Poll: Most Say U.S. Needs Warrant to Snoop
A majority of Americans want the Bush administration to get court approval before eavesdropping on people inside the United States, even if those calls might involve suspected terrorists, an AP-Ipsos poll shows.
Over the past three weeks, President Bush and top aides have defended the electronic monitoring program they secretly launched shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, as a vital tool to protect the nation from al-Qaida and its affiliates.
Yet 56 percent of respondents in an AP-Ipsos poll said the government should be required to first get a court warrant to eavesdrop on the overseas calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens when those communications are believed to be tied to terrorism.
3/4 of Democrats say the President needs a warrant, while only 1/4 of Republicans do, proving once again that Republicans see the constitution as nothing more than a piece of paper.
Oliver do you even think about these things before you post them?
“I don t care about all the loaded polls one way or another.” that is from two posts back.
Now a poll is magically telling you that republicans see the Constitution a certain way.
Dude, even your own articles have not internal consistency or logic. You are a straight, bush hating partisan who is spewing this garbage in hopes of getting some sort of dream job (for a liberal) in the federal government if a democrat gets elected. You couldn’t care less about what is good for this country, this is all about you.
No, I don’t care about the polls. This one is a more honest question and I agree with the results, but even if you flipped it around – the morally right thing would be for congress to perform their job and look over the WH.
Dr P: Careful with the psychoanalysis. Oliver is young, and fragile. Wouldn’t want him spending any more time in therapy than he has to, given that the Democratic Party will be as about powerful as the Green Party, by the time he retires on his privatized Social Security.
We almost always first recognize faults in others, that are most
pronounced in ourselves.
I wonder what the polls say about
Abortion on demand
No smoking in restaurants
Fines for not driving with seat belts
Oh, yes, what happened to those weekly polls reporting Bush’s “unpopularity”? They seem to have gone the way of the “Brit Hume must resign” campaign.
All must be lost for the Bush Reich. . even the respondents for the John Birch Society’s poll…
67% think Bush NSA snooping on Americans is unconsitutional and just plain ol’ illegal..
http://www.jbs.org/poll.php?vo=1
And I haven’t seen any politicians paying the electoral price for supporting a smoking ban. Same goes for seat-belt laws.
I’m so glad theres no smoking in restaurants. It used to drive me crazy but I dont even think about it any more except when whiney smokers complain about it.
Leo did you just use a “he who smelt it, dealt it” argument?
You ARE an eighth grader……!
The majority of Americans are opposed to abortion on demand, the issue I raised, not the issue you raised, Oliver.
And you’re not talking about Bush’s numbers? Why not? Too busy pushing John “The Hawk” Murtha’s “bug out of Iraq” agenda?
The reason why no one is “paying the electoral price” for the seat belt requirement is because voters don’t know who’s responsible for it.
I was referring to what a poll might show for a simple question: Are you in favor of imposing high fines on people who forget to wear seat belts?
President Bush remains unpopular, underperforming President Clinton, Reagan in his second term.
The majority of Americans support a woman’s right to an abortion. As Thalyi says, I too am looking for the politicians running against mandatory seat belt laws. Frank’s fantasies do not apply.
4th grade is closer to the emotional development you aspire to. Keep
working at it.
Why would anyone poll on abortion on demand, since nobody is advocating that? I’ve been talking about Bush’s numbers, but they haven’t moved in months – and they’re still bad (I know you don’t like facts and all). I bet you’d be surprised at the amount of people who would vote in the affirmative on mandatory seat belts.
I doubt anyone would be able to retire on privatized social security. It doesn’t work anywhere else in the world, I doubt it would work.
Seatbelts. When my state made them mandatory, supporters for the bill swore that police would never be able to pull you over just for not wearing one. Now, a few years later with the law in place, police can pull you over for not wearing one.
Abortion. I don’t believe that people should have them, but I don’t believe I should force my views on anyone else. It is another case where science has gone beyond the wisdom of our culture.
Warrantless Spying. Bad Bush. Congress needs to act immediately, appoint a special prosecutor, seize all records and get everyone involved under oath giving testimony, including Bush. Then they need to pour through the evidence and put everyone back under oath. Then see what happened, who lied and start arresting people if applicable. Bush should be censured or impeached for trying to pull the wool over their eyes. Then they need to legislate what the president can and cannot do.
I guess now that the polls don’t say what they want to hear, the wingers want to argue about Oliver’s dislike of polls, rather than what the poll says.
…the issue you raised to change the subject. Since it’s Oliver’s blog, lets let Oliver pick the subject, ok Frank? The subject under discussion in this thread is the poll that says the majority of Americans think wiretaps require warrants. The Constitution requires it, the majority of Americans agree, the only ones out of step here are the Bush administration and their cheerleaders.
I don t care about all the loaded polls one way or another. that is from two posts back.”
So who exactly is it that changes their mind when the polls support it?
Yea, thats what I thought
Keep the echo chamber alive ryland
I am so scared of the Terrorists – you can have my rights and liberties!
So lame -
Frank- so if you think that smoking bans and seat belt laws are an infringment how about the right snort cocaine or shoot up smack? Do you think those laws go to far as well?
