Quote:
|
Well, I think that's pretty much a QED. I feel like I can rest my case now.
|
Prove it. Dont respond.
Actions seak louder than words.
Quote:
|
The "right" to detain you? Gimme a gigantic freakin' BREAK!!!! They have the Power to detain you, not the Right.
|
Semantics.
Quote:
|
You don't even know what the words mean
|
Neither do you apparently, since you referred to a "right" to privacy. You have a right to due process. But you do not have a right to privacy.
I was going to say something else, but Glitch beat me to it:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stating what is obvious to everyone else, Glitch
Right: "That which one has a legal or social claim to do or to exact; legal power; authority; as, a sheriff has a right to arrest a criminal."
http://ardictionary.com/Right/6465
Is english not your first language? You play such strange semantic games that are so contrary to the definition of words. And then you actually have the audacity to constantly try to insult people who actually speak english. It just makes you look bad and not them - doesn't help your "argument" at all.
|
Heh. Owned.
Quote:
|
Sorry, that definition is incorrect. A Right, with a capital "R", such as that word is used in the Constitution, has a very specific meaning.
|
Source please. Glitch provided his.
Quote:
|
I'm not gonna spell it out for you though
|
Mostly because "spell it out" in the context means "pulling it out of my aѕs".
It is yet another example in an endless stream of examples on here of liberals projecting
opinions as if they are objective facts.
Quote:
|
You see, this is the lie of the collectivist-Statist mentality, and it's exactly why Ron Paul is so popular right now.
|
You forgot to put "popular" in quotes. Do you have any poll numbers for him?
Quote:
|
Kooky as he is, he stands for something important, and he's getting traction and resonance on that basis.
|
...from the kooky fringe....
Quote:
|
I feel the need to protect myself from people like you, who wanna dictate what my Rights should be.
|
The only way to protect yourself reliably is to surrender your citizenship and move to another country. In a democracy the majority gets to decide what "rights" are.
Quote:
|
You're just a tyrant, who wants to foist unreasonable and unjust laws upon a population that doesn't buy into them.
|
Who gets to decide if they are unreasoanble or unjust?
Quote:
|
And if people like you get power
|
Heh heh..."if"?
You
do know that the domestic surveillance program is already underway, right? You do know we're already in Iraq, right?
Quote:
|
No, I'm sorry Bronco, it ain't gonna happen. The People will never stand for it.
|
They seem to be standing for it pretty well so far. The People have had several chances to elect representatives to end this program, and yet have refused to do so.
Quote:
|
The only reason that the weasels in Weaselton get away with what they do, is because the people are uninformed.
|
How did you determine that? Projecting your opinion as fact again?
When did you become the official interpreter for the American People?
Quote:
|
And the internet is changing all that, very rapidly. You know, "this" election cycle, it might a five to ten percent traction rate. The next cycle, it'll probably be like 50% or something.
|
You sound like the white supreamists claiming there will be a race was "any day now".
But it's been "any day now" for several decades. I think your prediction will have similar results.
Quote:
|
But what happens tomorrow, if Hillary gets elected, and then tries to do the same thing to you, only you don't agree with her?
|
We will never disagree that she has the right to do it for reasons of national defense. That opinion is not going to change for me, and I am guessing the same thing is true of Bronco as well.
Quote:
|
You know, she wants to tax you for her "universal healthcare", and you're like, no freakin' WAY am I gonna pay for Joe Blow's prostate cancer operation......
|
Thats a completely separate issue. It is possible to be in favor of domestic surveillance and yet still oppose excessive taxes. The two issues are not the same.
Quote:
|
And then your government says, "Sorry, Bud, we have the Right to tax you for this purpose, and you're gonna pay, and if you don't pay we're gonna throw you in jail"? Are you gonna be a happy camper then?
|
Whether I am or not is irrelevant, since my feelings about domestic surveillance programs will not change either way.
You are proceeding on the false assumption (in that example) that allowing broader domestic surveillance powers will result in broader taxation powers as well. That is retarded.
Quote:
You: Listen. No one is saying that terrorists and the like should be put under surveillance.
Me: Um...actually that is not true.
