Do you support airport ethnic profiling of Middle Easterners?

[MSgt]

Nice. I agree.

You agree with reality. Not just me.

It's not racial profiling to give a description of a known suspect to authorities. To have a line for Muslims and a separate line for everybody else at the airport while travelers going from one state to another is though.

I know you're smarter than that, you know that this 'politcally correct war' stance is a facade and is designed to place blame for failure in the same way that you explained in your first paragraph. Specifically against the Liberals and Democrats so that if the administration and it's supporters fail, they can claim that they had their hands tied.

Where are Muslims being herded into seperate lines?

On the contrary, I see no failure. There certainly have been mistakes made along the way and there will be more to come, but there has been no failure. At this point, the chance for failure isn't even on the table anymore.

1) Saddam is gone.

2) 70 percent of the Iranian population want more of a democracy and are disenchanted with their Iranian theocracy, Mullahs, and current government.

3) Syrian reformists are being imrisoned for speaking out against the Batthist Party and demanding a democracy.

4) The Jordanian King has publicly spoken to his government and is demanding a democratic nation be born from the current monarchal government. He recognizes that his country must join the rest of the world in the 21st century. (If only the Arab elite in Saudi were less greedy.)

If failure in the Middle East comes form all of this...it will speak more on this civilization than American might. Success or failure is on their shoulders. Politicians will do what ever they want and use what they have always used. None of it changes the reality of this situation.

The U.S. if fighting like it is a war of attrition, and is obviously thinking the more people we kill the less there are to be insurgants or terrorists. The problem though, is that for every father or mother we arrest or kill, their children become our enemy. And if they are killed and have children then their children become our enemy. For every brother we kidnap and torture there is a sibling willing to avenge him. Unfortunatly our society is not the same. I watch my local news and people who have lost their brave son or daughter are not watching their other children go off to fight.

These people are already our enemy. Though logical, what you are saying doesn't reflect on what is going on. The best way to convince the futureless masses in the Middle East to join terror groups is to allow terror groups to attack us without retaliation. Everyone loves a winner and to the youth of the Middle East, in which hate and blame is so inviting, Al-Queda and other terror groups were winners throughout the '90s. These Muslim nations can purge their societies of these extremists easier if terror groups are on the losing end. There will inevitably be those individuals who travel to the extremist camps, because we have killed a loved one. (This is also why, despite our knowledge of many of their locations, we do not shut them down.) It is not preventable. But one thing is certain, if they know that terror groups have a life expectancy of zero and all involved are doomed to death...the likelyhood of recruitment is less. Not all extremists are eager to throw their lives away through a suicidal attack. Most, merely want to fight the enemies of "Allah." I parenthesis "Allah," because it is not the Allah that is worshipped everywhere else in the world.

What about the Taliban? They are of a governmental base.

You have effectively named the exception. The problem with terror groups is that they do not fall into the exception. You will find them based in countries, but you will not find governments claiming them. Even "Palestine" refuses to acknowledge that they harbour their extremists. You shouldn't argue very general truths with exceptions. It's not constructive. Timmy McVeigh would be another sense of arguing a very general truth with an exception. I wouldn't be inclined to release all prisoners from prison because some have been exonerated through DNA. The vast majority are still guilty and do not fall into the exceptions.

I agree however then we need to be straight forward in our cause and quit pretending that their culture will actually adopt our type of freedom and democracy. They will not, already there is a march in Iraq with people claiming their elections were rigged. And if by some miracle they do take our way of democracy as their own then there surely will be problems like that for a long time to come.

We can't be straight forward about this. We have to maintain a sense of "ally" with the Arab elite, because we receive oil from them. We also don't want to get on TV and blast away at this civilization. That certainly would not be in our best intersests nor the interests of our troops that will have to contend with the legion of pissed off Muslims who now want to kill "Allahs" infidel invaders. There has never been and should not be any misconception about this. Iraq will never be Vermont and Afghanistan will never be Idaho. Their democracies will never be what we would like to see. Religion will still be very much a part of their democracy. The difference is that they all have a say and they are not domineered by it or by any individual who will use it to control or supress the free flow of information. The funds will go to communities and infrastructure. It will go towards education and industry. We are already seeing the huge incline of education. UNICEF just did a survey where children attending schools in Iraq are millions over what Iraq has seen since the mid eighties.

