• 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.

Reauthorize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
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
oldreliable67 said:
Ah, Mr Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. Trajan and Napoleon, you're both throwing opinions as if they were facts and neither of you are offering any substantion.

NN...





Supposition, as are many of the other statements in your last post.

Trajan...



Supposition - this is still not proven, merely alleged.

...and others. C'mon, guys, if it is your opinion or a supposition, thats ok, but say so. If you're holding something out as fact, then substantiate!

Thats just my opinion - YMMV!

My statement is not suppostion the Gorelick memo existed I have a copy of it right in front of me, operation able danger is real, operation able danger had Atta's identity, operation able danger attempted to give said intel to the F.B.I. the F.B.I. refused said intelligence because they said they cannot recieve information because Mousawi was in the midst of a criminal prosecution and the Gorelick wall forced that information to go to the grand jury and for it to remain hidden from the F.B.I. and it's a fact, congress is set to hold hearings on it pretty soon due to Ms. Gorelick being on the 911 commission and blocking any serious investigation into the scandalous Clinton-Gorelick wall. This is all verifiable do the research I have.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Ya catching Mohammad Atta the ringleader of the 9-11 plot would not have stopped 9-11 gimme a break you're really stretching now.

The stage was already set and how do you know that Mohammad Atta was really involved considering the FACT that the CIA got the other ones wrong too. He's accused of being 1 of several and I doubt he would have told anyone who the others were. Again, you haven't proven anything.


Trajan Octavian Titus said:
It's called the inherent powers clause that gives the president the power to use all means by which to secure the nation look it up; furthermore, FISA doesn't apply to overseas these were overseas phone calls coming into the U.S. by known AlQaeda suspect plus you haven't proven that those who recieved those phone calls in the U.S. are even U.S. citizens subject to protection under the Bill of Rights.

The inherent powers clause only applies when said powers already have a constitutional and lawful basis. The inherent powers clause doesn't give the executive branch the power to create it's own laws and powers or violate existing constitutional laws and boundaries. You can't say that the calls were made by "known Al Qaeda suspects" because the executive branch ran around the law and refused to present evidence to support that claim. If the president was afraid that the evidence he had wouldn't have got him a permit then he must not have had any at all because it's insanely easy to get a permit from the secret court. We do know that the executive branch has spied on phone calls made from the U.S.
 
Last edited:

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
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
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

Napoleon's Nightingale said:
The stage was already set and how do you know that Mohammad Atta was really involved considering the FACT that the CIA got the other ones wrong too. He's accused of being 1 of several and I doubt he would have told anyone who the others were. Again, you haven't proven anything.

Read the 9-11 commission report they knew who hijacked the planes the living hijackers is a non-story case of mistaken identity unless you believe the conspiracy theorists.

Napoleon's Nightingale said:
The inherent powers clause only applies when said powers already have a constitutional and lawful basis. The inherent powers clause doesn't give the executive branch the power to create it's own laws and powers or violate existing constitutional laws and boundaries. You can't say that the calls were made by "known Al Qaeda suspects" because the executive branch ran around the law and refused to present evidence to support that claim. If the president was afraid that the evidence he had wouldn't have got him a permit then he must not have had any at all because it's insanely easy to get a permit from the secret court. We do know that the executive branch has spied on phone calls made from the U.S.

The president was given broader constitutional powers on September 14, 2001 and given the war powers on October 16, 2002 in joint resolutions of congress. You don't even know if the phone calls that were being tapped and were recieved in the U.S. were to U.S. citizens.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Read the 9-11 commission report they knew who hijacked the planes the living hijackers is a non-story case of mistaken identity unless you believe the conspiracy theorists.

The 9/11 Comission was worthless and so is their report. Partisan politics, grandstanding, and conflicts of interest made those hearings a three ring circus. No one knew who hijacked those planes and no one knows now. Mistaken identity? How is blaming someone for the murder of 3000 people, accusing them of being terrorists and members of Al Qaeda, and flashing their pictures all over the place a case of mistaken identity? Explain how they came to the conclusion that those men hijacked the planes.



Trajan Octavian Titus said:
The president was given broader constitutional powers on September 14, 2001 and given the war powers on October 16, 2002 in joint resolutions of congress. You don't even know if the phone calls that were being tapped and were recieved in the U.S. were to U.S. citizens.

