• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Another Terrorist Liberals Wouldn't Have Stopped

A

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The left has opposed roving wiretaps, warrantless wiretaps, every kind of wiretap except the one that doesn't stop terrorists.

Wednesday, another terrorist here in the U.S. was stopped thanks to liberals not getting their way on national security.

Here are the ones I know of thus far that have been stopped this way:

Iyman Faris- Brooklyn Bridge bomber.
Nuradin Abdi- the Columbus-area shopping mall bomber.
All the terrorists involved in the trans-Atlantic plane plot.
And now, Christopher Paul.

U.S. citizen charged with terrorist plots - U.S. Security - MSNBC.com
 

you know what else would be effective?

Putting a camera in every room of every citizens house. Just try to get away with something illegal!


But ya, those "damn liberals" would likely fight it every step of the way. :roll:
 
ARealConservative said:
you know what else would be effective?

Putting a camera in every room of every citizens house. Just try to get away with something illegal!


But ya, those "damn liberals" would likely fight it every step of the way. :roll:
Click to expand...

How unreasonable of conservatives to put our right to not be mass murdered over the fictional privacy rights of terror suspects.

We're so insensitive. :lol:

Incidentally, once the FISA court was reformed in a rational way, the warantless wiretapping stopped, proving liberal hysteria wrong about Bush's intentions.
 
aquapub said:
The fictional privacy rights of terror suspects do not trump the undeniable right of the rest of us to not be mass murdered.
Click to expand...

I don't even know what this means.

Fictional privacy rights? The powers granted to the federal government were few and explicit. The End.
 
ARealConservative said:
I don't even know what this means.

Fictional privacy rights? The powers granted to the federal government were few and explicit. The End.
Click to expand...

The Bill of Rights listed things the federal government could not do. And nowhere does it restrict the federal government's ability to investigate suspicions of terrorism or anything like that. And the Constitution doesn't mention or even imply that we have any right to privacy.
 
aquapub said:
The Constitution doesn't mention or even imply that we have any right to privacy.
Click to expand...

yes it does. All powers not granted to the federal government are reserved for the people or the state. That is an implied right to privacy. The constitution doesn't grant government the power to spy on us - so privacy fills the void.
 

It doesn't have to.

The Constitution of the United States of America said:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Click to expand...

Just because it's not in there doesn't mean it's not a right. I already had this debate twice with another neocon on this site.
 

I didn't see in the article were it indicated that Paul was indicted based upon any law enforcement procedure or statute that liberals oppose.
 
Iriemon said:
I didn't see in the article were it indicated that Paul was indicted based upon any law enforcement procedure or statute that liberals oppose.
Click to expand...
Me either.

Maybe that's just supposed to be "understood" since liberals long to see America crushed under the heel of their terrorist masters.

I wonder if any of the other foiled plots listed have any connection to the procedures and techniques under discussion.

Is it be too much to ask that this connection that's so essential to the OP's rant be made? If it's too much trouble, don't bother.

I suspect that the right "to not be mass murdered" is right next to the right to prvacy clause in the Constitution.
 

Wait a minute are you talking about the liquid explosive plot in August?

The one with British born terrorists that was organised between the UK and Pakistan?

The one that they've released practically no evidence about in order to ensure the men get a fair trial?

The American left sure have a lot to answer for about that one
 
aquapub said:
..once the FISA court was reformed in a rational way
Click to expand...
That's all the dems were asking for, oversight.
aquapub said:
...the warantless wiretapping stopped
Click to expand...
'cause he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and the dems got the accountability that should have been there all along.
 
_______
What does this mean? "since liberals long to see America crushed under the heel of their terrorist masters"
 
do you really believe the funny stuff you write?

Are yu a member of the WNCA?????? Wierd NeoConservatives of America.

I hate liberals too. they want peace and prosperity, those darn liberals did the Attacks on 911. The dam liberals are tryin to get our troops home alive, and us NeoConservatives want em all dead. We member of the WNCA, want all those Iraqis and those darn Iranian, the syrians, the Jordanian, the Saudis dead and we want send some loyal folks from Ohio to colonize Iraq. We members of the WNCA want to see the money spent on war trippled, we owe china billions now, what does it matter if we borrow another million Billion dollars from China?

Screw yu darn Liberals
 
ARealConservative said:
yes it does. All powers not granted to the federal government are reserved for the people or the state. That is an implied right to privacy. The constitution doesn't grant government the power to spy on us - so privacy fills the void.
Click to expand...

1) Article 2, Section 2: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States..."

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

If the military must listen to conversations taking place in this country to provide for the common defense, then the president has the right to order them to do so.

2) Even if you had a right to privacy, that wouldn't apply to phone conversations across public airwaves/phone lines.