The people that are marching are the same people that cheer for their brothers that kill their fellow Muslims. The Sunni are not happy with being equal to Shi'ites and Kurds. We should expect nothing less from them. They have been used to being the favorite and they do not like what is occurring in their country. Marching is a part of a democracy.

I believe American southerners in the mid 1800s refused to be equal to Blacks despite the Civil War or the voice of the majority. It took generations for it to be what it is today.

What reporter is that? I really don't pay much attention to specific news reporters. I just look at yahoo to try and get an 'unbiased' report. Otherwise it's a crap shoot on what you're going to get.

All of them. Every channel. I too stick to Yahoo. I also read the intel reports and I have done all of the study prior to our endeavor into Iraq. Reporters always have it wrong or they don't have the cmoplete pulse of the situation. What they will do is focus on mundane details and sell their papers and commercial air time to the delight of everyone that has drawn a line between political parties.

 

[teacher]

The global left, "Old Europe," and "Old Asia" have always been full of ****.
WWII - Bosnia - Kosovo - Middle East -

Kuwait. Even France agreed. Now go write "I'm slipping and Kelzie likes teacher more than me" tens times on the blackboard. Never it let it be said teacher is not a equal opportunity (explicative deleted).

 

[MSgt]

Please explain how it is the Left's fault that Saudi Arabia is getting money and aid from the U.S. while it is known that they are granting amnisty to known terrorists that probably know where Osama Bin Laden is? Why are we giving money to these people that we know are giving money to terrorist organizations? The left certainly called for a halt to this in 2004 we wanted Saudi Arabia on the terroist countries list but who voted that down?

The Republican majority that's who! Why? Because they give us our oil! This war is a sham and it is the Right who is to blame for it! You won't let the left help win it you'd rather just blame us when you fail!

Talk about Wussy Whiners.:roll:

Oh c'mon. Our guilt in the Middle East is that we have looked the other way while their governments have destroyed their societies and used us as a scapegoat. We have looked the other way because the oil was flowing. The true lords of terror is the "House of Saud" and we are sworn to protect those bazaars of terror. This goes way back before Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, and Carter. This is not a "left" or a "right" thing, because just like the "right"...the "left" aren't riding bicycles to work.

What is "left" is that the Democratic Party knows of American interests in the oil flow from Saudi and still grandstanded on something that is not preventable today. They know as much as anyone else that as long as we receive a substantial amount of oil from the "House of Saud," we are stuck dealing with them. What the "left" wanted to do was look good at the expense of splitting the nation up over a situation that is not fixable at this time in our history. I'm sure the "left" that wanted to shut oil production from Saudi down...were all prepared to park their cars or pay 10 bucks a gallon for our "supply and demand" oil that we get from everywhere else. I'm sure their constituants were prepared for it too.

 

[MSgt]

Kuwait. Even France agreed. Now go write "I'm slipping and Kelzie likes teacher more than me" tens times on the blackboard. Never it let it be said teacher is not a equal opportunity (explicative deleted).

France was protecting it's oil interests just like everyone else from Kuwait and Saudi. By disagreeing with the Iraq war, they were still protecting their oil interests and underhanded deals.

Funny how the "Kuwaiti people deserved to be free from Saddam", but "Iraqi people could rot under him." Yet, these people are supposed to be the voice of conscience to us?

 

[teacher]

France was protecting it's oil interests just like everyone else from Kuwait and Saudi. By disagreeing with the Iraq war, they were still protecting their oil interests and underhanded deals.

Funny how the "Kuwaiti people deserved to be free from Saddam", but "Iraqi people could rot under him." Yet, these people are supposed to be the voice of conscience to us?

That's better. You don't have to go to the black board. Instead five times in the basement. Where Kelzie can see. Bear in mind I am taking your service to this nation into consideration.

 

[teacher]

Timothy McVeigh, April 19th 1995.

Knew that would come up. Not the norm.

Guess what the white boys running around Arab countries with guns are getting their asses shot off while you're here typing up this diatribe. I doubt they wonder why their getting shot at.

It's called a war. Not anolagous to my point.