Warrantless Spying. Bad Bush. Congress needs to act immediately, appoint a special prosecutor, seize all records and get everyone involved under oath giving testimony, including Bush. Then they need to pour* [sic] through the evidence and put everyone back under oath. Then see what happened, who lied and start arresting people if applicable. Bush should be censured or impeached for trying to pull the wool over their eyes. Then they need to legislate what the president can and cannot do.
You forgot something very important. Once November 2006 comes and goes, the Democrats will have lost more seats in the Rich Folk’s House and the Rich Folk’s Senate, and this whole kerfluffle will be forgotten. Murtha amd Pelosi will have made a deal: “You forget about our investigations, and we’ll forget the whole NSA thing.”
Should be “pore”: to study attentively, as in: Before the presentation, she will likely pore over her notes.
Incidentally, how do you square “seize all records and get everyone involved under oath giving testimony, including Bush… Then see what happened, who lied and start arresting people if applicable.” with “Bush should be censured or impeached for trying to pull the wool over their eyes”? Isn’t that a lot like “First we’ll try him, then we’ll hang him?”
No, small grammar error aside Miss RulerWielder, my post is consistent. Bush should be censured or impeached, not for breaking the law, but for deliberately placing his conduct outside the boundaries and oversight of congress and the courts for a long period of time. The seize the records part is about making sure a coverup isn’t launched, and that congress has the information on the breadth and scope of Bush’s peeping before records get lost or destroyed. Getting statements of those involved is just good sense so an idea of what they are telling the public now and what the records indicate actually happened can be compared — no arrests or charges need follow an investigation, they might tell the truth, but without being under oath they can say anything they like. So far, it seems the few details that became known have already conflicted with some of what Bush has said publicly.
He presented it to the appropriate congresspeople who then did nothing with it.
Next liberal talking point canard please…
As with all infractions, IOKIYAR.
Only if your law professor is considered a “check and balance” in the government that is your life.
See, there is this thing called “The Constitution”, and it is a rule-book for our form of governm…….never mind…Bush haters only quote the constitution when it suits them.
When you say your “law professor”, you mean the guy you work for, like as a secretary right? Please tell me I don’t have explain our checks and balances system to a law student!
Well I told my law professor that I beat my wife and he didn’t call the cops. That makes it moral, legal and appropriate!!
He’s admitted that he authorized wiretaps without warrants. He even said last year that wiretaps require warrants. So was he lying then, or is he lying now?
What would it take to get you to believe Bush broke the law? George Bush could shoot a baby in the head with an Uzi on national TV, and you guys would spin it to make it look like the baby had it coming because it was soft on crime.
dpedro : They seem to be in full on self flagellation mode about President Bush trampling all over the Fourth Amendment, proclaiming him guilty and having already sentenced him. I always find it funny how they read certain aspects of the Constitution in absolute terms, yet have no problem ignoring other parts of the Constitution, ie. the 2nd Amendment.
Well, impeachment and disbarrment would do it for me…..
How about you?
DrPedro, you ae simply a liar repeating bogus republican talking points. Bush did not present his program to congress, he presented it ot a handful of congresspersons who could not legally take any action whatsoever. They could not consult with experts on surveillence, legal experts, personel involved with the project, the administration, their colleagues, or even each other. That is not any kind of a check or balance.
Next talking point, Bush has declared himself beyond congress’ laws an astounding 500+ times. Impeach. He has even stated he does not have to tell congress when he does it, contrary to laws passd by congress to monitor this disgusting practice. Impeach. 500+ times. Not to mention executive orders that directly countermand duly enacted laws. Impeach.
How many of you, democrat, republican, liberal, conservative, meat lover, vegetarian, whatever, want someone to monitor your telephone calls and email without your knowledge and without going through the legal process created by our representatives, Congress? All of the other arguments made in support of this program are superfluous.
I’ve made my position clear: I fully expect that my phone calls, and the contents of my computer(s) will not be monitored.
But, if they must be, so that my children will live to a ripe old age, then so be it.
Let me ask you a question, wacked: What if a policeman or two came to your door, and said, “We believe that there is a serial killer hiding in your home. Could we check and see”?
Would you tell him, “Sorry, not without a warrant. I’m not a coward. If he wants to kill me and my family, I don’t care. I’m not giving up my Constitutional rights”?
You got a poll, I got a poll; we’ll go fishin’ in a hole:
Americans overwhelmingly support President Bush’s authorization to the National Security Agency to tap the private conversations of U.S. citizens to search for evidence of terrorist activity, an exclusive NewsMax.com poll reveals.
In one of the largest responses to a NewsMax poll ever, more than 150,000 people across the Internet have made their opinions known about this controversy.
And they resoundingly say that the President was justified in taking this action to protect America.
Here is a breakdown of the poll results for several key questions:
1) Has President Bush been justified in tapping the conversation of U.S. citizens?
Justified – 80%
Not Justified – 20%
2) Do you believe the President must have a court-approved warrant to conduct a wiretap?
Yes – 23%
No – 72%
Not Sure – 5%
3) Do you believe President Bush’s claim that he undertook this action to protect America?
