Above the Law...?

[Johnney]

I have no problem at all with terrorist communications being monitored, so long as it is done within the bounds of the law. If the President had problems with the law, he should have gone to Congress to have the law changed. Instead, he chose to ignore the law and charged the NSA to engage in a nation-wide fishing expedition wish has netted nothing. If the President need not obey the rule of law, then he is no longer president...He is a despot.

while he is obeying the laws, the terrorists found 20 ways around that. why is it so hard to understand that terrorsts are unconventional? why use conventional ways to fight them?

 

[Bullypulpit]

while he is obeying the laws, the terrorists found 20 ways around that. why is it so hard to understand that terrorsts are unconventional? why use conventional ways to fight them?

Then the terrorists have won. If America is ready to surrender essential freedoms for a measure of security, then we deserve neither. The Republic is dead. Long live King George.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Then the terrorists have won. If America is ready to surrender essential freedoms for a measure of security, then we deserve neither. The Republic is dead. Long live King George.

don't you think you're being a little dramatic?

 

[Johnney]

Then the terrorists have won. If America is ready to surrender essential freedoms for a measure of security, then we deserve neither. The Republic is dead. Long live King George.

well what freedoms exactly have you surrendered? cause if im not mistaken your in the same USA as i am. and as far as i know im just as free now as i was pre 9-11.

now if your talking terrorist freedoms, well i dont mind telling you i would gladly take whatever from them. be it freezing their assests, tossing them out of the country, taking their lives.

 

[007]

That's a nice self portrait you took of yourself PR. I had no idea you were that flexible. From the looks of it though you've got his head so far up your back-side that you can't even reach your ears to pop it out. It also saves you the effort of having to actually debate the issue. Wouldn't want you to hurt yourself now, would we?

Damn it pulit... I was just going to post how proud I was that I'm the only one here that you have on ignore. I feel like Jack Nicholson in that movie where a soilder is hazed and dies and he's on trial and say's, "the truth, YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH".

That's me talking to you... you can't handle the truth, or me.

 

[Bullypulpit]

You mean they are too afraid to go against the will of the people?

Actually, a recent Zogby poll shows that a majority of people (52%) agreed with the statement:

<blockquote>"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."</blockquote>

Funny, isn't that the same majority that elected him in '04?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Oh, PR, I read your post before I logged in. You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass, got lockjaw and died. Dismissed.

 

[Bullypulpit]

well what freedoms exactly have you surrendered? cause if im not mistaken your in the same USA as i am. and as far as i know im just as free now as i was pre 9-11.

now if your talking terrorist freedoms, well i dont mind telling you i would gladly take whatever from them. be it freezing their assests, tossing them out of the country, taking their lives.

SO you'd let the president use the Constitution for toilet paper if you felt safer? As for the freedoms we have been asked to surrender, read the PATRIOT Act and find out. It's all there.

As for terrorists, freeze their assets, deport them, or hunt them down like rabid dogs if they harm anyone. We have laws for that, and this nation was built on the rule of law not the rule of men.

 

[Bullypulpit]

don't you think you're being a little dramatic?

Only if Congress continues to abdicate their oversight duties and let the president accumulate unlimited power in the executive branch unchecked. Then it won't be dramatic, it'll be true.

 

[Johnney]

SO you'd let the president use the Constitution for toilet paper if you felt safer? As for the freedoms we have been asked to surrender, read the PATRIOT Act and find out. It's all there.

As for terrorists, freeze their assets, deport them, or hunt them down like rabid dogs if they harm anyone. We have laws for that, and this nation was built on the rule of law not the rule of men.

but you didnt answer my question. what rights have you surrendered? not what in the PA, but you yourself surrendered.

and damn the laws. as ive stated before we are fighting an unconventional enemy, why use conventional means

 

[007]

Oh, PR, I read your post before I logged in. You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass, got lockjaw and died. Dismissed.

You're entitled to your opinion pulit, just like everyone else. I just intransigently disagree with most of them.

 

[Mr.Conley]

but you didnt answer my question. what rights have you surrendered? not what in the PA, but you yourself surrendered.

and damn the laws. as ive stated before we are fighting an unconventional enemy, why use conventional means

We haven't surrendered any major rights yet; however, if the President that he does not have to enforce the laws passed by Congress then he is in conflict with the Constitution. Unless the President relinquishes this power- or has it taken from him by Congress or the courts- he is effectively saying that the Constitution is meaningless. If the Constitution is meaningless, then all the rights it protects are forfeit.

