• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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.

Bush: Intel "Saves Lives"

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The traitor "Patriot" Act "saves lives" according to Bush, now he says this Intel eavesdropping "save lives" and the CIA terror prisons overseas I imagine he would say "saves lives." The death penalty according to Bush also "saves lives" and when Bush completely dismembers and erradicates the US constitution, I imagine he would say he did it to "save lives":

Bush: Eavesdropping Helps Save U.S. Lives By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer
41 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Facing angry criticism and challenges to his authority in Congress, President Bush on Saturday unapologetically defended his administration's right to conduct secret post-Sept. 11 spying in the U.S. as "critical to saving American lives."

One Democrat said Bush was acting more like a king than a democratically elected leader.

Bush's willingness to publicly acknowledge some of the government's most classified activities was a stunning development for a president known to dislike disclosure of even the most mundane inner workings of his White House.

Since October 2001, the super-secret National Security Agency has monitored, without court-approved warrants, the international phone calls and e-mails of people inside the United States.

News of the program comes at a particularly damaging and delicate time.

Already, the Bush administration is under fire for allegedly operating secret prisons in Eastern Europe and shipping suspected terrorists to other countries for harsh interrogations.

The NSA program's existence surfaced as the administration and its GOP allies on Capitol Hill were fighting to save the expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the domestic anti-terrorism law enacted after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

In a stinging failure to Bush, Democrats and a few Republicans who say this law gives so much latitude to law enforcement officials that it threatens Americans' constitutional liberties succeeded Friday in stalling its renewal.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
FinnMacCool said:
Bullshit. This is just a way for Bush to attempt to justify it.
I know, but alot of people buy into his justifications. You can't beat these terrorists the way Bush is trying to do it. He is only making the terrorists stronger. The only way to beat the terrorists is with traditional American ideas of freedom. The only way, America will save and protect itself is by going back to it's roots. America has went astray of it's traditional values of freedom. With McCain's victory against Bush and the Senate holding up the "Patriot" Act (which they need to just let it completely expire) this maybe a turning point on the war that was declared on the US on September 11. Because so far, the terrorists have been winning this war and Bush has helped them in their winning streak.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I agree. You cannot beat terrorism. Trying to defeat terrorism is like trying to defeat disease. Overcoming terrorism is the individuals responsible. Its up to the gov't to make us as secure as possible without interfering with our liberties. It is up to us to live our lives as we should. Once the gov't interferes with our liberties, it begins to defeat the purpose of defeating terrorism because, if you cannot live free then why live at all?

Being completely secure is not possible without sacrificing our liberty. People who are so afraid of terrorism that they would do so are being silly. They do not want terrorism any more then they want a totalitarian state. They need to get over the fact that--yes--there is a possiblity, however slight, that we may be attacked and people may die if we do not keep these supposedly "essential" tools against terrorism. Once they get over that fact, they can soon get over the fact that complete security is impossible without sacrificing basic liberties that we all take for granted and allow us to live life as we will. That is what makes us a happy society.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
FinnMacCool said:
I agree. You cannot beat terrorism. Trying to defeat terrorism is like trying to defeat disease. Overcoming terrorism is the individuals responsible. Its up to the gov't to make us as secure as possible without interfering with our liberties. It is up to us to live our lives as we should. Once the gov't interferes with our liberties, it begins to defeat the purpose of defeating terrorism because, if you cannot live free then why live at all?

