The Democrats Get Cojones: Maybe

Discussion in 'Politics' started by rayboyusmc, Feb 15, 2008.

  1. rayboyusmc
    Offline

    rayboyusmc Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    4,015
    Thanks Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +338
    Finally, they stood up to the little diktator. Contempt charges against Harriet and Josh for refusing to talk to congress and no giving in on the open slate for Bush to tap all of US.

    PS.

    FISA right now allows the government to tap any phone conversation that they deem necessary. They have 3 days to get an approval. (14 days in time of war.) The percent denied is somewhere below 1%.

    To say that the current FISA law is endangering US is complete crap. What Bush wants is to be able to spy on anyone of US he wants to.

    If you don't think he hasn't already listened in to your phone calls and internet traffic, you are living in a dream world.

    Now let's see if the Dems will stay the course and deny him his mandate to violate the Constitution.

    9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11,

    Watch him play the fear and traitor card.:evil:
     
  2. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,575
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,990
    More partisan whining, didn't you JUST complain about the GREAT Divide in the US over sports?

    Once again with out a court approved wire tap the Government can not use any of what they heard as evidence against anyone. No violation of any rights. Further there is NO evidence they are listening to anyone other than foreign callers calling the US and known terror suspects.

    The technology of today has passed the legal power of our system. That is what most of this is about.

    I suspect YOU would be the first and loudest to howl if some terrorist plot kills people and we find out it could have been stopped by wire taps. As for removing rights and destroying the Constitution, remind us who came up with the seizure provisions that allow law enforcement to take your money and property and never even charge you with a crime THEN require you to pay to go to court and prove you are not guilty of something you were never charged with to begin with?
     
  3. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,557
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,434
    If Bush were really concerned about "terrorists", why would he say he'd veto any bill that didn't absolve ISP's and phone companies for violating citizen's rights? Seems that was his greater concern.

    And I've never thought for a second that violating FISA's nunc pro tunc warrant requirement that allowed them to start surveillance and then follow up with a warrant request within a certain period of time (I don't remember if it was 48 hours or 72, offhand) had a thing to do with security. It was a way to make government not have to ACCOUNT for the nature of the surveillance. I always thought it could better be used to put together the kind of files that J. Edgar Hoover kept in his day. Otherwise why WOULDN'T they fill out that piece of paper which was approved pro forma almost 100% of the time?

    Hint: Had nothing to do with anti-terrorist efforts.
     
  4. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,575
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,990
    And yet you do not care one whit that Clinton allowed law enforcement to illegally seize your money and property with no charges ever made and made YOU responsible to prove you were not guilty of anything, again you had pay to go to court and YOU had to prove you were not guilty when no charges were ever made.

    Let us see, wiretaps that can not be used in court of law..... property and money seized with virtually no chance to get it back AND you have to prove your not guilty of ANYTHING.

    I wonder which is a violation of rights? Which violates the Constitution, the 4th Amendment and the presumption of Innocent till proven guilty?
     
  5. rayboyusmc
    Offline

    rayboyusmc Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    4,015
    Thanks Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +338
    Right I whine and you don't????????????????????????????


     
  6. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,575
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,990
    You do not care that Clinton removed our 4th amendment, 5th amendment rights and destroyed the very core of our legal system by removing innocent till proven guilty.

    Your upset by a program that can not be used to prosecute anyone and has not thus violated any ones Constitutional rights.

    I wonder why that is. Ohh wait Clinton was a savior and could do no wrong. Bush is the anti christ. Got it, sorry momentary laps on my part.
     
  7. rayboyusmc
    Offline

    rayboyusmc Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    4,015
    Thanks Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +338
    The server won't accept a post?
     
  8. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,575
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,990
    Clinton signed into law a drug bill that allows Law Enforcement to seize property and cash with no charges ever made. All that is required is that the police claim you fit a profile of "drug trafficers" , things like doing exactly the speed limit or a couple miles under it with 2 males in the vehicle or travelling from to a city on an airplane and not spending the night before flying back.

    The rules are so loose anyone can fall into them and in fact in Louisianna it got so bad the local cops were seizing tourists expensive cars to sell. The money and property seized belongs to the police unit that takes them.

    No charges need ever be filed. And the only recourse you have if it happens to you is to pay a bond equal to the amount of property or money seized to get a court appearance in a special Court where YOU have to prove ( again with no charges against you) that you have done nothing illegal, that you are a law abiding citizen.

    Most people that had property seized or money taken simply could not afford to even try and get a court appearance much less find someway to prove that the open ended criminal complaint was not true.
     
  9. rayboyusmc
    Offline

    rayboyusmc Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    4,015
    Thanks Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +338
    I went and checked a couple of sources.

    I looks like the law he put in place sucks.

    He was wrong in pushing it. Happy now?

    And Bush is still just as fucking wrong with breaking the FISA law. His actions are more dangerous to our freedom as a nation.

    Because Clinton screwed up doesn't make all of Bush's screw ups right.
     

Share This Page