3) The Bill of Rights was a list of limitations on the federal government. Listed nowehere in it is anything that implies the government must not listen to conversations.

If it is not listed as one of the things the federal government cannot do, then it is impossible to state with any certainty that the Bill of Rights prohibits it.
 
Iriemon said:
I didn't see in the article were it indicated that Paul was indicted based upon any law enforcement procedure or statute that liberals oppose.
Click to expand...

From the article:

"Two other Columbus men have been charged in federal investigators terrorism investigation. Iyman Faris was sentenced in 2003 to 20 years in prison for a plot to topple the Brooklyn Bridge. Nuradin Abdi, accused of plotting to blow up a Columbus-area shopping mall, is awaiting trial on charges including conspiring to aid terrorists."

This arrest was a product of this other case, where wiretapping policies that liberals opposed led to the prevention of the Brooklyn Bridge, Columbus shopping mall bombings.
 

1) Hysterical straw man fallacy.

2) There is no privacy clause. There is however something indicating a right to life.

:roll:
 
BWG said:
That's all the Democrats were asking for, oversight.
Click to expand...

The did Democrats oppose roving wiretaps as well? Why did liberals needlessly expose the inner-workings of a classified anti-terror program (treason) if their goal was merely to have some oversight?
 

Moderator's Warning:
This is baiting and trolling. This is how most individuals get into retaliations of name calling and abrasions.
 
As to the Democrats being against the Patriot Act, just a made up con jab, with no basis in fact!

Sen. Russ Feingold was the only Senate Democrat to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001 and that only nine Senate Democrats (plus independent Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont) voted against the USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act.


aquapub said:
The did Democrats oppose roving wiretaps as well?
Click to expand...
What Democrats were against, was expanding the Patriot Act.
Democrats do not oppose wiretapping and data mining, they oppose doing it without a court warrant, they oppose doing it without oversight over the presidency.

Section 206 to create so-called roving wiretaps, which allow government agents to tap the devices associated with a suspected terrorist rather than a single device

The reauthorization holds agencies to a slightly stricter standard with regard to when roving wiretaps can be used, requires reports to congress on their use, and sets a sunset expiration of four years.


aquapub said:
Why did liberals needlessly expose the inner-workings of a classified anti-terror program (treason) if their goal was merely to have some oversight?
Click to expand...
It is noted that you switched from the term 'Democrats' to 'liberals'.
Is it because you are referring to the NYT and not Democrats, but want to carry the democrat frame of mind on to this incident, not related at all to the Democratic party?

The New York Times is an independent, capitalist, corporate entity with no affiliation with the Democratic party. If you have a problem with their content, may I suggest you take it up with them.
 
I'm sorry -but I will never be able to take you seriously again.

the constitution was also a list of limitations.
 

:lol:

Democrats voted for Afghanistan too, and they gave it 3 whole weeks before calling it a quagmire and comparing it to Vietnam. Democrats relentlessly undermined that war until it could be used to trash the next war they voted for in Iraq. Then Afghanistan became the only thing we did right.

With Democrats, you have to make the distinction between what they vote for and what they actually believe in.

Democrats voted for it as they always do when they need to look like they want terrorists to fail, and then turned on it:

Democrats seek rollback of Patriot Act / Meanwhile, Bush administration pushes for added anti-terrorist tools

Here's Harry Reid bragging about killing the Patriot Act Democrats voted for:

YouTube - Senate Minority Leader Reid: "We killed the Patriot Act."
 

That's exactly why I switched terms-to remain accurate about who actually did the revealing. The New Yorm Times, which has endorsed every single Presidential candidate the left has come up with (even the ones that got single digit electoral votes) in the last fifty+ years did the revealing.

And it's perfectly ok to tie them in with the other arms of the Democrat Party because when Republicans passed a resolution condemning the act of treason, Democrats voted overwhelmingly against it and smeared conservatives as if they were conspiring to distract attention from Iraq.

(everything's a conspiracy theory with liberals)

"Yesterday, Democrats lashed out at Republicans for adopting a 'kill the messenger' campaign designed to distract the public from an unpopular war in Iraq..."

House denounces media for terrorist financing report - The Boston Globe
 
ARealConservative said:
the constitution was also a list of limitations.
Click to expand...

The Constitution was an enumeration of powers. The Bill of Rights was a list of restrictions...and since none of those included any kind of restriction against surveilling public communications, it is not a violation of any Constitutional right. Or at least, that makes it highly debatable.

And most of these people aren't even U.S. citizens, which certainly means none of their non-existent Constitutional rights are being violated.
 

Why do you keep insisting that because a right isn't in the Constitution it isn't a right? This is simply not true! Read the IX Amendment that I posted earlier.
 

The Constitutiton is an enumeration of powers. The Bill of Rights was framed to appease people that can't understand what enumeration of powers actually is. :2wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…