Being completely secure is not possible without sacrificing our liberty. People who are so afraid of terrorism that they would do so are being silly. They do not want terrorism any more then they want a totalitarian state. They need to get over the fact that--yes--there is a possiblity, however slight, that we may be attacked and people may die if we do not keep these supposedly "essential" tools against terrorism. Once they get over that fact, they can soon get over the fact that complete security is impossible without sacrificing basic liberties that we all take for granted and allow us to live life as we will. That is what makes us a happy society.
I think the best way to have security is to have freedom. And the blessings of freedom must extend to all nations around the globe. However, the US cannot force freedom down the throats of other nations. It is something that they must choose and earn for themselves. We do need to promote freedom and pressure dictatorships, but we simply cannot force freedom down the throats of the common people of other nations. These common people of other nations need to have a true free voice in their own affairs and when they do have this, it is unlikely that terrorists will be able to prosper in their populations to launch attacks against the US. Nor, by destroying our own freedom in the name of security will it give us the security from the terrorists that these measures are supposed to give us.
It is my belief that the pre-requisite for the survival of the human species is freedom. Without it, the survival of the species comes into doubt. Right now, in this part of human history, we see where the survival of the human species is at stake.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I think the best way to have security is to have freedom. And the blessings of freedom must extend to all nations around the globe. However, the US cannot force freedom down the throats of other nations. It is something that they must choose and earn for themselves. We do need to promote freedom and pressure dictatorships, but we simply cannot force freedom down the throats of the common people of other nations. These common people of other nations need to have a true free voice in their own affairs and when they do have this, it is unlikely that terrorists will be able to prosper in their populations to launch attacks against the US. Nor, by destroying our own freedom in the name of security will it give us the security from the terrorists that these measures are supposed to give us.
It is my belief that the pre-requisite for the survival of the human species is freedom. Without it, the survival of the species comes into doubt. Right now, in this part of human history, we see where the survival of the human species is at stake.
Relying on Bush for other nations freedom is dumb. Bush is one of the most authoritarian presidents we've ever had. If he is providing freedom to Iraqis he's providing it based on his own agenda. And his own agenda is to bring his ideas of a 'free society' to them turning them into a society that would gradually turn backwards. He is going to do the same thing he did in Afghanistan. Afghanistan's president is a business partner of the Bush's and, if Bush provides the same sort of leader for the Iraqis as he did the afghanis then they will not, ulitimately, progress to a greater society.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
FinnMacCool said:
Relying on Bush for other nations freedom is dumb. Bush is one of the most authoritarian presidents we've ever had. If he is providing freedom to Iraqis he's providing it based on his own agenda. And his own agenda is to bring his ideas of a 'free society' to them turning them into a society that would gradually turn backwards. He is going to do the same thing he did in Afghanistan. Afghanistan's president is a business partner of the Bush's and, if Bush provides the same sort of leader for the Iraqis as he did the afghanis then they will not, ulitimately, progress to a greater society.
Even though Bush denies it, I am under the impression that he tries to make Iraq into a country that is based on an American version of freedom. True greatness only comes from being yourself and you can't make Iraq into an American type democracy. Iraq will have to decide on it's own and choose what sort of democracy they want to be, because they themselves can only have true greatness by being themselves.
 

Gibberish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
6,339
Reaction score
1,269
Location
San Diego, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I do not see the problem with the government spying on people in America whom they have evidence of being supporters of terrorists. This is ofcourse assuming they really do have evidence against these people and evidence is not based on race or religion.

I would want them to find these people and flush them out of the country, or stop them from planning or executing their objective.
 
T

The Real McCoy

Spying on Americans isn't the issue as this intelligence has proven to be effective against terrorist plots. The issue is that this spying was conducted without a court issued warrant which are quite easily obtained, easier to get than the standard search warrant.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I think that 9/11 was the greatest blessing that Cheny Inc. could've recieved. Justified for a war in Iraq thus turning all issues away from Bush as a failure and allowing for an easy re-election.

How the hell can you fight terrorism? It's similar to cancer only you never know it's form. Terrorism is an ideology that nearly all historical figures have used to combat an enemy. You identify islamic fundamentalists, christian "crusaders", eco terrorists. Essentially you can classify all ideologies that infringe on your beliefs to be terrorists. ie, War on christmas, christian fundamentalists trying to make something out of nothing just to get attention. Southern whites fearing of being breeded unpure by minorities. Border Militia that fear illegal immigrants taking over thier jobs.


All these "fears" can be classified as a feeling of terror, thus terrorism. Can we just call this war on terrorism what it really is? Anti-islamic fundamentalism, or for that matter, anti-Cheny Inc. Since all citizens within the US are now possible targets of terrorist activities, thus the Patriot Act.
 
T

The Real McCoy

FinnMacCool said:
I agree. You cannot beat terrorism.
But you can change the factors that cause it.