No he wasn't. The president wasn't granted powers that he didn't already have and all of them involved asking Congress first. It doesn't matter who recieved those calls..all calls made from U.S. soil can only be tapped with consent of a judge. Thats the law.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
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
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

Napoleon's Nightingale said:
The 9/11 Comission was worthless and so is their report. Partisan politics, grandstanding, and conflicts of interest made those hearings a three ring circus. No one knew who hijacked those planes and no one knows now. Mistaken identity? How is blaming someone for the murder of 3000 people, accusing them of being terrorists and members of Al Qaeda, and flashing their pictures all over the place a case of mistaken identity? Explain how they came to the conclusion that those men hijacked the planes.


They captured K.S.M. and he told them who was behind it. Have you actually read the 9-11 commission report I'm not going to start debating conspiracy theories with you.

Napoleon's Nightingale said:
No he wasn't. The president wasn't granted powers that he didn't already have and all of them involved asking Congress first. It doesn't matter who recieved those calls..all calls made from U.S. soil can only be tapped with consent of a judge. Thats the law.

You're wrong on both points the president under the inherent powers clause in the constitution is granted during war time the powers to take any steps necessary to ensure the security of the nation.

No that's not the law non-citizens are not granted the protections under the constitution.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
They captured K.S.M. and he told them who was behind it. Have you actually read the 9-11 commission report I'm not going to start debating conspiracy theories with you.

Prove it. K.S.M. obviously gave them the wrong names since 4 of them turned up alive and without any connections to Al Qaeda in Morocco and Saudi Arabia. I'm not suggesting any conspiracy theories..I'm advancing the truth ie that the CIA has never had any idea who was responsible and engaged in a witch hunt when the finger of blame needed to be pointed at someone.



Trajan Octavian Titus said:
You're wrong on both points the president under the inherent powers clause in the constitution is granted during war time the powers to take any steps necessary to ensure the security of the nation.

Again,inherent powers must have a basis in the constitution. There is no basis in the constitution for the president to go over the head of Congress or to break existing law. The inherent powers clause doesn't even apply unless war is declared by Congress and it has not.


Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No that's not the law non-citizens are not granted the protections under the constitution.

Yes it is.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
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
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

Napoleon's Nightingale said:
Prove it. K.S.M. obviously gave them the wrong names since 4 of them turned up alive and without any connections to Al Qaeda in Morocco and Saudi Arabia. I'm not suggesting any conspiracy theories..I'm advancing the truth ie that the CIA has never had any idea who was responsible and engaged in a witch hunt when the finger of blame needed to be pointed at someone.

I'm not going to get into conspiracy theories and be drug down your slipprey slope.


Napoleon's Nightingale said:
Again,inherent powers must have a basis in the constitution. There is no basis in the constitution for the president to go over the head of Congress or to break existing law. The inherent powers clause doesn't even apply unless war is declared by Congress and it has not.

Again the powers were granted in the joint resolution of congress on September 14, 2001.

Napoleon's Nightingale said:
Yes it is.

No it's not you show me one piece of legislation that gives non-citizens the rights of the constitution, you're wrong.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I'm not going to get into conspiracy theories and be drug down your slipprey slope.

It's not a conspiracy theory. If you know who all the hijackers were then post the names here and be sure to tell the CIA and Congress as well.




Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Again the powers were granted in the joint resolution of congress on September 14, 2001.

He wasn't given the power to do anything he wants. He was given the power to do anything WITHIN the law.




Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No it's not you show me one piece of legislation that gives non-citizens the rights of the constitution, you're wrong.

Again, the law is clear. All calls made FROM U.S. soil can only be monitored with consent of a judge. It doesn't matter whether or not the person making the call is a citizen. You're wrong yet again.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
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
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

Napoleon's Nightingale said:
It's not a conspiracy theory. If you know who all the hijackers were then post the names here and be sure to tell the CIA and Congress as well.


Waleed al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian)
Wail al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian)
Mohammed Atta (Egyptian)
Abdulaziz al-Omari (Saudi Arabian)
Satam al-Suqami (Saudi Arabian)
Mohammed Atta is believed to have flown Flight 11 into the North Tower of the World Trade Center.
Aboard United Airlines Flight 175 the hijackers were reported to be:

Marwan al-Shehhi (Emirati)
Fayez Banihammad (Emirati)
Mohand al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian)
Hamza al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian)
Ahmed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian)
Marwan al-Shehhi is believed to have flown Flight 175 into the South Tower.
The hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 77 were reported to be:

Khalid al-Mihdhar (Saudi Arabian)
Majed Moqed (Saudi Arabian)
Nawaf al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian)
Salem al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian)
Hani Hanjour (Saudi Arabian)
Hani Hanjour is believed to have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon.
The hijackers aboard United Airlines Flight 93 were reported to be:

Ahmed al-Haznawi (Saudi Arabian)
Ahmed al-Nami (Saudi Arabian)
Ziad Jarrah (Lebanese)
Saeed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian)

Napoleon's Nightingale said:
He wasn't given the power to do anything he wants. He was given the power to do anything WITHIN the law.