Isn't equality before the law one of the ideas seperating us from the terrorists? Besides, lawmaking isn't such an arduous task. Why enter the Constitutional limbo of unlimited executive power when Congress can pass of resoulution in a week.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

We haven't surrendered any major rights yet; however, if the President that he does not have to enforce the laws passed by Congress then he is in conflict with the Constitution. Unless the President relinquishes this power- or has it taken from him by Congress or the courts- he is effectively saying that the Constitution is meaningless. If the Constitution is meaningless, then all the rights it protects are forfeit.

Isn't equality before the law one of the ideas seperating us from the terrorists? Besides, lawmaking isn't such an arduous task. Why enter the Constitutional limbo of unlimited executive power when Congress can pass of resoulution in a week.

Bush is trying to catch TERRORISTS. Your left wing hysterics only make you look ridiculous.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Bush is trying to catch TERRORISTS. Your left wing hysterics only make you look ridiculous.

And he is violating federal law and undermining the Constitution in order to do so. He can hunt down and catch all the terrorists he wants, so long as he does it within the four corners of the law.

If a "librul" takes the White House in '08, do you really want them to have the powers Dubbyuh and his handlers are gathering to the presidency? I don't. Because that's what this whole argument boils down to...presidential power. It's not a "Democrat v Republican" or "liberal v conservative" issue. It is a constitutional issue regarding whether or not the Executive Branch can usurp the powers granted to the Legislative and Judicial branches by the Constitution and violating the separation of powers as laid down in that very same document.

 

[007]

And he is violating federal law and undermining the Constitution in order to do so. He can hunt down and catch all the terrorists he wants, so long as he does it within the four corners of the law.

If a "librul" takes the White House in '08, do you really want them to have the powers Dubbyuh and his handlers are gathering to the presidency? I don't. Because that's what this whole argument boils down to...presidential power. It's not a "Democrat v Republican" or "liberal v conservative" issue. It is a constitutional issue regarding whether or not the Executive Branch can usurp the powers granted to the Legislative and Judicial branches by the Constitution and violating the separation of powers as laid down in that very same document.

No it's not. It's a "do we want to monitor terrorist communications from overseas into America" issue. You liberals are just trying to get traction with anything you can in order to crucify Bush, driven by your intense hate and need for power. Even if that means compromise the security of the United States.

 

[Bullypulpit]

No it's not. It's a "do we want to monitor terrorist communications from overseas into America" issue. You liberals are just trying to get traction with anything you can in order to crucify Bush, driven by your intense hate and need for power. Even if that means compromise the security of the United States.

As I have said before, terrorist communications can be surveilled by US agencies, so long as it is done within the four corners of the law. If the Executive branch has a problem with the laws, they need to go to the Legislative branch to change them...Not violate them. Or does the rule of law mean nothing to you?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

As I have said before, terrorist communications can be surveilled by US agencies, so long as it is done within the four corners of the law. If the Executive branch has a problem with the laws, they need to go to the Legislative branch to change them...Not violate them. Or does the rule of law mean nothing to you?

Stay on the issue, bully. It's a loser for your side. Need some more rope?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Stay on the issue, bully. It's a loser for your side. Need some more rope?

So, the law is irrelevant? Because that is what you're saying. And if the abuse of power by this, or any other administration goes unchecked, we will all be the losers.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So, the law is irrelevant? Because that is what you're saying. And if the abuse of power by this, or any other administration goes unchecked, we will all be the losers.

No. I'm saying the president as leader of the armed forces is right to monitor the activities of those sworn to destroy us. It's just not a big deal. You making this into a more general "rule of law" issue just rings hollow, partisan, feebleminded, and desperate.

 

[Bullypulpit]

No. I'm saying the president as leader of the armed forces is right to monitor the activities of those sworn to destroy us. It's just not a big deal. You making this into a more general "rule of law" issue just rings hollow, partisan, feebleminded, and desperate.

Yes, he is, and there are laws in place which allow him to do so in the form of FISA. Yet he chose to place himself above the law and authorized warrantless, domestic surveillance operation which have yet to do anything but eat up the time of investigators who could be pursuing more profitable avenues of investigation.

The real issue is not the "rule of law", which this president is undermining, but rather it is about unlimited presidential power. In case you've forgotten:

<blockquote>If a "librul" takes the White House in '08, do you really want them to have the powers Dubbyuh and his handlers are gathering to the presidency? I don't. Because that's what this whole argument boils down to...presidential power. It's not a "Democrat v Republican" or "liberal v conservative" issue. It is a constitutional issue regarding whether or not the Executive Branch can usurp the powers granted to the Legislative and Judicial branches by the Constitution and violating the separation of powers as laid down in that very same document.</blockquote>

Your arguments are the ones lacking substance, with more than a little desperation How much longer are you going to try and defend the indefensible?