Please explain how it is the Left's fault that Saudi Arabia is getting money and aid from the U.S. while it is known that they are granting amnisty to known terrorists that probably know where Osama Bin Laden is? Why are we giving money to these people that we know are giving money to terrorist organizations? The left certainly called for a halt to this in 2004 we wanted Saudi Arabia on the terroist countries list but who voted that down?
The Republican majority that's who! Why? Because they give us our oil! This war is a sham and it is the Right who is to blame for it! You won't let the left help win it you'd rather just blame us when you fail!
Talk about Wussy Whiners.:roll:
Yes it does because the more freedom and equality the terrorist agenda encourages us to give up the more ground they gain on our own soil.
The words Divide and Conquer mean anything to you?

Gunny will probably jump on this. I'll wait.

My solution? I don't fly. And I let the Air Marshals do their job after the plane takes off. Ye of little faith. What a patriot you are.

You don't fly. Then they won over you. Air marshalls. Funny you should say that. Last week an old army bud on mine called. Ranger. Afgahnistan, Somolia, Iraq. He's joining the marshalls. Tried talking me into it. I think I'm too quick to the trigger for that job. Besides, people who tell jokes while they are squeezing off rounds don't fit in with that serious bunch.
I've another solution. Any citizen with a license to carry concealed can be trained and issued appropriate ammo when flying with notice and sobriety testing ect.
Patriot? We can take that to the basement if you like. Not in a good way. Doesn't bother me you saying that. Just you're wrong.

Good I am glad that you have an unmoderated forum to express your childish hate in. :2razz:

Not everyones cup of tea. I'm free to do it. You're free to ignore it. Some few enjoy it. My way of saying I'll try to find some humor in a serious matter. In a good way. Like I said, you are free not to read.
The boldened. I never intended it to be such but it has become know as such. I'm so proud. If it makes you feel any better my mom hates it. When I showed her a Top Ten for the first time she laughed her ass off and said who wrote this. When I told her it was me she scowled.
Childish. Not to make you feel better. Some few libs have PM'ed me saying they like that thread but would never admit it. Notice I've never named names. Some few libs try to insult me about it and say they never go there and yet I've seen them there often in who's on line. So call it childish all you want. I just hope you understand it affects me not. I just wonder, which group do you fall into?

That slim idea belongs to Trajan who is just as guilty as anyone else here. But if you like I'd be happy to use your rhetoric against you anytime

The beating to death of the slim idea. I meant that. I enjoy that. Letterman is the king and my teacher of that humor tactic. Feel free to think you're using it against me even though I enjoy it. Eat Pez.

Speaking of monkeys. Take a movie you allready know the end to. Remake it a third time. And still it's number one. Ask yourself. With out monkeys, would King Kong do so well? Hmm?

Suddenly the theme song from 'My Two Dads' is in my head.

Good one. No really, I'm serious.

 

[Saboteur]

All of them. Every channel. I too stick to Yahoo. I also read the intel reports and I have done all of the study prior to our endeavor into Iraq. Reporters always have it wrong or they don't have the cmoplete pulse of the situation. What they will do is focus on mundane details and sell their papers and commercial air time to the delight of everyone that has drawn a line between political parties.

If there is a slant to either side I usually take the reportage with a grain of salt. Likewise if there aren't 2 sides to the story.

I just want to know the truth I have Liberal on my profile because, well... I am one and most of my views are that way. But it doesn't mean I listen to liberal radio. I've never read Al Frankin's book... I expect that I am not missing too much. Most of the time I watch C-Span's live coverage of the houses if I want to get some real news. Anyway thanks for being civil.

 

[Saboteur]

Oh c'mon. Our guilt in the Middle East is that we have looked the other way while their governments have destroyed their societies and used us as a scapegoat. We have looked the other way because the oil was flowing. The true lords of terror is the "House of Saud" and we are sworn to protect those bazaars of terror. This goes way back before Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, and Carter. This is not a "left" or a "right" thing, because just like the "right"...the "left" aren't riding bicycles to work.

What is "left" is that the Democratic Party knows of American interests in the oil flow from Saudi and still grandstanded on something that is not preventable today. They know as much as anyone else that as long as we receive a substantial amount of oil from the "House of Saud," we are stuck dealing with them. What the "left" wanted to do was look good at the expense of splitting the nation up over a situation that is not fixable at this time in our history. I'm sure the "left" that wanted to shut oil production from Saudi down...were all prepared to park their cars or pay 10 bucks a gallon for our "supply and demand" oil that we get from everywhere else. I'm sure their constituants were prepared for it too.