Who in this thread (or really anywhere else for that matter) is saying that terrorists shouldn't be monitored?
|
You did. read your original post on page 4. Underlined above for your clarification.
Quote:
|
This is an awfully short and off-hand dismissal of warrants, a very basic check against government intrusion.
|
The present situation is sufficiently dire that those checks need to be bypassed. This is the
equivilent of a wartime situation. That is why it is referred to as the "war on terror".
Quote:
|
First problem you stated: the time involved. In extenuating circumstances a warrant can be gotten after surveillance has begun. Seriously.
|
Not for millions of people at once.
Quote:
|
If for whatever reason you absolutely have to begin wiretapping before a court order can be granted, then you have up to 3 days after in which to do it. More than enough time. How is this not sufficient?
|
Becuase of the volume of people being "tapped".
I put "tapped" in quotes because the vast majority of them are not being directly monitored. Their calls are simply being scanned electronically for certain words or phrases. Only a tiny minority of them are actually being listened to by the government.
I dont consider a computer scanning my calls to be "tapping". There is no privacy issue if the only other party listening to my call is a computer.
Quote:
|
Second issue brought up: the scale of the surveillance. What you are trying to say is that the government is trying to tap so many many Americans, that they simply can't keep up with it. That doesn't seem ridiculous to you?
|
Nope. See above.
Quote:
|
How many terrorists are in this country?
|
If we knew that, the tapping wouldnt be necessary. and none of this would be an issue.
Quote:
|
If there is a large demand of warrants (which I image there might be, but not unmanageably so) then why not increase the scale of FISC? Surely its not too much to ask that a few more lawyers or judges be set on this task before we remove the right to a warrant?
|
That may have already been proposed for all I know. I never claimed to be an expert on this subject. My opinions are based on the data I have so far.
There may be time issues involved with that as well. The current program may simply be a stopgap until a permanent solution (such as the one you suggested) can be implemented.
Quote:
|
Is our government so horribly incompetent that writing up a simple document laying out reasonable suspicion and the boundaries of the surveillance and presenting it to a judge is too much to ask for?
|
Probably, yeah.
We cant afford delays that bureaucracy and loopholes and mistakes might create.
Quote:
Me: You do not get the final say on that. Sorry.
Who does?
|
The Judicial branch. And beyond them, Congress.
Quote:
|
You are advocating trying to change a long standing and very crucial part of the Bill of Rights.
|
There is precedent for it. I am not just pulling it out of my aѕs.
And technically it comes down to
interpretation of existing law, not
changing existing law.
Quote:
|
The burden of proof is on your side to show why such a basic right is not needed anymore.
|
Apparently our proof is sufficient. Thats why Congress has not moved to change the laws, and why Bush has not been convicted of anything.
Quote:
|
I was also pleased that when I spoke with Obama, he definitely agreed with me on this one.
|
One of the many reasons I will never vote for him. He is very intelligent, articulate, and informed. But his policies are batѕhit crazy and dangerous. This issue is not the main reason I will never vote for him, but it is definitely in the top 5.
Quote:
|
A "loophole?" We're talking about American's fundamental rights to an expectation of privacy from government intrusion
|
National defense supersedes your right to privacy.
Quote:
Me: You have failed to convince me that your understanding of that concept is superior to mine.
I don't think a Harvard Law degree would convince you, frankly.
|
Not on an anonymous forum it wouldnt.
Quote:
Me: The power is not unchecked. Congress can override the President if they want to. And we elect congress.
You [quoting someone else]: The Rockefeller-led Senate Intelligence Committee, within a matter of a day or so, quickly passed the White House's desired bill, one which The New York Times, the next day, revealed had been secretly worked on for months by Rockefeller and, through emissaries, Dick Cheney. As Russ Feingold said yesterday, the Rockefeller proposal passed by the Intelligence Committee "simply gives the Administration everything it was demanding, no questions asked."
Me: How does that change what I just said?
Because it seems that much of Congress is in cahoots with the Executive branch, and rubber stamps anything set before them. If you think that Congress is really putting the Administration under serious scrutiny, you must be reading different news than I am
|
The fact that Congress may not WANT to override the President does not mean they dont have the POWER to override the President. So whatever you quoted does not, in fact, alter the accuracy of my initial statement.