Memo linked to warrantless surveillance

chuam

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
0
For at least 16 months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks in 2001, the Bush administration believed that the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures on U.S. soil didn't apply to its efforts to protect against terrorism.

That view was expressed in a Justice Department legal memo dated Oct. 23, 2001. The administration on Wednesday stressed that it now disavows that view.

LINK
 

rcrosby

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
18
George Bush, "The constitution is just a god damn piece of paper". Would you expect anything else Chaum?
 

chuam

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rcrosby @ Apr 3 2008, 04:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
George Bush, "The constitution is just a god damn piece of paper". Would you expect anything else Chaum?[/b]
I wouldn't expect anything less out of him. I have been villified here for the fact that I think GW is trampling our rights. I've been called unpatriotic and other names for not supporting W. When you look at the loss of our rights how can anyone support him?
 

rcrosby

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
18
Sometimes it may take people a long while to waken up Chaum. I use to back Bush and call anyone who would criticize him all sorts of names. The blind revorence for politicians that are overwhelmingly corrupt, backwards, power thirsty crooks is what got us into the sorry state of affairs we currently enjoy. Once I realized that my country (which I love) is not my government (which I loathe) and criticism of my government is not anti-american nor is anyone elses freedom of speech. I disagree with you on a lot of things Chaum mainly economic and social but the disregard for our Constitution by this criminal administration is not one of them.
 

Rodney Hood

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
853
Reaction score
1
For at least 16 months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks in 2001, the Bush administration believed that the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures on U.S. soil didn't apply to its efforts to protect against terrorism.


When was the last time we were attacked here on the home front? Sometimes the end justifies the means...
 

rcrosby

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
18
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hartseeker @ Apr 3 2008, 11:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
So who are you for, rcrosby? Hillary or Obama?[/b]

LOL. You haven't read many of my post if you ask that question.
 

rcrosby

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
18
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rodney Hood @ Apr 4 2008, 02:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
.


When was the last time we were attacked here on the home front? Sometimes the end justifies the means...[/b]
No sir, your ends don't justify my means. Just in case you had forgotten President Bush was sworn into office under the following oath...

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Don't seem to see where in there it says, protect the homeland at the expense of the Constitution. What other rights are you willing to sell out for a little protection? Lets put this in context. 9/11 cost 2974 individuals their lifes....

19,566 Americans died in 2005 because of accidental falls. So basically over 130,000 Americans since 9/11. Do you think the government should violate the constitution by placing cameras inside each home and business to monitor and protect people from situations that could result in an accidental fall?

3582 Americans died in 2005 by drowning. Do you think the government should ban swimming pools and ban swimming all together to protect us?

12,352 Americans died in 2005 as a result of an assault with a firearm... Surely you couldn't argue that in violation of the 2nd Amendment all firearms should be confiscated and destroyed and private gun ownership ended. As gun loving Americans here on Jesses we all know that gun ownership reduces violent crime but don't be fooled to think that others don't argue that the elimination in guns (the means) will lead to less crime (the end).

My point is if our only function of our Government is protect us and to let us live a safe and cozy life regardless of individual rights be prepared to give up everything. Everything that has made and makes America great.
 

Hartseeker

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
223
Reaction score
0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rcrosby @ Apr 4 2008, 08:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hartseeker @ Apr 3 2008, 11:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So who are you for, rcrosby? Hillary or Obama?[/b]

LOL. You haven't read many of my post if you ask that question.
[/b][/quote]

So are you telling me to do a search of your posts and read over each one to learn the answer? Isn't it easier if you just answered the question? It really isn't that important to me. I was just curious.
 

rcrosby

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
18
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hartseeker @ Apr 4 2008, 09:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
So are you telling me to do a search of your posts and read over each one to learn the answer? Isn't it easier if you just answered the question? It really isn't that important to me. I was just curious.[/b]

One I would never vote for a democrat. Two I would never ever vote for a socialist, lying, elitist, power hungry, globalist, dirty rotten piece of garbage like Obama, Clinton or McCain.
 

1fitspirit

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rodney Hood @ Apr 4 2008, 02:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
When was the last time we were attacked here on the home front? Sometimes the end justifies the means...[/b]
9/11/01 is the last time I can think of. There was also WWII, Spanish American War, War of 1812, Revolutionary War, just to name a few more. We have been attacked here since the birth of our country, and will continue as long as we are a viable country. Everyone seems to conveniently forget that. As long as we think we can dictate to the rest of the world how things will go, then we will be targets.

The ends never justify the means. No, no, no! There have been hundreds of Supreme Court rulings that firmly discount that stupid notion. Blindly following the lead lemming off the edge of the cliff is the way I see Conservatives/Republicans acting with regards to the erosion of our personal freedoms. You can't or won't acknowledge that slowly but surely your guaranteed right to privacy, your guaranteed right to a speedy trial, your guaranteed right to move about the country freely have been seriously attacked in the last 7 years. Are you folks going to wake up? If you don't, one day you will find yourself in the line to turn in your guns and get your barcode tattooed. It will if you don't stop allowing the traitors to the Constitution, whoever they may be (from either party) to pick pick pick at the Constitution. By then, it will be too late. All politicians, liberal, conservative, and all those in between, COUNT on your apathy in some cases, and your fervent, misguided loyalty to a corrupt system in other cases.
They need your active cooperation to screw you over, and you don't even recognize it. I want the Government off my phone and computer lines, out of the library, out of my bank accounts, off of my land, out of my life, as much as possible. Bush set out to "protect" us. Who the heck is protecting us from him?
 

rcrosby

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
18
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (1fitspirit @ Apr 4 2008, 10:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
I want the Government off my phone and computer lines, out of the library, out of my bank accounts, off of my land, out of my life, as much as possible.[/b]
I agree with what you said 1 but seriously do you think the democrats have a better platform for this? Everything always turns into a dem/rep debate and it isn't. Both parties are in for the same thing, control of us and more power for them.
 