FinnMacCool said:
Trying to defeat terrorism is like trying to defeat disease.
Doesn't mean we should stop trying to fight either.


FinMacCool said:
Its up to the gov't to make us as secure as possible without interfering with our liberties. It is up to us to live our lives as we should. Once the gov't interferes with our liberties, it begins to defeat the purpose of defeating terrorism because, if you cannot live free then why live at all?
During wartime there is usually no choice but to limit certain liberties for national security purposes. The government's primary responsibility is to protect it's people.


FinMacCool said:
Being completely secure is not possible without sacrificing our liberty. People who are so afraid of terrorism that they would do so are being silly.
Tell that to the average family of a September 11th victim.


FinMacCool said:
They do not want terrorism any more then they want a totalitarian state.
Certain civil liberty restrictions = a totalitarian state? That's an enormous leap in logic.


FinMacCool said:
They need to get over the fact that--yes--there is a possiblity, however slight, that we may be attacked and people may die if we do not keep these supposedly "essential" tools against terrorism. Once they get over that fact, they can soon get over the fact that complete security is impossible without sacrificing basic liberties that we all take for granted and allow us to live life as we will. That is what makes us a happy society.
Eh... we might lose a few thousand innocent people. No biggie. Way to be compassionate.

Quite frankly, I have nothing to hide and could care less if the NSA listens in on my phone calls.
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
The Real McCoy said:
Spying on Americans isn't the issue as this intelligence has proven to be effective against terrorist plots. The issue is that this spying was conducted without a court issued warrant which are quite easily obtained, easier to get than the standard search warrant.
Because we assume his basis for spying on certain groups and people was so weak that he could not obtain a warrant. They were spying on Quakers... :roll:
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
But you can change the factors that cause it.
Not by force.

Doesn't mean we should stop trying to fight either.
The idea is to make yourself as protected as possible and then leave it at that[/Quote]






During wartime there is usually no choice but to limit certain liberties for national security purposes. The government's primary responsibility is to protect it's people.
Usually no choice? They have a choice. And the only moral choice is to allow us to keep our liberties. Perhaps you would give up your liberty so easily but I wouldn't.



Tell that to the average family of a September 11th victim.
Have you talked to the average family of a september 11th victim? It doesn't matter if they are familys of victims, they still should not sacrifice liberty for security.

Certain civil liberty restrictions = a totalitarian state? That's an enormous leap in logic.
Your right it is a big leap. I'm looking towards the future. THere is nothing more important then fighting Authoritarianism and abuse of power. Anything that undermines our liberty is taking a step towards totalitarianism

Eh... we might lose a few thousand innocent people. No biggie. Way to be compassionate.
Its not about being compassionate, its about being smart. People die every day, how compassionate are you? Deaths aren't fun but they are apart of life.
Quite frankly, I have nothing to hide and could care less if the NSA listens in on my phone calls
Okay if you don't mind being spied on, good for you.
 
T

The Real McCoy

FinnMacCool said:
Not by force.
Sometimes force is needed to change governments.


FinMacCool said:
The idea is to make yourself as protected as possible and then leave it at that
And ignore the growing problem....



FinMacCool said:
Usually no choice? They have a choice. And the only moral choice is to allow us to keep our liberties. Perhaps you would give up your liberty so easily but I wouldn't.
You're looking at it from one side. What morality is there in allowing a threat within our borders to manifest itself when it could be prevented by curbing certain liberties such as the right to privacy?



FinMacCool said:
Have you talked to the average family of a september 11th victim? It doesn't matter if they are familys of victims, they still should not sacrifice liberty for security.
No, but I've heard them. I've seen them on TV and read their writings and they know what havoc terrorism can wreak.


FinMacCool said:
Your right it is a big leap. I'm looking towards the future. THere is nothing more important then fighting Authoritarianism and abuse of power. Anything that undermines our liberty is taking a step towards totalitarianism
Agreed.. a small step but still a step.


FinMacCool said:
Its not about being compassionate, its about being smart. People die every day, how compassionate are you? Deaths aren't fun but they are apart of life.
Of course people die every day but most because of natural causes. I don't know about you but I support efforts to prevent needless death like murder and terrorism.