I fully agree but the Dems. move to put Saudi Arabia on the terrorist country list wasn't reported on the news. All I ever heard about it was as it happened on, again, C-Span live. Rep. Weiner( :doh ) - D, had pictures of a major Al-queda member both sitting next to Osama Bin Laden during the first post 9/11 video and on the tarmac at a Saudi airport. Honestly, that's how I heard about it I was expecting it to be on the news but, I guess that liberal media didn't pick up on it:roll:. So I don't think that this little known factiod is what is splitting the nation in half. Not sure what it is... Doubt it's any one thing

And I know everyone drives to work in D.C. even the "Left". That is if they even show up in the first place.

 

[Saboteur]

Knew that would come up. Not the norm.

Exactly.

It's called a war. Not anolagous to my point.

I know, I Know.

You don't fly. Then they won over you. Air marshalls. Funny you should say that. Last week an old army bud on mine called. Ranger. Afgahnistan, Somolia, Iraq. He's joining the marshalls. Tried talking me into it. I think I'm too quick to the trigger for that job. Besides, people who tell jokes while they are squeezing off rounds don't fit in with that serious bunch.

Well actually I don't really have anywhere to fly to and if I did I couldn't afford it.

But I think you'd fit in with my Brother-In-Law, He's a Marshall and pretty funny guy.

I've another solution. Any citizen with a license to carry concealed can be trained and issued appropriate ammo when flying with notice and sobriety testing ect.

Now that is what the Marshalls don't want! People need to be able to hit their target every time.

Patriot? We can take that to the basement if you like. Not in a good way. Doesn't bother me you saying that. Just you're wrong.

In the heat of battle... :3oops:

Not everyones cup of tea. I'm free to do it. You're free to ignore it. Some few enjoy it. My way of saying I'll try to find some humor in a serious matter. In a good way. Like I said, you are free not to read.
The boldened. I never intended it to be such but it has become know as such. I'm so proud. If it makes you feel any better my mom hates it. When I showed her a Top Ten for the first time she laughed her ass off and said who wrote this. When I told her it was me she scowled.

Uh really, I am greatful for the Basement.

Childish. Not to make you feel better. Some few libs have PM'ed me saying they like that thread but would never admit it. Notice I've never named names. Some few libs try to insult me about it and say they never go there and yet I've seen them there often in who's on line. So call it childish all you want. I just hope you understand it affects me not. I just wonder, which group do you fall into?

Basement!

The beating to death of the slim idea. I meant that. I enjoy that. Letterman is the king and my teacher of that humor tactic. Feel free to think you're using it against me even though I enjoy it. Eat Pez.

Don't like Pez.

Speaking of monkeys. Take a movie you allready know the end to. Remake it a third time. And still it's number one. Ask yourself. With out monkeys, would King Kong do so well? Hmm?

I dunno I think they could have just stripped down the starlett and tied her to that monument for 2 hours and called it Kong. Probably would have done alright.

Good one. No really, I'm serious.

Thank you.

 

[teacher]

Now that is what the Marshalls don't want! People need to be able to hit their target every time.

That falls under the ect. part. Quite a lot under the ect. part. Hence my typing ect. I'm not a dumb as Billo looks.

In the heat of battle... :3oops:

We all do it. What seperates folks are the ones who can admit it. I lead the pack in flying off the handle and not admitting it.

Uh really, I am greatful for the Basement.

The contagion spreds.

Basement!

So I figured.

Don't like Pez.

Antichrist!

I dunno I think they could have just stripped down the starlett and tied her to that monument for 2 hours and called it Kong. Probably would have done alright.

Strip her down and have jungle island wars for four hours would work for me.
And what if Kong lived at the end? What a "I didn't see that coming" twist that would have been. Stupid friggin monkey haters.

 

[curt]

You're living proof of why developing nations (not third world buddy there's only one world that I'm aware of) hate the west your arrogance is profound

So Islamic fundementalists problem with everyone is that they're aggogant? You sound like one of those "root cause" types.

I gave you a list of more than a thousand terrorist attacks in the last year alone and you call it a couple how about the attack in Bali??? How about 9-11? How about the British bus bombings? How about the Madrid train bombings? How about the Russian school children who were murdered in cold blood? Do the people who die have to be white before you take notice? What, do the lives that are not western not count in your book???