Yes – 83%
No – 17%
4) How would you rate media coverage about President Bush’s actions?
Fair – 20%
Unfair – 80%
“But, if they must be, so that my children will live to a ripe old age, then so be it.”
So essentially what you’re saying is that you support the Constitution right up until you wet your pants in fear. Fantastic.
Then again,your follow up hypothetical suggests that you have no understanding of the Constitution and how probable cause would work in such a scenario to begin with.
A Newsmax poll?
Well, I for one, am convinced.
’scuse me pedro, as a current member of the armed forces, I’d like to know what it is you have sacrificed to make my current job easier.
Are you still driving a gas-hog SUV? Do you still buy goods made in sweatshops? Are you talking to your congressmen and trying to get us to stop meddling in the middle east to get oil and start investing in closed-loop systems and renewable energy projects that we can use RIGHT NOW, rather than in 20 years (if we’re lucky)? Do you carpool, or take public transit?
Or are you buying the “if we change anything that we do, the terrorists win” line of bullshit. (which is ironic, considering we’re not supposed to change our consumption habits but we are supposed to give up our liberties).
IF these people are “foreign agents” and “enemy combatants” than we can damn well get a warrant. Don’t you get it? We are who we are because we have liberties, and yet you want to take them away? It IS the principle of the thing because this country was founded on PRINCIPLES.
And honestly, Frank, a newsmax poll? tell you what, I’ll go get a common dreams poll and we can both hire a statistician to argue over how our respective polls weren’t conducted scientifically. By Hermes…you might as well survey a bunch of opus dei members to see if they think jesus was the son of god…it’d be about as representative.
Limosine liberals, by the way, is a crock of shit sold by religious right to label what is, in actuality, the buisness right. The problem is, you use it to refer to real progressives when you’re actually talking about “borrow, spend, and flee” republicans.
There is no “probably cause” in warfare moron. There is no “miranda right”, there is no right to a “speedy trial”, there is no “right to an attorney”.
These people are foreign agents and enemy combatants. The left’s complete misunderstand of the current situation puts our country at risk.
The irony of you limosine liberals, who never served a day in your lives, constantly referring to us armed forces veterans as “cowards” is rich.
Oh, and since you are so fond of the founding fathers….
The circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite, and for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed.” –Alexander Hamilton
You must have missed a few classes at the air farce academy wolfie.
Can you imagine prosecuting WWII with warrants?
I will repeat again, for those of you limonsine liberals on the short bus of life….
The US Constitution delineates rights for US citizens, not terrorist islamofascist scum.
And wolfie, you rights are so trampled on that you can spout off with abandon about what a horrible CIC you have, all while serving on active duty!
yea, no question YOUR rights are being infringed upon.
Remember buddy, you are in the Armed Forces, you protect the Constitution, you don’t practice it…..
Pedro to the extent that you and others like you have the power to distort and corrupt the intentions of the Founding Fathers to rationalize a violation of the US constitution you are a bigger threat to the UNited States than OBL. Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists can only kill people. You and your followers on the other hand can play a decisive role in the destruction of the Constitution.
The mere act of eavesdropping on US persons and/or citizens without a warrant is a violation of their rights to privacy. But even more than that, the PResident is claiming the power to break the law here. That is an ever greater threat to our system of government.
I’m not sure where you got the “fear” meme, but it doesn’t apply.
As I have pointed out, show me one person who had their “rights snatched” by anything the NSA has done.
See the scary thing is (and yes, this I am afraid of) is that the leftists in this country truly see GWB as a bigger threat than OBL and his cronies, I mean, you really believe it.
Res ipsi loquitor
How much contempt does Pedro have the Constitution and the Foudning Fathers? Apparently enough to take Hamilton out of context and completely distort the meaning of his quotation. Hamilton was not talking about giving the president unlimited power even to the extent of infringing on our rights. He was talking about Congress’s ability to raise an army and to tax the states for the monies required to do so. S, Pedro, I aks you, are you totally dishonest, just stupid or both?
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/fed/federa23.htm
From Federalist PAper #23:
The authorities essential to the common defense are these: to raise armies; to build and equip fleets; to prescribe rules for the government of both; to direct their operations; to provide for their support. These powers ought to exist without limitation, because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent and variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them. The circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite, and for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed. This power ought to be coextensive with all the possible combinations of such circumstances; and ought to be under the direction of the same councils which are appointed to preside over the common defense.
This is one of those truths which, to a correct and unprejudiced mind, carries its own evidence along with it; and may be obscured, but cannot be made plainer by argument or reasoning. It rests upon axioms as simple as they are universal; the means ought to be proportioned to the end; the persons, from whose agency the attainment of any end is expected, ought to possess the means by which it is to be attained.