FinMacCool said:
Okay if you don't mind being spied on, good for you.
I don't see what the big deal is. The 14th amendment (or any amendment in the Constitution) isn't absolute. If civil liberties were absolute we could bear nuclear arms, spew libel and slander, shout bomb on airplanes and other things that are detrimental to society. It's only thing if NSA agents are coming into homes and going through people's stuff, I'd have a BIG problem with that, but listening in on phones isn't as big a deal as people make it out to be.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Sometimes force is needed to change governments.
Sometimes, but not if its not your own

And ignore the growing problem....
Thats the problem. You pay too much attention to it and end up reverting to old ways for fear of it. If we are to progress we have to do away with these old ideas of 'intervention'. We cannot keep doing this and expect us to progress. Change in policy is the only way to achieve this.

You're looking at it from one side. What morality is there in allowing a threat within our borders to manifest itself when it could be prevented by curbing certain liberties such as the right to privacy?
Thats only looking at the immediate. If you only go for short term safety instead of long term safety and happiness then whats gonna happen is your going to **** up in the future. That is why we will keep fighting war after war after war because no one has the guts to change things.
We aren't going to 'win' the 'war on terror' by curbing liberties. We're gonna win by changing policies.

No, but I've heard them. I've seen them on TV and read their writings and they know what havoc terrorism can wreak.
And if they're smart and if they have any respect for the dead, they will not sacrifice their liberty for their own security.
Of course people die every day but most because of natural causes. I don't know about you but I support efforts to prevent needless death like murder and terrorism.
I am support efforts to prevent needless death but I support it in a different way. If we only look to stop the immediate problems then we're going to lose in the long run. We have to change policy.
I don't see what the big deal is. The 14th amendment (or any amendment in the Constitution) isn't absolute. If civil liberties were absolute we could bear nuclear arms, spew libel and slander, shout bomb on airplanes and other things that are detrimental to society. It's only thing if NSA agents are coming into homes and going through people's stuff, I'd have a BIG problem with that, but listening in on phones isn't as big a deal as people make it out to be.
Its a big deal because it has the potential to infringe on our rights. It might have happened to you already and you don't know about it. Do you want to be spied on, whether you know or don't know about it?

Those things you listed about civil liberties being 'absolute' are all realistically acceptable to be outlawed. However this is different. This doesn't just give powers to search 'potential terrorists'. Anyone could be a potential terorist. I could be a potential terrorist. I don't like the idea of the gov't having the power to spy on me.
 

JustMyPOV

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I'm so sickened by this, I don't even know where to begin. If security means giving up any and all forms of privacy, frankly, I'd rather be slightly less secure.

The president is limited to spying only on foreigners without a warrant and FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) makes it expressly illegal for the US to spy on its own citizens without a warrant. The fact of the matter is, war on terror or no war on terror, this president has broken the law. There's a war on drugs, too, but that doesn't give the government the right to just spy on and amass information about innocent Americans without presenting their case to a federal judge first.

I'll be interested to see what, if anything, the Republican controlled congress does in response to this violation of the law.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
jfuh said:
I think that 9/11 was the greatest blessing that Cheny Inc. could've recieved. Justified for a war in Iraq thus turning all issues away from Bush as a failure and allowing for an easy re-election.

How the hell can you fight terrorism? It's similar to cancer only you never know it's form. Terrorism is an ideology that nearly all historical figures have used to combat an enemy. You identify islamic fundamentalists, christian "crusaders", eco terrorists. Essentially you can classify all ideologies that infringe on your beliefs to be terrorists. ie, War on christmas, christian fundamentalists trying to make something out of nothing just to get attention. Southern whites fearing of being breeded unpure by minorities. Border Militia that fear illegal immigrants taking over thier jobs.


All these "fears" can be classified as a feeling of terror, thus terrorism. Can we just call this war on terrorism what it really is? Anti-islamic fundamentalism, or for that matter, anti-Cheny Inc. Since all citizens within the US are now possible targets of terrorist activities, thus the Patriot Act.
Here's how you fight terrorism, after a terrorist attack on U.S. soil you turn on the t.v to CNN and the people jumping for joy and burning American flags are the people you kill.
 