Well I'm sorry for making lite of the situation, and I never denied there being a problem only that there was an extreme over reaction to the problem. As I'm still relatively new to these parts, so let me tell you that I'm a sarcastic prick.

It's not that I don't consider people from the 3rd world as non-human, it's just in those cesspool countries, 2 Muslims kindnapping or murdering someone may be less about the clash of civilizations and more about your everyday crime for whatever motive.

 

[curt]

But let any American citizen with proper permits carry his favorite firearm on board if he likes. It's a total mystery how the First Amendment applies to radio waves that will carry to the stars, but the Second Amendment is stopped dead a quarter inch off the runway.

So if William Tell is on board he can shoot the terrorist between the eyes and that's the end of that. Or we can get John ****ing Rambo on the plane, the terrorist is shot along with 4 passengers and two windows. That'd be a boon to the industry.

It's perfectly legitimate for a pivate party to deny someone their constitutional rights in some ways. If Hail Mien Fuhrer Airlines doesn't want talking on their planes than that's the way it goes. You always have the option of declining their services.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

So if William Tell is on board he can shoot the terrorist between the eyes and that's the end of that. Or we can get John ****ing Rambo on the plane, the terrorist is shot along with 4 passengers and two windows. That'd be a boon to the industry.

It's perfectly legitimate for a pivate party to deny someone their constitutional rights in some ways. If Hail Mien Fuhrer Airlines doesn't want talking on their planes than that's the way it goes. You always have the option of declining their services.

Actually, Annie Oakley would be better, and perhaps Buffalo Bill, since we're talking firearms.

And it's federal law that cuts the Second Amendment off at ground level, not private flight rules.

But you're doing good, you didn't address any of the real objections that people might erroneously raise to what I said.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

A little perspective, anyone?

Woody Wilson, the fool that dragged the US into it's first european war, pushed the Espionage Act, which criminalized false reports made with the intent to harm the military. Later, the Sedition Act of 1918 criminalized criticizing the government. This last, btw, made it extremely difficult to address the crisis of the influenza pandemic of 1919.

We managed to survive Woodrow Wilson, somehow, though we were seriously damaged. Similarly, we survived Lincoln, and we survived John Adams, to name two other administrations that grossly violated the Constitution in pursuit of national security (well, the Alien and Sedition Acts were enacted to limit Jefferson's nascent Republican Party).

Hell, we even managed to survive the disaster known as Frankie Roosevelt.

And this Bush guy isn't anywhere near the caliber of Lincoln, Wilson, or FDR. He can't possibly screw things up as much as they did.

Oh, and wonders upon funny wonders, the FBI has done radiological surveys of muslim strongholds from the curbside, and the little darling muslims are crying about racism or whatever it is such groups cry about when they think they might be getting caught. Hate to tell'em this (enjoy it, actually) there's nothing either illegal or immoral about pointing a radiac at a mosque.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

A little perspective, anyone?

Woody Wilson, the fool that dragged the US into it's first european war, pushed the Espionage Act, which criminalized false reports made with the intent to harm the military. Later, the Sedition Act of 1918 criminalized criticizing the government. This last, btw, made it extremely difficult to address the crisis of the influenza pandemic of 1919.

We managed to survive Woodrow Wilson, somehow, though we were seriously damaged. Similarly, we survived Lincoln, and we survived John Adams, to name two other administrations that grossly violated the Constitution in pursuit of national security (well, the Alien and Sedition Acts were enacted to limit Jefferson's nascent Republican Party).

Hell, we even managed to survive the disaster known as Frankie Roosevelt.

And this Bush guy isn't anywhere near the caliber of Lincoln, Wilson, or FDR. He can't possibly screw things up as much as they did.

Oh, and wonders upon funny wonders, the FBI has done radiological surveys of muslim strongholds from the curbside, and the little darling muslims are crying about racism or whatever it is such groups cry about when they think they might be getting caught. Hate to tell'em this (enjoy it, actually) there's nothing either illegal or immoral about pointing a radiac at a mosque.

Very true, however, I disagree with the whole premise that the taps are in violation of the Constution, IE the inherent war powers of the president that were granted to him on September 14, 2001 in a joint resolution of congress that promised the president the use of any force necessary to stop AlQaeda from hitting us again.

 

[Kandahar]

Very true, however, I disagree with the whole premise that the taps are in violation of the Constution, IE the inherent war powers of the president that were granted to him on September 14, 2001 in a joint resolution of congress that promised the president the use of any force necessary to stop AlQaeda from hitting us again.