Whether there ought to be a federal government intrusted with the care of the common defense, is a question in the first instance, open for discussion; but the moment it is decided in the affirmative, it will follow, that that government ought to be clothed with all the powers requisite to complete execution of its trust. And unless it can be shown that the circumstances which may affect the public safety are reducible within certain determinate limits; unless the contrary of this position can be fairly and rationally disputed, it must be admitted, as a necessary consequence, that there can be no limitation of that authority which is to provide for the defense and protection of the community, in any matter essential to its efficacy that is, in any matter essential to the formation, direction, or support of the NATIONAL FORCES …
Congress have an unlimited discretion to make requisitions of men and money; to govern the army and navy; to direct their operations. As their requisitions are made constitutionally binding upon the States, who are in fact under the most solemn obligations to furnish the supplies required of them, the intention evidently was that the United States should command whatever resources were by them judged requisite to the “common defense and general welfare.” It was presumed that a sense of their true interests, and a regard to the dictates of good faith, would be found sufficient pledges for the punctual performance of the duty of the members to the federal head.
Pedro –
I don’t give a fuck if you or Frank or anyone else served in the military once upon a time. At present you and your ilk have decided that abject fear trumps the Constitution. Once upon a time you swore to protect the Constitution but now any demagogue or terrorist who can successfully get you to wet your pants in abject trerror can snatch away your rights and you wouldn’t say boo. The whole NSA scandal turns on the fact that the President broke the law and authorized eavesdropping on US citizens/and or persons without a warrant. The White House has conceded that it violated this requirment of the FISA statute. Indeed, they are arguing not that the law wasn’t broken but that the President had the right to violate the law because we are at war. That’s bullshit and anyone with a brain and an abiding faith and understanding of the Constitution understands that. Conservatives of principle and civil libertarians are on the same page on this issue. If you believe that the President has the right to break the law just because we’re at war, you are as much a threat to our system of government as any terrorist. Even more so, I say, because you and your fear-based ilk are the ones who will vote the next round of fascists into power.
frameone, you’re all hat, and no cattle. All words and no substance. Anyone who has read your raging tirades knows that you twist words around when you have little to say, which is more and more often, as days go by.
If you think caring about someone else’s safety is “peeing in your pants” it is because you care about no one else, perhaps even yourself, judging by your blind rages.
Do I think my family is more important than your concerns about the Constitution? Of course I do, you fucking imbecile.
Read before you cut and paste, you rabid asocial vermin:
Whether there ought to be a federal government intrusted with the care of the common defense, is a question in the first instance, open for discussion; but the moment it is decided in the affirmative, it will follow, that that government ought to be clothed with all the powers requisite to complete execution of its trust. And unless it can be shown that the circumstances which may affect the public safety are reducible within certain determinate limits; unless the contrary of this position can be fairly and rationally disputed, it must be admitted, as a necessary consequence, that there can be no limitation of that authority which is to provide for the defense and protection of the community
Finally, if a miracle occurs, and someone enters into your life that you care about, you might begin to understand what I am talking about.
Excellent post Frank.
You make a great point about caring for others. It is the same reason they are all “anti-gun”. If you tell them you need it for defense, they respond “why, just let them take your tv (car, motorcycle, stereo, whatever)”
I hope they will feel differently when they have a baby girl and wife upstairs. I hope so at least, or they end up suffering the fate of that family in VA, everyone’s throat slit, including the 4 y/o girl.
You see leftists, there are truly evil people in the world. You can’t negotiate with them, you can’t just talk it out. They understand greater force, and that is all. Thankfully none you have met these people, or you would stop whimpering about GWB destroying the constitution.
I don’t want a police state anymore than anyone else, but I don’t have a problem with looking for terrorist around the world, and not giving them a free pass cause they called their cronies in Brooklyn.
Who says peedro lacks self-awareness?
“Finally, if a miracle occurs, and someone enters into your life that you care about, you might begin to understand what I am talking about.”
I have many friends, family and loved ones in my life, Frank, including a fiance and a nephew. Preserving and defending the Constitution is more import than all of them. It is the larger ideal to which we committ ourselves, for which we would sacrifice ourselves. When the President is allowed to break the law and violate our rights he devalues our lives and our committment to the ideals of this country. More importanlty, he corrupts the legacy we leave to those who would come after us. You don’t care about any of this. You’ve stated it directly, explicitly. Between life and the ideal of this country, you choose life. Great. I hope you and your loved ones enjoy living in perpetual fear and paranoia under the thumb of your masters.
Frank, you idiot, you’re doing exactly what Pedro did: Taking Hamilton out of context. Of course Pedro thinks its an excellent post, he’s as fucking stupid as you are.
Hamilton is not talking about executive powers in Federalist 23. He is talking about Congress and its ability to defend the country by raising and managing an army and navy. The essay begins with definitions:
“The authorities essential to the common defense are these: to raise armies; to build and equip fleets; to prescribe rules for the government of both; to direct their operations; to provide for their support. These powers ought to exist without limitation …”
So the powers he believes should be unlimited are strictly defined as those relating to raising and maintaining an army. Nowhere in Federalist #23 does Hamilton discuss civil liberties in time of war or the powers of the exectuvie.
Hamilton goes on to argue that these unlimited powers so defined reside in the Congress:
“Congress have an unlimited discretion to make requisitions of men and money; to govern the army and navy; to direct their operations.”