T

The Real McCoy

FinnMacCool said:
Sometimes, but not if its not your own
What about Japan, Germany, South Korea... Those countries are booming.


FinMacCool said:
Thats the problem. You pay too much attention to it and end up reverting to old ways for fear of it.
No... we paid little to no attention to it before 9/11.

You can continue to live in candyland where everything is just peachy and whatever goes on in the Middle East doesn't matter.. or you can face reality and realize that this is a war that must be fought. Contempt for America will continue to brew in Arab countries as long as Authoritarian regimes are in place that oppress their people and blame the West for their woes by bombarding the people with anti-American propoganda through state controlled medias. Then the twist the great religion of Islam to give them hope, they glorify suicidal bombings that kill "infidels" with the promise of escape, instant passage to heaven.

This is what needs to change and cannot be ignored.

FinMacCool said:
If we are to progress we have to do away with these old ideas of 'intervention'. We cannot keep doing this and expect us to progress. Change in policy is the only way to achieve this.
What change in policy do you propose?


FinMacCool said:
Thats only looking at the immediate. If you only go for short term safety instead of long term safety and happiness then whats gonna happen is your going to **** up in the future. That is why we will keep fighting war after war after war because no one has the guts to change things.
We aren't going to 'win' the 'war on terror' by curbing liberties. We're gonna win by changing policies.
Again, what policy changes?


FinMacCool said:
And if they're smart and if they have any respect for the dead, they will not sacrifice their liberty for their own security.
Are you kidding? Most Americans WOULD sacrifice liberties for security. You seem to think that we can have all these liberties without having security. The 2 are not at odds with each other, security is needed for liberty but you can't seem to grasp that.


FinMacCool said:
I am support efforts to prevent needless death but I support it in a different way. If we only look to stop the immediate problems then we're going to lose in the long run. We have to change policy.
We're NOT only looking at the immediate problems. If we succeed in Iraq, which I believe we will, then we can leave and allow the seeds of freedom to flourish in the Middle East. THAT is what will help defeat terrorism in the long run.


FinMacCool said:
Its a big deal because it has the potential to infringe on our rights. It might have happened to you already and you don't know about it. Do you want to be spied on, whether you know or don't know about it?

Those things you listed about civil liberties being 'absolute' are all realistically acceptable to be outlawed. However this is different. This doesn't just give powers to search 'potential terrorists'. Anyone could be a potential terorist. I could be a potential terrorist. I don't like the idea of the gov't having the power to spy on me.
This isn't different. This is another liberty that isn't absolute, the right to privacy. I don't see wiretapping as being out of the question, I have nothing to hide and honestly don't care if the NSA listens in on my conversations but that is where you and I differ and will most likely never come to an agreement so debating it is pointless.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Here's how you fight terrorism, after a terrorist attack on U.S. soil you turn on the t.v to CNN and the people jumping for joy and burning American flags are the people you kill.
This of course solves the problem of all terrorist activities world wide right?:roll:
 

Gitdog

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
95
Reaction score
3
Location
Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
This has been going on since the 50's, get over it! They can give two craps what you say on the phone.As long as your not having a terrorist meeting on the phone, they dont care what brand of toiletpaper you wipe your dumb a** with.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Gitdog said:
This has been going on since the 50's, get over it! They can give two craps what you say on the phone.As long as your not having a terrorist meeting on the phone, they dont care what brand of toiletpaper you wipe your dumb a** with.
LOL Wow. You sure know how to articulate an intelligent point. :lol: :lol:
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Safeguards are in place
Security Letters protect people's rights as well as fight terrorism.
By Rachel Brand and John Pistole

The Justice Department cannot secure our nation against terrorist attack unless investigators are equipped with tools that allow them to disrupt plots before they can be carried out. These same tools must protect civil liberties. National Security Letters (NSLs) satisfy both requirements.

In national security investigations, the FBI must follow up on every tip and every threat. The American people demand as much. NSLs, which predate the USA Patriot Act, enable the FBI to do so quickly and unobtrusively.

An NSL is simply a request for information. It does not authorize the FBI to conduct a search or make a seizure. If the recipient of an NSL declines to produce the requested information, the FBI cannot compel him to do so; only a federal court has that authority.