Any FORCE necessary. Not even the most liberal interpretation of the law would include wiretaps in that resolution, as the clear intent of the law related to military force. "Any force necessary" doesn't mean "Congress hereby authorizes the President to do whatever the hell he wants, whenever he wants, without anyone knowing about it."

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Any FORCE necessary. Not even the most liberal interpretation of the law would include wiretaps in that resolution, as the clear intent of the law related to military force. "Any force necessary" doesn't mean "Congress hereby authorizes the President to do whatever the hell he wants, whenever he wants, without anyone knowing about it."

first off it's included in the inherent war powers of the president that he can take any means necessary to uphold the constitution that's why he takes that special oath you know the one that says he swears to uphold the constitution from powers both foriegn and domestic and this isn't something new every president since FDR has performed wire taps without a warrant to secure the nation in times of war **** Clinton did it during times of peace, secondly FISA warrants are not covered in international calls, third off it's not to anyone he wants or whenever he wants it's to AlQaeda suspects, fourth if he's supposed to report this to the Senate Intelligence Committee and all that what's to stop them from leaking the program. . . . oh wait he reported to a couple of Senators and the story got leaked to the NYT's, fifth it hasn't even been shown that the phone calls that were recieved in the U.S. from overseas were even between U.S. citizens.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Very true, however, I disagree with the whole premise that the taps are in violation of the Constution, IE the inherent war powers of the president that were granted to him on September 14, 2001 in a joint resolution of congress that promised the president the use of any force necessary to stop AlQaeda from hitting us again.

Here's the key: Is anyone harmed by a wiretap if no action is taken on what is heard?

Since I don't believe that the Constitution contains a "right" to privacy, privacy can't be violated by someone listening.

 

[MSgt]

I fully agree but the Dems. move to put Saudi Arabia on the terrorist country list wasn't reported on the news. All I ever heard about it was as it happened on, again, C-Span live. Rep. Weiner( :doh ) - D, had pictures of a major Al-queda member both sitting next to Osama Bin Laden during the first post 9/11 video and on the tarmac at a Saudi airport. Honestly, that's how I heard about it I was expecting it to be on the news but, I guess that liberal media didn't pick up on it:roll:. So I don't think that this little known factiod is what is splitting the nation in half. Not sure what it is... Doubt it's any one thing

And I know everyone drives to work in D.C. even the "Left". That is if they even show up in the first place.

The thing about Saudi is that they are governed by Arab elitest. It would be as if we disbanded our government and men of wealth ran things. They keep all of the money and leave us to rot. At the same time, we can't do anything, because our preachers (Pat Roberston) tells us what God wants and to speak out against our elite is a sin - punishable by death. Even if we chose to defy our God, we couldn't because another greater and more powerful nation is sworn to protect these men and the deals that have been made for our American interests. We can't declare war on the Arab government because there is none. We can't declare war on individuals, because we can't prove involvement half of the time. All we have is diplomacy. Democrats know this and they knew this when they were grandstanding. Republicans do it too. Every once in a while, when they need a political boost, they will grandstand on something the people agree with, but know will accomplish nothing.

Does this suck? Hell yeah it sucks, but we are stuck in this situation. We deal with men who casually and sometimes publicly sponser terror. It truly is a problem. Placing them on a terror list will do no good. It certainly won't change what we already know and we must continue to deal with them for American interests.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could stop receiving oil from Saudi and got it elsewhere.......(Put it together.) A Democratic Middle East - where the people are in charge not dictators, rich elite, or strict religious theocracies - is our best security and it has to start somewhere.

 

[Caine]

Your All Aiding The Enemy!
Traitors!

 

[Kandahar]

first off it's included in the inherent war powers of the president that he can take any means necessary to uphold the constitution that's why he takes that special oath you know the one that says he swears to uphold the constitution from powers both foriegn and domestic

Swearing to uphold the Constitution is not a free pass to do whatever he wants with no checks and balances.

and this isn't something new every president since FDR has performed wire taps without a warrant to secure the nation in times of war **** Clinton did it during times of peace, secondly FISA warrants are not covered in international calls,

Is there some act I'm unaware of that specifically says FISA warrants aren't covered in international calls, or is this your expansive interpretation masquerading as fact?

third off it's not to anyone he wants or whenever he wants it's to AlQaeda suspects,

Define "Al-Qaeda suspects." Suspected by whom? If this can be done without the warrant (or knowledge) of a judge, it may as well be ANYONE. Where is the check and balance on this power?

fourth if he's supposed to report this to the Senate Intelligence Committee and all that what's to stop them from leaking the program. . . . oh wait he reported to a couple of Senators and the story got leaked to the NYT's,

Well if he's got nothing to hide, why the outrage that the story was leaked?