No where in Federalist 23 does Hamilton discuss executive power because the Constitution does not give the president the power to declare war or raise an army. The quote especially has nothing to do with empowering the executive to break the laws passed by Congress or to infringe on the rights of US citizens in defense of the country. To suggest that he is arguing in favor of unlimited executive power in this regard is to comepletely distort the meaning and message of the essay.
As to executive power, Hamilton writes that while the president is the commander-in-chief his powers in such a role are limited and restrained by the power of the legislature:
“In most of these particulars, the power of the President will resemble equally that of the king of Great Britain and of the governor of New York. The most material points of difference are these: First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor. Secondly. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.1″
Notice how, in matters of national defense, Hamilton, emphasizes the limitations of presidential power. Note specifically that Hamilton argues that “the President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision.” Legislative provision. Bush is arguing that Congress gave him the leeway to violate the FISA statute in its declaration of war on al-Qaeda after 9-11. That’s total bullshit, indeed, we now know that Bush sought greater authority to carry out intelligence within the US and that Congress denied him that authority by restricting the language of the declaration.
Ultimately, you guys are full of shit. You trash the Consitution and distort the intentions of the founding fathers all to support one man, George W. Bush. Is this the kind of deference that Hamiltion thinks we should show the President of the United States? Not at all. In arguing against the proposition of having a multi-person executive Hamilton wrote this in Federalist #70:
“When power, therefore, is placed in the hands of so small a number of men, as to admit of their interests and views being easily combined in a common enterprise, by an artful leader, it becomes more liable to abuse, and more dangerous when abused, than if it be lodged in the hands of one man; who, from the very circumstance of his being alone, will be more narrowly watched and more readily suspected, and who cannot unite so great a mass of influence as when he is associated with others.”
You see we are not supposed to blindly trust the president. He is to be always under our scrutiny. The Left carries on this the tradition. The Right as abdicated it.
Pedro says that the Left doesn’t understand that there are evil people in the world. We understand that. But we also understand that there is greater evil in surrendering our rights out of fear of such threats. You guys live in fear. We live in principle.
frame,
“I have many friends, family and loved ones in my life, Frank, including a fiance and a nephew.”
Have no doubt about that. What mystifies some of us is how you can have people in your life who you, I assume, treat with respect and some degree of decency, and yet at the same time be so uniformly nasty here.
You know, its quite posssible that many people who disagree with you are good people who deserve to be treated with respect – some of them may even disagree w/you politically. Just don’t understand why you kneejerk so nasty.
Dugger
People with weak arguments usually scream the loudest dugger…
Though he is good with cutting and pasting the Federalist Papers, I just don’t happen to agree with his interpretation.
Finally, in a typical leftist fashion, he fails to understand that protecting this country or following the constitution are not mutually exclusive. Frank and myself and others happen to believe that we are currently doing both quite nicely, thank you.
The remainder of you scream that your constitutional rights are being illegally trampled…yet are unable to show me any examples of anyone with abridged rights?
And here is the part that will give me nightmares…
..I have many friends, family and loved ones in my life, Frank, including a fiance and a nephew. Preserving and defending the Constitution is more import than all of them.
You have at best a twisted understanding of the constitution, yet you would throw away your loved ones based on that understanding. You are no better than that father who killed his daughters in an “honor killing” in pakistan, all based on his “understanding” of the Koran…
sorry for the dual post…..
People with weak arguments usually scream the loudest Frank….
Though he is good with cutting and pasting the Federalist Papers, I just don’t happen to agree with his interpretation.
Finally, in a typical leftist fashion, he fails to understand that protecting this country or following the constitution are not mutually exclusive. Frank and myself and others happen to believe that we are currently doing both quite nicely, thank you.
The remainder of you scream that your constitutional rights are being illegally trampled…yet are unable to show me any examples of anyone with abridged rights?
And here is the part that will give me nightmares…
..I have many friends, family and loved ones in my life, Frank, including a fiance and a nephew. Preserving and defending the Constitution is more import than all of them.
You have at best a twisted understanding of the constitution, yet you would throw away your loved ones based on that understanding. You are no better than that father who killed his daughters in an “honor killing” in pakistan, all based on his “understanding” of the Koran…
So, wingnuts, let’s say if you were to find a country that could guarantee your security from ‘terra, but you had no civil rights. You would happily move there, right? Because, after all your security is more important than your freedom, you said so right here. I mean it’s your family, right?
Kind of funny that the wingnuts would defend the wiretaps when leftists such as Sam Brownback disagree with them. I guess their love of King George trumps their love of freedom.
Like I said, you pinko’s always assume it is an either/or proposition…it isn’t.
You just don’t understand nuance……
Yet all those Iraqi children killed daily and nary a tear…… oh, that’s right, the god their parents worship isn’t the right one.
See, wingnut, this republic has survived worse threats in its 229 years than some people with box cutters. But the Bill of Rights still survived. On occasion, “War presidents” suspended some rights, as history has proved, that suspension didn’t keep us safe. Internment camps had no impact on our security, neither did banning Italians from 1 mile from the shorefront.
So why should we believe that you need to give away your rights to stay safe now?
And what are the soldiers on the ground in Iraq fighting for, if not our rights? Soldiers die for our freedom, and you would give up what they fight for. What a disgrace you are to the uniform.
