Civil liberities at risk.

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by EagleDNY
I suggest you search for public law 107-40 then - here is a link:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22357.pdf

Invoking the War Powers Act is not a declaration of war.  The Act itself makes that distiction if you read it (specifically Section 5).

The President is allowed by FISA to conduct warrantless searches/wiretaps after declaration of war...for 15 calendar days.  That's it. And the AUMF does not equal a declaration of war.  Go find Congress' last declaration of war to see what one looks like...it was on December 11, 1941.

Part A of S.J. Res. 23 does not give the President authority to dismiss consitutionally guaranteed rights (see Youngstown Co. v. Sawyer)  It gives authority to for the President to use all necessary military force (that is the title of the resolution) against those connected to 9/11.  That is pretty limited in reality.  If it were as broad as you are implying, it could have been used to justify the Iraq invasion...but it wasn't...a new resolution was created for that (H.J. Res 114).

[crowMAW]

BTW...the legalities of this issue were beaten to death in this thread:

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=167776&perpage=50&pagenumber=2

[Rolex]

You might want to do a little search about "Signing Statements" issued by the president, SoA. He considers laws written by Congress to be advisory only, and he will interpret or ignore them as he sees fit.

If that doesn't make the hair on the back of your neck stand up, nothing will.

[Nash]

Originally posted by Eagler
you wanna see a shadow, let future terror attacks on US soil push this great nation into the status of a third world country practically overnight

what do you think would happen to this country say if/when 2 or 3 suitcase nukes go off NY, LA & Chicago? The implosion following the explosions would unravel the country in a heart beat. Oh yeah, say good bye to your real freedoms, not the ones you are imagining you are losing now...

^
Those are the squeaking noises made by little girls.

OMG! The horror!

Stop giving this kinda BS any power.

Refuse to be governed by cowards like this. Because these cowards will strip you of any liberty you happen to have left.

They are the frightened dorks in your elementry school field during recess that went running to Mrs. Hillborn over any infraction, real or imaginary.

They are the crybabys that never could take care of themselves. Couldn't dress themselves. Could never really figure out how to handle a bully.

Fools.

And they deign to rule? Ruling such that they do so by expecting everyone else to be comforted by the assuring hand of a King cloaked in a gawdamned safety blanket?

Folks....That aint America, and this should piss you off.

You are NOT a nation of gawdamned crybabys: fearing ... fearing... fearing...

That's not America, and these people don't represent you.

Don't let these crybabies dump on the Constitution and strip you of the rights afforded within, just because they happen to be scared.

For chrissakes don't let it happen.

[Sloehand]

Originally posted by LePaul
You know when the 9/11 panel gave its conclusions, the government was scolded for not doing enough.

When they do, they are scolded yet again.

So precisely what would you prefer?

Somewhere in the middle???  It doesn't have to be a choice of extremes, just rational thought.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Nash
^
Those are the squeaking noises made by little girls.

OMG! The horror!

Stop giving this kinda BS any power.

Refuse to be governed by cowards like this. Because these cowards will strip you of any liberty you happen to have left.

They are the frightened dorks in your elementry school field during recess that went running to Mrs. Hillborn over any infraction, real or imaginary.

They are the crybabys that never could take care of themselves. Couldn't dress themselves. Could never really figure out how to handle a bully.

Fools.

And they deign to rule? Ruling such that they do so by expecting everyone else to be comforted by the assuring hand of a King cloaked in a gawdamned safety blanket?

Folks....That aint America, and this should piss you off.

You are NOT a nation of gawdamned crybabys: fearing ... fearing... fearing...

That's not America, and these people don't represent you.

Don't let these crybabies dump on the Constitution and strip you of the rights afforded within, just because they happen to be scared.

For chrissakes don't let it happen.

why would it worry you?
Canada and Europe would benefit if we were knocked down a notch. Maybe you could catch up then...

All this over overseas phone tap & shoe searches at a/p's??

oh the humanity!!!

LOL

[Sloehand]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
To each his own I guess.  IMHO the point he's making is that unchecked liberties to a foul people will result in caos, not freedom.  

With this whole subject I have to say that I realize there is a fine line that we walk here.  In once stance, I don't want me or my family to end up in one of those "blue cities" laz is referring too when the next attack hits.  In other, I can see hang's point about giving the govt, unchecked powers and what most govts usually do with them.  A balance must be struck between liberty and security and that isn't allways easy to do, especially when America's enemys know the rules we play by and use every oppertunitiy to exploit them to their advantage.

In your last line especially, I agree.  My feelings have always been, speaking in generalities, that if I change (forced or voluntarily for safety)beyond the recognition of what I am (and my nation is) and what I truly believe in, then I have lost, am lost, and the enemy has won.  I will risk death of myself and family, to continue to live as an American should, fighting to defend, but never to bend or break from our liberties.