 

[Kandahar]

Here's the key: Is anyone harmed by a wiretap if no action is taken on what is heard?

Is anyone harmed by the government snooping through your house when you aren't home, if they don't take any action and you never find out about it? How is this different?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Swearing to uphold the Constitution is not a free pass to do whatever he wants with no checks and balances.

Actually swearing to uphold the constitution from enemies both foriegn and domestic is a free pass to use any means necessary to protect the constitution during war time, you do remember that war has been declared twice already right? Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and all presidents since and including FDR have used wire taps without court approval and let's not forget the internment of thousands of U.S. citizens simply because they were Japanese. It's called war shitty things happen during war grow up and get over it.

Is there some act I'm unaware of that specifically says FISA warrants aren't covered in international calls, or is this your expansive interpretation masquerading as fact?

Yes FISA doesn't apply to overseas so if you tap a phone overseas and then a call comes in from the U.S. to a known member of AlQaeda do you really think the NSA should stop monitoring the call?

Define "Al-Qaeda suspects." Suspected by whom? If this can be done without the warrant (or knowledge) of a judge, it may as well be ANYONE. Where is the check and balance on this power?

Very simple you capture a known Al-Qaeda operative you take his cell phone and look in the caller directory and there you have everyone that guys called, however, that is not enough for a warrant and is why the president authorized warrantless taps. The president wasn't tapping the phones of political opponents or that type of **** they were tapping the phones of AlQaeda members and those suspected of being AlQaeda members you remember those people who killed 3,000 U.S. citizens on 9-11.

Well if he's got nothing to hide, why the outrage that the story was leaked?

Leaking or publishing classified information especially one as important as this is punishable by a $10,000 fine and not more than ten years in prison.

 

[Kandahar]

Actually swearing to uphold the constitution from enemies both foriegn and domestic is a free pass to use any means necessary to protect the constitution during war time, you do remember that war has been declared twice already right?

No it hasn't. The president saying "we're at war with terra and we're gonna smoke the evildoers out of their holes" is NOT a declaration of war. We haven't declared war since 1941.

Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and all presidents since and including FDR have used wire taps without court approval and let's not forget the internment of thousands of U.S. citizens simply because they were Japanese. It's called war shitty things happen during war grow up and get over it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is not every one of those examples considered to be a blemish on our history? Using previous mistakes to justify future mistakes rarely makes for good policy.

Yes FISA doesn't apply to overseas so if you tap a phone overseas and then a call comes in from the U.S. to a known member of AlQaeda do you really think the NSA should stop monitoring the call?

Very simple you capture a known Al-Qaeda operative you take his cell phone and look in the caller directory and there you have everyone that guys called, however, that is not enough for a warrant and is why the president authorized warrantless taps.

That's not true. FISA warrants are very easy to obtain if there is any reasonable suspicion at all. Certainly a terrorist with a phone number on his cell phone is enough reason to allow the wire tap.

The president wasn't tapping the phones of political opponents or that type of **** they were tapping the phones of AlQaeda members and those suspected of being AlQaeda members you remember those people who killed 3,000 U.S. citizens on 9-11.

Perhaps Bush hasn't abused this power, and has only used it on people he honestly believes are al-Qaeda members. I don't know. But the mere fact that the strong POTENTIAL for abuse exists should be enough to kill this idea.

Leaking or publishing classified information especially one as important as this is punishable by a $10,000 fine and not more than ten years in prison.

That doesn't answer my question. What is the harm with the public knowing about this, if there's nothing morally or legally wrong with it?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Is anyone harmed by the government snooping through your house when you aren't home, if they don't take any action and you never find out about it? How is this different?

The word "trespassing" mean anything to you?

Besides which, for all I know, my house is searched twice daily and everything put back so perfectly I don't know about it, as per your criteria. Since I've done nothing illegal, I'm not bothered by such concerns.