighting terrorism.

Terrorism consists of acts that appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. . . .

No, it appears you instead believe that someone who merely talks about preventing Iran from having nuclear weapons is a terrorist, which -- besides being obviously nutty -- seems to fly in the face of all you've parroted in the past about how the right of free speech must be inviolate in America. Leaving me to ponder whether you are a hypocrit, incompetent, or just not on your game today.

You need to hone up on your First Amendment jurisprudence. I'm not a government actor acting under the color of law attempting to impose penalties on you due to your speech. We're citizens and we're exchanging words in a debate. And, you're not "merely talking."

How are you going to PREVENT Iran from developing its nuclear energy program? In order to prevent this, you're advocating the coercion and intimidation of the Iranian people and the Iranian government in order to influence Iranian policies. If Iran doesn't change its energy policy to your satisfaction, you're advocating the violent overthrow of a foreign government (using our arsenal of war weapons of mass destruction). That makes you a terrorist.

Tico wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is something we should allow to occur?

Iran is not seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. They are seeking to develop the country's energy program for peaceful use to meet the needs of the Iranian people. See my previous comments:

Ticomaya wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Why are you so sure Iran will? Will you destroy over a million Iranian lives on your guess?

Are you seriously suggesting allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is something we should allow to occur?

The article states that Iran is seeking to develop a nuclear energy program.

You have not proven that Iran is seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. Iran, like what a multitude of other countries have already done, is seeking to develop its energy program for PEACEFUL USES to benefit the Iranian people.

The IAEA brought this matter to the UN Security Council for a reason.

Why does Israel deserve the right to own Nukes, while Iran doesn't?

Because they are our allies?

How does this work morally, exactly?

Cycloptichorn

Another answer to your question is .... do you remember anybody advocating Hitler attaining nuclear weapons as a matter of fairness?