If my nation, my people and my freedoms deserve to survive then they will, by the very nature of that nation, its people and their freedoms, by NEVER changing in fear, by never refusing to pay the price of freedom, by never shunning the duties to protect and preserve the American creed that shall keep and secure us.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Sloehand
Somewhere in the middle???  It doesn't have to be a choice of extremes, just rational thought.

this is in the middle, way before the middle IMO...

wait until another attack on US soil, when you are required to be in your home by sunset, when searches take hours not minutes, when the stock market plummets below 1989 levels and America gets its overseas jobs back as our labor can then compete with India, etc ...

then your "middle" will shift

I recongize your concern but do not see it as the end of the country or my "civil liberties". I see it as the latest attempt by the enemies of this admin to stir the pot..nothing more.

pick your battles wisely - there are some really bad ones on the horizon

[2Slow]

Originally posted by Eagler
this is in the middle, way before the middle IMO...

wait until another attack on US soil, when you are required to be in your home by sunset, when searches take hours not minutes, when the stock market plummets below 1989 levels and America gets its overseas jobs back as our labor can then compete with India, etc ...

then your "middle" will shift

I recongize your concern but do not see it as the end of the country or my "civil liberties". I see it as the latest attempt by the enemies of this admin to stir the pot..nothing more.

pick your battles wisely - there are some really bad ones on the horizon

"I see it as the latest attempt by the enemies of this admin to stir the pot..nothing more."

Please do not classify me as an enemy of the current administration.  I have shaken the Presidents hand and I am quite proud of it.  My friends and family classify me as a "yellow dog Republican."

I only stirred this pot to see what the ingredients are.  If we are near the abyss of tyranny, how near?  Is it on the distant horizon?  Perhaps closer?  Are we standing on the edge, or struggling on the slippery slopes?

So far I see a fair mixture of ingredients.  I don't like some of the ingredients.  Such is the stew of democracy.

[Hangtime]

As Laz put it, a Democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. A constitutional democracy insures the sheep won't be on the menu.

Any time an executive gathers up the constituionial guarantees and chuks 'em in the shredder, another batch of sheep get closer to getting on the menu.

This latest move of the president to ignore law and enable the nations security services to shift from protecting the sheep to hunting them...

bad, bad news.

[Shamus]

Originally posted by Hangtime
As Laz put it, a Democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. A constitutional democracy insures the sheep won't be on the menu.

Any time an executive gathers up the constituionial guarantees and chuks 'em in the shredder, another batch of sheep get closer to getting on the menu.

This latest move of the president to ignore law and enable the nations security services to shift from protecting the sheep to hunting them...

bad, bad news.

Well Hang, as long as its the sheep on the left side of the herd its just fine.

shamus

[Hangtime]

bhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.

[2Slow]

Originally posted by CavPuke
Like they did with the embassy and Marine Barracks bombings in Lebanon ? How about the all the kidnappings by IJO in Beruit (to include the CIA Station Chief).  How about the USAF Barracks in Saudia Arabia ?  In all of the above cases we never even figured out who were responsible.  We just let em get away with it, buried our collective heads in the sand, and hope they wouldn't do it again.  You might want to read See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism -- by Robert Baer.  Any one who thinks we're approaching this war on terror in the right manner is dead wrong.

"and Marine Barracks bombings in Lebanon ?"  A classic case of people who had no clue.  Concerned about sending a message, a signal, having a presence.  They thought these concepts would prevail and win the day.  They are clueless.  This same ilk of clueless pukes gave us Blackhawk Down.  They didn't want to send heavy armor to the theater.  It would send the wrong message.

I know well of the pain and suffering these people can inflict.  Now if they would only focus killing the enemy.

In memory of my step-brother.
 
Massman, Michael R. ....... USMC ... SGT .... 10/23/1983 .. MI .. Port Huron, MI
 
http://www.usembassy.gov.lb/embassy/TCIP.htm
http://www.remember.gov/TollOfTerrorism/BeirutBombings/BeirutTerroristBomings/tabid/127/Default.aspx
http://www.beirut-memorial.org/memory/index.html
http://www.beirut-memorial.org/
http://www.jerseymarines.com/Memorial.cfm?Memorial=1
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AMH/XX/MidEast/Lebanon-1982-1984/USMC-Lebanon82/USMC-Lebanon82-F.html

[2Slow]

After carefull review and consideration I no longer have issue with the "NSA event."  I can neither deny or confirm any further knowledge of what led me to this conclusion.

The Patriot Act is still another matter IMHO.

[Shamus]

I may have to change my position on this one, it has now been renamed "terrorist surveillance", that sounds much better don't you think?

shamus