Were we at war with Korea during the Korean war? Congress never declared it. The last time Congress actually declared war was World War II:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htw.../20060216.aspx

What Congress did do was authorize war. And every time Congress continues to fund the war on terror, including Iraq and Afghanistan, they continue this authorization.

fyi: We are at war.

One case in 1967, I think they put the FISA laws in effect since then, and you have been out voted by the majority who make our laws.

Dangerously negligent? One guy on this forum becomes dangerously negligent, yeah, whatever. You still have no vote slick.

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

Eh.... GONG!!!!

No Declaration, no War.

That's what it says in the contract.

End of story.

See, "there you go again", Glitch.

You guys, you got this freakin' wonderful contract, the best in the world, staring you right in the face, and you wanna freakin' ignore it.

What have I been telling you, Glitch? Huh??? "Ostrich"???

Glitch:

===> No declaration, no war..

It's in the contract.

You might wanna read it, one of these days.....

Ahahaha, do you actually think it matters when the decision was reached? It could have been made in 1867 and it would still be law.

And no, thats not one case (although one is all it takes,) thats the strongest precedent I could find. You could also look at SILVERMAN v. UNITED STATES or maybe Goldman v. United States, or Lee v. United States. All have relevance here.

But really, the most applicable law, is the 4th Amendment.
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.

...or is that little law too old to matter as well?

Billy, you're just becoming hilarious. You ask me to cite the relevant laws, I do, and then you complain that its too old to matter. Check your losses and admit when you're wrong.

... HAHA! And the FISA laws back up my point, that anyone looking to use electronic surveillance must first obtain a court ordered warrant. How is this not getting through?

What majority voted me out? The bill has yet to pass. You've been corrected on this already. The vote that was taken was merely to disrupt a filibuster.

Any time a citizen refuses to hold the government accountable to the law, they are negligent to the ideals this country was founded on. (but really I was poking fun of your use of the word "benign.")

But, as a citizen I still at least have a voice.

__________________
DILIGITE JUSTITIAM QUI JUDICATIS TERRAM

As put by J Rockefeller, in times of emergency, and the senate and congress make the rules. Wham, you're out of here

BTW, again you post pending suits, quit wasting our time.

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

Don't get your hopes up;


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=17332377
Dodd and others said that, should the phone carriers be given immunity, courts will never be able to determine the legality of the surveillance with which they were asked to cooperate. But prospects for stripping that immunity from the bill look dim, as lawmakers rush to get President Bush a bill he'll sign.
_________________

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

It may be true that they make the rules, but the rule has yet to be made that allows warrantless wiretapping.

So again...

There are clearly laws against wiretapping without a warrant.

Bush ordered wiretaps without a warrant.

Bush broke the law.


...its like arguing with a potted petunia.

(P.S. its basic civics to know that the Senate is part of Congress. Its also basic civics to know that Congress makes the laws all the time, not only during emergencies.)

__________________
DILIGITE JUSTITIAM QUI JUDICATIS TERRAM

So you're advocating a policy where we can never know whether or not these companies broke the law? Your logic is bizarre.

A quick timeline of this thread.

No one has been wiretapped.

No, plenty of people were tapped.

They might have been wiretapped, but no laws were broken.

These are the laws that were broken.

They broke laws, but those laws didn't count because they were old.

Laws still count if they are old.

Well, Congress will pass a law that will stop us from ever finding out what happened!

America is doomed.

__________________
DILIGITE JUSTITIAM QUI JUDICATIS TERRAM

Those were all internal. We could control them through out own laws.

The war on terror, by contrast, is EXternal. It requires interaction with other governments.


It is a descriptive label. We are engaged in a war of attrition against a competing ideology.


By spreading democracy. Once every nation on the planet is a democracy, the terrorist problem will become negligible.


By spreading democracy we are also spreading free speech. The main reason those kids grow up to be terrorists is because they are not exposed to alternative viewpoints. The terrorists have a captive audience.

We will change that. If given a free choice, I am confident a majority will choose our way willingly. Our way is the better way.

The terrorists believe that too. That is why they are so afraid of democracy and free speech. They know they are no match for us in the arena of ideas.



You need to think beyond your own lifetime.

This is what I mean when I say liberals are short sighted. The fact that you will never see the results personally does not necessarily mean we are not gaining ground.


Nope. Probably not. But I think we will see some of the fruits within our lifetime. But it will not be won in our lifetime.


I am giving them the benefit of the doubt because the current alternatives are worse.



I am unwilling to take your word for that.



Rights mean nothing if we are dead.


You are free to do so. I will fight back though. Because I believe you are putting me and my family at risk.


I am unwilling to share that risk with you. And so, apparently, are most other Americans.


How does that change what I just said? If you really have as much support as you think you do, taking that power away should not be a problem.

For the record, I am actually glad to know people are opposing the government on stuff like this. I do not disagree that the government shoudl ALWAYS be at the mercy of the masses. Even though I disagree with them on this issue, I like knowing that there is always someone questioning government.


The war on terror has nothing to do with anything. The powers can be taken away either way. The war on terror cannot stop Congress from overriding the President or from passing new laws.

Congress has more power than any other branch of our government.



Because national defense supersedes your right to privacy. Thats why.


That analogy is flawed, since you would read them personally. If you were just going to have a computer analyze them, then no, I wouldnt have a problem with that.


They do not access it unless the computer tells them it is suspicious. They dont even have the capability to listen to every call. Even if they wanted to.

How is it any different if they have a warrant? How is it less of a violation of your privacy?


Explain to me how I could convince you that my fears are legitimate and not just fear mongering.

That term is a cop out. You dont even have to explain it....you can just label something as fear mongering and dismiss it.


If someone in your family happened to be the 1 in a million hit by a terrorist you might have a different view.

Yes, their lives are worth more than your privacy in this context.


Judicial branch.



The Judicial branch could declare the wiretaps illegal.


The judicial branch gets to determine if it is illegal. Not you. That is what I meant.

It isnt a crime simply because you declare it to be a crime. There is precedent for warantless surveillance.


911 didnt seem allright to me.



I dont agree that that is guaranteed.


...until Congress decides to change it.

Congress can pass new laws. Congress can override the President.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

americas not doomed... nope... well, its debatable... its not proven... ok, it is doomed, but being doomed isnt a bad thing... being doomed is great - you really want to lose the war on terra dont you? looney liberal...

__________________