NSLs are subject to two other important limitations. First, the FBI may issue them only to obtain information relevant to an international terrorism or espionage investigation. They are not available in criminal investigations or domestic terrorism investigations.

Second, they may be used only to obtain narrow categories of information. For example, the FBI may obtain credit-card billing records to attempt to learn the identity of a terrorist suspect. An NSL may not be used to obtain the contents of an e-mail or a telephone conversation. And if the FBI went beyond these legal constraints, the recipient could challenge the NSL in court. In fact, the Justice Department supports amending the NSL statutes to make this right to challenge express where currently it is implied.

The NSL statutes do prohibit an NSL recipient from disclosing the fact that he received it. In international terrorism and espionage investigations, there are obvious reasons for this. If a terrorist were tipped off to the fact that the FBI was asking for his billing records, he might flee, destroy evidence, or even accelerate plans for an attack.

The Department of Justice is committed to protecting the USA against terrorist attack while using its authorities carefully, lawfully and consistent with civil liberties. The NSL authorities facilitate this mission.


Rachel Brand is assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Policy at the Department of Justice. John Pistole is deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...pose09.art.htm
__________________
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
What about Japan, Germany, South Korea... Those countries are booming.
Japan and Germany: We had a war with them and they lost. We did a good thing by helping them rebuild and forcing them to like us
South Korea: I believe we should never have been involved in that.

No... we paid little to no attention to it before 9/11.
I agree. We ignored it because we kept killing innocents and making people mad at us. Like I said, change in policy is the only way to solve this.
You can continue to live in candyland where everything is just peachy and whatever goes on in the Middle East doesn't matter.. or you can face reality and realize that this is a war that must be fought. Contempt for America will continue to brew in Arab countries as long as Authoritarian regimes are in place that oppress their people and blame the West for their woes by bombarding the people with anti-American propoganda through state controlled medias. Then the twist the great religion of Islam to give them hope, they glorify suicidal bombings that kill "infidels" with the promise of escape, instant passage to heaven.

This is what needs to change and cannot be ignored.
Thats why we have to show them we are not fighting a war against them. Invading Iraq and adding fuel to those peoples propaganda is no way to show that we are no tout to hurt the islamic people.

What change in policy do you propose?
We need to keep in mind what George Washington said "Beware of foreign entanglements". We have to stop supporting Israel, withdraw from the middle east, and focus our efforts on our own country. We can leave someone else to do the "world policing".


Are you kidding? Most Americans WOULD sacrifice liberties for security.
Most americans aren't very smart.
You seem to think that we can have all these liberties without having security. The 2 are not at odds with each other, security is needed for liberty but you can't seem to grasp that.
Complete security is impossible without sacrificing liberty. People are always going to die. We need to move forward instead of regressing backwords. Thats the only way we can be a truly free and happy society.


We're NOT only looking at the immediate problems. If we succeed in Iraq, which I believe we will, then we can leave and allow the seeds of freedom to flourish in the Middle East. THAT is what will help defeat terrorism in the long run.
What is that the "New Domino Theory"? When one country falls to freedom the rest will fall? I don't believe thats ever going to work. And it definatly will not work if we keep fueling terrorists fire.


This isn't different. This is another liberty that isn't absolute, the right to privacy. I don't see wiretapping as being out of the question, I have nothing to hide and honestly don't care if the NSA listens in on my conversations but that is where you and I differ and will most likely never come to an agreement so debating it is pointless.
So if the president had the power to spy on anybody he wanted, you wouldn't have a problem with that?
 

JustMyPOV

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Bush circumvented the law in giving the order to the NSA to spy without approval from the FISA court.

"The president ordered the NSA to act without approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, a special federal tribunal created in 1978 to authorize domestic counterterrorism operations."

Source

He needs to be impeached as what he did was in clear violation of the law. While the program may have yielded information that thwarted further attacks, it could just as easily have done so by going through proper legal channels that have been in place since the 1970s to deal with such matters. The problem isn't with the spying, the problem is the total lack of judicial oversight and the total disregard for the privacy and civil liberties of American citizens.
 
Top Bottom