Answer the question. See, as long as it’s A-rabs whose rights are being violated, you think that is A-ok. But when the warrantless searches get to you, then you’ll have a problem. Are you prepared to give President Hillary the ability to tap your phone without a warrant?
In defense of Frame the shell-games that frequently take the place of
meaningful exchange here are unsettling to say the least. It is not so
much of who is right as it is two ships passing in the fog. A little less
rhetorical evasion would lead to more meetings of minds. Of course,
not everyone wants to make a connection. Some would rather plant
an IED and watch the fun.
frameone: Preserving and defending the Constitution is more important than all of them.
I feel sorry for you. In my life there is a Higher Power that I choose to call God. That Higher Power is not the Constitution of the United States, nor will it ever be. If I ever thought that the Laws by which I lived were derived solely from the Constitution, I would then feel like I lived in a Fascist state, where other humans, just like me, determine how I should live my life.
That you could defend such a world speaks volumes about the dark world you inhabit.
I heard, when my wife was pregnant, that once you have a child,you can never hear of a child coming to harm without being affected. It happened to me.
I pray it happens to you. You are to be pitied.
“…yet at the same time be so uniformly nasty here.”
Because you are the enemy within Dugger. You and Frank and Pedro and others are creatures of fear, you are the symptoms of the facist disease. You support state sponsored torture, you support unlimited presidential powers, you see the Constitution as an obstacle to get around. All of these things are more of a threat to our way of life than any terrorist bomb. A bomb can only take lives. Only our leaders, with the support of facists like yourselves, can take our rights.
To all of you creatures of fear who are so shocked that I would put the Constitution before my loved ones I say first of all that we don’t have to violate the Constitution to defend our freedom. The very notion is absurd and yet this is the position of all those who would proclaim George Bush the final arbiter of what rights we are allowed to have in time of war.
If I or anyone I love was killed by a terrorist I would not turn right around and blame the Constitution. I would not demand we repeal the Fourth Amendment. I would not turn around and scream that should we start torturing people and do away with due process and suspend habeas coprus. I would not blame those who protect and defend the Constitution.
I understand that no one can be made perfectly safe in this world from any thing and so undermining our rights in exchange for safety is a fool’s bargain. Only you cowards on the right have bought the false dream sold by men of ill will that you can be made safe by restricting our liberties.
You mention higher powers Frank. I have a higher power but I believe in the Constitution because it loudly proclaims that men can live in freedom without recourse to higher powers to justify our right to live free. I don;t need god to tell me I have a right to liberty. I have a right to liberty because I’m a human being. The Constitution says that men have rights period. You would abdicate those rights to save your precious skins.
Frank, Dugger, Pedro, all three of you lie and distort on a regular basis without compunction. Look at Pedro and Frank’s distortions of Hamilton in this very thread. Different intepretations my ass, Pedro. It’s plain as day what Hamiliton is talking about and not only in #23 but through out the Federalist Papers and he most certainly never argued at any point for the kind of unlimited executive powers that you are suggesting. You accuse me of cutting and pasting. Ya, right. Cutting and pasting four long paragraphs one of which includes the brief snippet you trotted out sans context. You’re straight up wrong and can’t admit it probably becuase you never read the Federalist Papers before. You just clipped that conveniently isolated passage from an essay by some asshole at Townhall.com. An asshole whose sole purpose was to deceive you. And it worked because you accepted it uncritically, without thought, as you accept every lie and distortion of the law, the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers put forth by a fascist machine that cares only about power.
Frank, Dugger, Pedro, I came to the conclusion long ago that none of you are deserving of any respect nor any quarter. You’ll get none from me.
vita non est vivere sed valere vita est
Life is more than merely staying alive.
The idiocy on display in this thread is astounding. Pedro thinks that holding the principles and ideals of the Constitution above any one American life is akin to supporting “honor killing.” I’m glad you think that the Constitution is such a cruel instrument of oppression, Pedro. No wonder you want to do away with it.
And, Frank, the golden moron, who seems to think that the laws of this land are derived not from the Constitution but from the will of God. “If I ever thought that the Laws by which I lived were derived solely from the Constitution,” he says, “I would then feel like I lived in a Fascist state, where other humans, just like me, determine how I should live my life.”
I would hate to live in a country founded by people just like you too, Frank. But guess wha,t you idiot, other human beings did determine how you would live your life, they we’re the Founding Fathers, the guys whose words you so willfully distort. The Constitution is not a divine or divinely-inspired document you feeble-minded coward. It was written by human beings who believed that their fellow human beings had inherent rights to certain liberties, chief among them to be protected from the injustices of unchecked power. The Constitution is not perfect which is why we have an amendment process. Only human beings can decide how it is that we can move forward to “live in a more perfect union.” Nothing that you have argued for here in this thread and elsewhere — torture, spying, unchecked presidential power — resembles anything close to the kind of country intended by our founders. Which is why you have to lie and deceive to claim otherwise. Go live in a theocracy if you want Frank. Just get the hell out of here.
Empty words from Frameone, someone who has never put anything on the line. Just a bunch of empty electrons.