1fitspirit

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rcrosby @ Apr 4 2008, 10:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (1fitspirit @ Apr 4 2008, 10:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I want the Government off my phone and computer lines, out of the library, out of my bank accounts, off of my land, out of my life, as much as possible.[/b]
I agree with what you said 1 but seriously do you think the democrats have a better platform for this? Everything always turns into a dem/rep debate and it isn't. Both parties are in for the same thing, control of us and more power for them.
[/b][/quote]

Yes, I do think the Dems are better suited to uphold the Constitution. That is the primary job of the CIC. You are dead on target about the ruthless quest for more power.

I have 0 (ZERO!) faith in the Republicans. I have about 10% faith in the Democrats. All the rest of this year's crop of politicians are worthless. I can't remember a less inspiring list of choices than that which we are currently presented with. GW has destroyed my trust, and as the titular head of the Republican Party, I have to say that I would not vote for anyone with an "R" after their name for some time to come, because I don't hear any "voices in the wilderness" coming from that direction. That leaves me with the Democrats. Not a lot of choices there, either. I don't want to not vote, and I don't want to vote for a Republican, and the Democrats don't present any palatable choices. I imagine there are many Americans that are feeling the same way. For me, I hope I can figure it out before I walk into the polling place. If there is no clear choice to me by then, I will have to default to the least repulsive party, and today, I would have to say that would be the Dems. Sad, isn't it, that we don't have any good choices. Kinda reminds me of how pointless an election in Russia or China can be.

 

rcrosby

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
18
The Democrats in my opinion pay lip service to the Constitution. The ACLU is a laughing stock who only values the freedom of speech of perverts, minorities and gays while ignoring any other civil liberties. Democrats despise private property rights and without private property rights all others are mute. Not only do democrats want on be in your back they want to give you a reach around for the change in your front pocket. A good friend of mind had the best comment on Obama's "Change" platform and that was "Yah they want your change".

It is a pretty sad state of affairs. The only hope I see is the Republican party at a local level is being taken back one position at a time by people who rever the Constitution and take their, "marching orders from the constituion". People that actually value freedom and liberty and despise tyranny and oppression. Here is a couple of news links about the way individuals at a local level are retaking the RNC.

Missouri

Texas

Alaska - Some great pro-constituion resolutions added to the Republican Platform (Including some that deal with this post)
 

gwhunter69

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Messages
13,215
Reaction score
2
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Yes, I do think the Dems are better suited to uphold the Constitution.[/b]
Ahhhh, I am curious why you would think that considering their constant attacks on the first and second amendment...
 

1fitspirit

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gwhunter69 @ Apr 4 2008, 11:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
Yes, I do think the Dems are better suited to uphold the Constitution.[/b]
Ahhhh, I am curious why you would think that considering their constant attacks on the first and second amendment...
[/b][/quote]
Simple...The last 7 years are ironclad proof of the Republican assault on the Constitution.
 

gwhunter69

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Messages
13,215
Reaction score
2
Yeah, I guess the Republican are behind the Fairness Doctrine and the anti-gun legislation...and we won't even discuss abortion or taxation. You are starting to sound like the brain-dead IBAfoo and Beastslayer, where everything is the fault of the Republicans or George Bush...ah, but that is the irrational nature of the bleeding hearts...blame everyone, but do not offer any solutions. Always ready to criticize, but never put forward any ideas. That is why a Democrats will never win the White House while saying what Democrats really believe. They have to hide behind labels and nonsense like "New Democrats" and basically sound like Republican Lite. This is exactly why Barack Obama does not stand a chance of winning. He did not get the Bill Clinton memo on how to lie your way to the Presidency.
 

rcrosby

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
18
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (1fitspirit @ Apr 4 2008, 11:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Simple...The last 7 years are ironclad proof of the Republican assault on the Constitution.[/b]

So would the last 2 years of democrat control of house and senate be a Democrat assault on the constitution? All these arguments alway evolve to this complete waste of time between democrat and republican. Who give a flip? We need to all agree that our country is being destroyed by both republican and democrats. The thing they hold in common is they are politicians. We are too lazy and too worried about an R or a D to do anything about it. You saw it right here. The debate went from I like him but he can't win and I would never vote for him to I am going to vote for the guy I hated because he is an R and he might win. We have arguments on here from a guy who I would imagine considers himself conservative that the end justifies the means. When the end is we haven't had another 19 unskilled hijackers with box cutters fly planes into large steel structures and the mean is our the constitution for the basis of the greatest country to ever grace this earth. Wouldn't reinforced doors, armed pilots and maybe passengers as well pretty much ended that threat? That is retoric that Hitler, Stalin and Mao lived by.
 

1fitspirit

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rcrosby @ Apr 4 2008, 11:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (1fitspirit @ Apr 4 2008, 11:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Simple...The last 7 years are ironclad proof of the Republican assault on the Constitution.[/b]

So would the last 2 years of democrat control of house and senate be a Democrat assault on the constitution?
[/b][/quote]
No, it would be a Congress with the barest of majorities not wasting time fighting a sure veto from a Republican President. I agree with you more than disagree about the political process in this country, and 100% agree with you about the motivating factors of politicians. Until I see a new party that is named the Party of the Constitution, or a revolt within the current parties, I will continue to back the horse I favor, which is currently the Democratic party. The Dem platform is closer to what I believe than the Repubs. That might not always be the case. I am not stupid enough to stay with a particular faction just because that is what I have done in the past. If that were the case, I would still be a Republican. Independent sounds better and better these days.
 

Advertisement



Top Bottom