The Right's Hate for America

[SpidermanTuba]

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?

 

[insein]

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.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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?

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?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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.

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.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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?

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.

 

[archangel]

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.

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

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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

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

 

[archangel]

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

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

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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

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)

 

[archangel]

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)

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!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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!

It means what it says.

 

[archangel]

It means what it says.

with you.............

 

[dilloduck]

Until the Law becomes perfect, someone will always be breaking it. You try aligning the law with what is "fair". Another example of Mans' feeble attempts at controlling that which he cannot. Should we try? Sure! Can we expect perfection? Not hardly. Your entire goal is to convict a segment of society that you simply do not like and at the same time ignore the "errors" of those you like.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

with you.............

All I'm saying is that

(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;


means

(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;

 

[no1tovote4]

It appears that you are applying Legislation to attempt to curtail the Foreign Relation powers of the President. The Courts have already ruled against this particular portion of the law with Clinton, and will again. They ruled that FISA cannot curtail the President's Constitutional authority on this matter.

Now, the President has electronic surveillance of the international switches that scan for specific call patterns and for certain phraseology. This too has been found to be legal, even when some portion of the call may be domestic. Only calls that are spe cifically tagged are listened to by a person, some are not acted on nor kept, some save many lives.

I believe that the surveillance has been taken out of context, explained in words that make it sound more than it is and then people are not provided the case law that has already been decided that points to the legality of the surveillance.

 

[Kagom]

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.

I believe we should have limited gun regulation. I believe we should be able to own handguns and shotguns and rifles, but not full automatic weapons or things like uzis, etc. I believe we should even be able to conceal. My ex is apart of the NRA and supports being able to bear arms and he's a major liberal.

The wiretap issue seems to have been stated that there were no warrants. I believe that Bush was misusing his power, but that's personal opinion. I need to do more research on this myself.

I believe that we should have warrants for suspects depending on the case. If it's a murder case, then I deserve to have my house searched if I'm a suspect. If someone has been hiding coke, warrant before you search someone's home, because if you cause property damage to someone who is innocent, then you're just being a major jerk-off in my opinion.

 

[manu1959]

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.

if the president of the united states said that he was told by the US attorney general that given the circumstances the president had the power to order wiretapping of suspected threats to the security of US citizens....what would you say?

 

[Merlin]

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

SpidermanTuba, your thoughts is so asinine and your ignorance is so sickening, you could possibly be from one of the countries we are fighting the war or terrorism in. I don't think the police should need a warrent to search suspected criminals and I don't hate America. I do hate some of the stupid law makers that don't have a clue of what America is or stands for. You can respond to this post if you wish, but it won't be read by me.

 

[Annie]

SpidermanTuba, your thoughts is so asinine and your ignorance is so sickening, you could possibly be from one of the countries we are fighting the war or terrorism in. I don't think the police should need a warrent to search suspected criminals and I don't hate America. I do hate some of the stupid law makers that don't have a clue of what America is or stands for. You can respond to this post if you wish, but it won't be read by me.

Have to agree with ya, so do most others:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/60695.htm

January 19, 2006 -- DEMOCRATS who criticize President Bush for using warrantless wiretaps to elicit information about potential terrorist activity should be aware that the American people strongly support his decision to do so. Believe it or not, they trust their own government and the president they elected to use the information wisely and for our own protection.

The Fox News poll of Jan. 11 asked voters whether the president "should have the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in the United States?" By 58 percent to 36 percent, the answer was "yes." Indeed, 42 percent of the nation's Democrats agreed that the president should have this power.

The poll also tells us that Americans attribute the absence of terrorist attacks over the past 41/2 years to our government's efforts to protect us. Asked if the fact that there has been no major terror attack since 9/11 was due to "security measures working" or to "no attack having been planned" by terrorists, Americans credited government efforts by 46 percent (to 22 percent for the terrorists, with another 20 percent saying both factors contributed).

Other results: Some 61 percent — including a majority of the Democrats — said they'd be willing to surrender some of their own privacy to help prevent terror attacks. Respondents support renewal of the Patriot Act by 57 percent to 31 percent. (Even Democrats only oppose renewal by 40-47.)

And those who called attention to the NSA policy of warrant-less wiretaps are called "traitors" by 50 percent of the voters and "whistleblowers" by only 27 percent. Democrats opted for "traitors" by 42 percent to 34 percent.

In other words, Ann Coulter represents the Democratic mainstream better than Al Gore on this one!

These statistics tell us that Democratic politicians are just hurting themselves by raising and dwelling on the wiretap issue. Americans don't fear giving their government the power to monitor conversations between Americans and foreigners even if no warrant sanctions the intrusion — we're more afraid of al Qaeda than of our own elected officials.

No wonder President Bush is willing to let Congress hold hearings about the NSA intercepts and the legal basis that allows them. The more focus this issue gets, the more it helps his administration.

This time, liberal bias in the media helps moderates and conservatives — no pol should mind being attacked for doing things that the public approves.

Once again, liberals are misreading the public's heavy doubts about the wisdom of the war in Iraq and our ability to win. These are pragmatic concerns, not an embrace of the left's take on national security. In fact, there is a broad and deep consensus when it comes to homeland security, which any politician defies at the risk of losing support.

Nor did the NSA wiretaps break the law. The president's inherent power as commander in chief allows them. Warrant-less wiretaps for tax, drug, or even organized crime investigations would clearly be illegal. But to protect our country in the War on Terror, they are extensions of military action and are as legal as any wartime intelligence gathering would be. The fact that there has been no declaration of war is a distinction without a difference. Congress has approved military action and within that approval lies an implicit assumption that the president will use our intelligence services to prevail militarily, on the home front as surely as he does in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[drewky]

SpidermanTuba, your thoughts is so asinine and your ignorance is so sickening, you could possibly be from one of the countries we are fighting the war or terrorism in. I don't think the police should need a warrent to search suspected criminals and I don't hate America. I do hate some of the stupid law makers that don't have a clue of what America is or stands for. You can respond to this post if you wish, but it won't be read by me.

Drew agrees 100%