You continue to screech about rights being taken away…which right have you lost? What liberty do you not enjoy today under a Republican administration?
Your convoluted ego has you so twisted as to believe ONLY your interpretation of historical documents is the correct one.
This is all just a knee jerk response and guilt for years of leftist kowtowing to the communist dream. Now they feel they have to “support the troops” and quote the Federalist Papers (though without really understanding them) in order to prove their patriotism.
Empty suits like you and factcheck, having never actually served the country that afforded you all this freedom, yet willy-nilly throwing your half-baked opinions out as if you fought the Revolutionary war yourselves.
The Constitution was written with flexibility in mind, yet when it serves your purpose, you twist it, demanding strict adherence with one line, and total fluidity with another.
You are a petty demogogue, driven to endless name calling in order to try to support your poorly thought out and unreferenced theses.
To quote Eldridge Cleaver….with a smackdown from history…..
Respect commands itself and it can neither be given nor withheld when it is due.
To quote Hamilton:
“Schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community require time to mature them for execution. An army, so large as seriously to menace those liberties, could only be formed by progressive augmentations; which would suppose, not merely a temporary combination between the legislature and executive, but a continued conspiracy for a series of time. Is it probable that such a combination would exist at all? Is it probable that it would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses? Is it presumable, that every man, the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives, would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country? Can it be supposed that there would not be found one man, discerning enough to detect so atrocious a conspiracy, or bold or honest enough to apprise his constituents of their danger? If such presumptions can fairly be made, there ought at once to be an end of all delegated authority. The people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.”
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa26.htm
Let me quote myself accurately (for a change around here)
You are a petty demogogue, driven to endless name calling in order to try to support your poorly thought out and unreferenced theses.
Res Ipso Loquitor
“You continue to screech about rights being taken away& which right have you lost? What liberty do you not enjoy today under a Republican administration?”
You really don’t understand the first thing about the common good do you Pedro? It’s all about you and what happens to you and whether you are free to do and say what you want. Everyone else, especially those who may not believe what you believe, or look like you, can go to hell.
“You are a petty demogogue, driven to endless name calling in order to try to support your poorly thought out and unreferenced theses.”
As to your understanding of the Federalist Papers I challenge you to find a single passage that could be reasonably cited as arguing in favor of unlimited Presidential power during war time. Go ahead. Give it a shot. The passage you cited above is related to totally and completely related to Congressional authority to raise and maintain a national army. You can try to stretch the meaning all you want but it’s right there in the essay. You suggest that I put forth an unreferenced thesis. Gimme a break. You didn’t even provide a link to your source for the Hamilton quote. You didn’t even mention that it was from the Federalist Papers. I gave you multiple links, a massive citation and arguments supported by direct quotations from several of Hamilton’s essays to show you his line of thought. You provided and still refuse to provide any counter argument backed up with citations. None, whatsoever. Your dishonesty is self-evident to all.
Please demonstrate, in anything I have EVER written that I….
“You support state sponsored torture, you support unlimited presidential powers, you see the Constitution as an obstacle to get around. ”
Further show me a passage that says….
“Pedro thinks that holding the principles and ideals of the Constitution above any one American life is akin to supporting honor killing. I m glad you think that the Constitution is such a cruel instrument of oppression, Pedro. No wonder you want to do away with it.”
How does my asking you what freedoms or liberties YOU have lost turn into ” Everyone else, especially those who may not believe what you believe, or look like you, can go to hell.”?
These are a handful of YOUR dishonest statements. Yet you just call me a liar without any reference, all while making up ideas regarding my beliefs.
oh and I did quote you accurately when I cited your statement:
You are a petty demogogue, driven to endless name calling in order to try to support your poorly thought out and unreferenced theses.
Then I wrote this:
As to your understanding of the Federalist Papers I challenge you to find a single passage that could be reasonably cited as arguing in favor of unlimited Presidential power during war time. Go ahead. Give it a shot. The passage you cited above is related to totally and completely related to Congressional authority to raise and maintain a national army. You can try to stretch the meaning all you want but it s right there in the essay. You suggest that I put forth an unreferenced thesis. Gimme a break. You didn t even provide a link to your source for the Hamilton quote. You didn t even mention that it was from the Federalist Papers. I gave you multiple links, a massive citation and arguments supported by direct quotations from several of Hamilton s essays to show you his line of thought. You provided and still refuse to provide any counter argument backed up with citations. None, whatsoever. Your dishonesty is self-evident to all.
Idiot.
Hamilton again:
“Independent of all other reasonings upon the subject, it is a full answer to those who require a more peremptory provision against military establishments in time of peace, to say that the whole power of the proposed government is to be in the hands of the representatives of the people. This is the essential, and, after all, only efficacious security for the rights and privileges of the people, which is attainable in civil society.1″
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa28.htm#1
Do tell Pedro, you don’t support torture? You don’t support the right of the President to break the law in the name of national security?
