The Right's Hate for America

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by SpidermanTuba, Dec 22, 2005.

  1. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258
    The right's hate for America is evident.


    One particular belief of theirs makes it obvious.

    They believe the President should be able to do anything he wants to in the name of national security.

    Including breaking the Constitution which he swore to uphold.


    For instance, the president has recently been found to be authorizing wiretaps on Americna citizens on American soil - without a warrant, despite his remark in 2004 -
    "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. "

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html


    The right has nothing but excuses for this behavior. In complete contrast with the ideals of our founding fathers, they state that there is no need for checks and balances - because only wrongdoers have anything to fear.

    Which leads me to wonder - does the right hate America, or have they simply forgotten what America stands for?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    before you bunch it into a right or left issue, maybe you should do some research first. This is a executive branch issue more than a right or left issue. I dont think wiretaps without a warrant should be legal either. Don't like it under Bush even though i trust him to use it on terrorists. But it has been done by Clinton and Carter in the past and i fear who could use it in the future should another like those 2 get in there.

    When people come spouting "Right this" or "Left that" they usually have very little argument to make.
     
  3. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    YOu lefties hate america. You think we should lose the war on terror based on the civil rights of suspected terrorist collborators. Do you still want to take away our guns? It's a wire tap. Not even a search. Are you having a seizure?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258
    What Clinton actually signed:

    Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.



    That section [of FISA] requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.
     
  5. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258

    I don't believe in rampant anti-gun legislation. Perhaps if you want to argue that point you should find a lefty who does.



    Wiretaps are searches. That's why ordinarily warrants are obtained for them and that's why Bush assured us all in 2004 warrants were being obtained for them. I'm afraid you can't rewrite a hundred years of jurisprudence because it suits you.



    Do you believe that the police should have to get warrants to search suspected criminals? Because if you do, this means you hate America.
     
  6. archangel
    Online

    archangel Guest

    Ratings:
    +0

    if one party to this wire tap is a non US Citizen...then the tap is legal...so your point is a moot one! ;)
     
  7. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258

    Wrong.

    From Code 50 :1802
    (a)
    (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
    (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
    (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
    (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
    (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and

    Read B - it says "communicationj to which a U.S. person is A party" Only ONE member of the party must be a U.S. person.

    You can read the whole act here:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html
     
  8. archangel
    Online

    archangel Guest

    Ratings:
    +0

    Part A...soley directed at....humm a catch 22...spidey!
     
  9. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258
    Do you know how an outline works?

    The sentence which starts in (A) only applies to (i) and (ii)

    (B) is a separate section and a continuance of the sentence started in (1)
     
  10. archangel
    Online

    archangel Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Law is law...you really need to brush up...Law is not a definit...thats what case law is all about! So go ahead and spin this anyway your heart desires..it won't change a thing!
     

Share This Page