Did you not write this:
“You have at best a twisted understanding of the constitution, yet you would throw away your loved ones based on that understanding. You are no better than that father who killed his daughters in an honor killing in pakistan, all based on his understanding of the Koran& ”
And you ask me what liberties I have lost you are suggesting that I should only be concerned with my own liberties, as if the liberties of my fellow citizens should mean nothing to me, as I don’t have an obligation to speak out when I think they’re rights are being violated. The simple fact the NSA eavesdropped on American citizens and US persons without a warrant is a violation of the law and the US Constitution. In my book, if the goverment violates the rights of one citizen, it violates all of our rights. You, of course, don’t give a shit about other people’s rights. You only think you have to care about your own, never understanding that if the government violates one person’s rights and you say nothing, they’ll violate yours too. But then again you’re an idiot so naturally you wouldn’t understand that.
frameone, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the Framers were profoundly aware of the role God played in their revolution, and the founding of this country.
Having written that, I suppose you will now expectorate on and from your keyboard and call me vile names.
If the power of the Executive frightens you, thank St. FDR, the patron saint of government expansion, and a liberal icon. If the bogus “Congressmen for Life” haven’t got the balls to declare war, it’s because they were castrated by your leftist comrades years ago during the Viet Nam war.
The Constitution … was written by human beings who believed that their fellow human beings had inherent rights to certain liberties, chief among them to be protected from the injustices of unchecked power.
Oh, really?
Well, as important as it was (to you), it wasn’t even mentioned in the Preamble.
Once again, I expect an obscenity filled tirade.
Just get the hell out of here.
That will never happen, you foul mouthed, effete, arrogant prick.
My great grandfather earned citizenship for himself and his family by leading an orchestra on a naval vessel. My mother’s father received a commendation from President Kennedy for surviving gas attacks in World War I, in which he fought for both the British and the Americans. Nearly every male member of my family entered the military, something you haven’t done, you yellow punk. Talk all that talk about taking on terrorists, and calling people cowards, and you couldn’t even join the military — you’re a friggin’ sissy, you are.
Frank… I came to the conclusion long ago that … you are [not] deserving of any respect nor any quarter. “Any quarter” Like you’re a fighter. What a joke. When was the last time you fought for anything? What did you do? File an obscenity – filled comment on a conservative blog? That’s about the extent of your fighting, eh, sissy boy?
You don’t even comment or say anything original on this blog. The only time you come out from under the intellectualoid guano, is when you’re attacking a conservative commenter. If that’s your role in life, you need to get out more — you know, go to the movies or something.
Since it seems that having people in your life (Lord knows what their lives must be like, suffering with you, I can just imagine: “Hi, Uncle Paul!” “Shut the fuck up, you little asshole!”) has had no civilizing effect on you, perhaps leaving the Groves of Academe, which you have yet to do, will introduce you to the less belligerent side of human life.
There’s always hope, anyway.
And, fastcheck and cleo, I saved you the trouble of digging up the Niemoller quote. I felt it coming.
Frank you’re an idiot.
What, frameone, no references from The Federalist Papers?
The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes, and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.
Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee in July 1994
acta est fabula
Frame you really aren’t all that bright are you?
“s to your understanding of the Federalist Papers I challenge you to find a single passage that could be reasonably cited as arguing in favor of unlimited Presidential power during war time.”
All your arguments are useless, because you start them with faulty premise, they proceed from there. Your foundation is weak, and of course you can’t maintain the remainder of your thesis.
Take your quote above. Your assumption is that I am in favor of unlimited power for POTUS during wartime, it is inferred from your statment.
However, as I pointed out, nowhere is there evidence that I am in support of such a thing.
So, you begin enormous cut-and-paste rampages, based on your shallow understanding of the Federalist Papers (and there historical content), and faulty premises of what I believe.
Shorter: You’re FOS from the minute you start typing…… LOL
Yes, cleo, frameone’s “play” is indeed over.
Are you posting in Latin as a tribute to that great classical language, or is it because you have been too many days without medication?
I suspect the latter, rather than the former.
Naaa, he just thinks it makes him sound edumacated….
Yes, it is a play.
And we don’t need a program to identify the fools.
Once again, you have stated the obvious, cleo.
You’re also the only person on this blog who has sought to defend frameone, and who has gone to his blog, asking him for some help lest your comments become too shrill.
Sort of like asking a murderer how to develop more concern for life.
When all else fails, the non sequitur, eh, cleo
The Night Stalker returns
non-sequiturphobia=anoxia
Holy crap….frameone is a PhD candidate?!
Well, I guess that makes sense, we have all seen the quality of a liberal arts education these days.
“Those who can…….”
Second, the Administration and the Attorney General support, in principle, legislation establishing judicial warrant procedures under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for physical searches undertaken for intelligence purposes. However, whether specific legislation on this subject is desirable for the practical benefits it might add to intelligence collection, or undesirable as too much of a restriction on the President s authority to collect intelligence necessary for the national security, depends on how the legislation is crafted.
The language currently found in the Senate Intelligence Committee bill raises a number of significant concerns and is not acceptable to the Administration without some additions and modifications. We are working with that Committee to address these concerns, and there do not appear to be any major areas of disagreement. I am hopeful that an agreement will be reached.
What Jamie Gorelick said in 1994 after Frank stopped reading.