Joint resolution of congress granted on September 14, 2001:

That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Napoleon's Nightingale said:
Again, the law is clear. All calls made FROM U.S. soil can only be monitored with consent of a judge. It doesn't matter whether or not the person making the call is a citizen. You're wrong yet again.

Yes the law is clear, quite clear!

Joint resolution of congress granted on September 14, 2001:

That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
 
Last edited:

Stace

Boobie Jubilee
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
7,254
Reaction score
364
Location
Clarksville, TN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Joint resolution of congress granted on September 14, 2001:

That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

See that word there, appropriate? Yeah..usually, things that aren't legal/lawful aren't considered appropriate.

While this particular paragraph might not specifically say anything about the law, it is certainly implied, and you can't take things like this paragraph by paragraph...you have to take them in their entirety.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

Waleed al-Shehri - Found alive in Morocco without any connections to Al Qaeda. He's a pilot of Saudi Arabian Airlines..not a terrorist.

Wail al-Shehri - Found alive in Saudi Arabia. Not a terrorist.

Abdulaziz al-Omari - Found alive in Saudi Arabia without any connections to Al Qaeda. He's an engineer at the Saudi Telecoms company..not a terrorist.

Satam al-Suqami - Alive and well in London. Not a terrorist.

Mohand al-Shehri - Alive in Saudi Arabia. Not a terrorist.

Khalid al-Mihdhar - Alive and well. Not a terrorist.

Saeed al-Ghamdi - Found alive. He's a pilot for Tunis Air. Not a terrorist.


So, it's apparent that you don't know who the hijackers really were and neither does the CIA since they have not even attempted to fill the gaps.



Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Joint resolution of congress granted on September 14, 2001:

That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Within the law.
 

JustMyPOV

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Waleed al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian)
Wail al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian)
Mohammed Atta (Egyptian)
Abdulaziz al-Omari (Saudi Arabian)
Satam al-Suqami (Saudi Arabian)
Mohammed Atta is believed to have flown Flight 11 into the North Tower of the World Trade Center.
Aboard United Airlines Flight 175 the hijackers were reported to be:

Marwan al-Shehhi (Emirati)
Fayez Banihammad (Emirati)
Mohand al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian)
Hamza al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian)
Ahmed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian)
Marwan al-Shehhi is believed to have flown Flight 175 into the South Tower.
The hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 77 were reported to be:

Khalid al-Mihdhar (Saudi Arabian)
Majed Moqed (Saudi Arabian)
Nawaf al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian)
Salem al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian)
Hani Hanjour (Saudi Arabian)
Hani Hanjour is believed to have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon.
The hijackers aboard United Airlines Flight 93 were reported to be:

Ahmed al-Haznawi (Saudi Arabian)
Ahmed al-Nami (Saudi Arabian)
Ziad Jarrah (Lebanese)
Saeed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian)



Joint resolution of congress granted on September 14, 2001:

That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.



Yes the law is clear, quite clear!

Joint resolution of congress granted on September 14, 2001:

That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

It does not absolve him of his duty to uphold the constitution. In the Supreme Court case that examined this during the Vietnam era, there was a unanimous decision that even for matters of national securty, the president is still required to seek court approval before spying on US citizens. Here's a quote from the decision, followed by a link to the full decision:

"These contentions in behalf of a complete exemption from the warrant requirement, when urged on behalf of the President and the national security in its domestic implications, merit the most careful consideration. We certainly do not reject them lightly, especially at a time of worldwide ferment and when civil disorders in this country are more prevalent than in the less turbulent [407 U.S. 297, 320] periods of our history. There is, no doubt, pragmatic force to the Government's position.

But we do not think a case has been made for the requested departure from Fourth Amendment standards. The circumstances described do not justify complete exemption of domestic security surveillance from prior judicial scrutiny. Official surveillance, whether its purpose be criminal investigation or ongoing intelligence gathering, risks infringement of constitutionally protected privacy of speech. Security surveillances are especially sensitive because of the inherent vagueness of the domestic security concept, the necessarily broad and continuing nature of intelligence gathering, and the temptation to utilize such surveillances to oversee political dissent. We recognize, as we have before, the constitutional basis of the President's domestic security role, but we think it must be exercised in a manner compatible with the Fourth Amendment. In this case we hold that this requires an appropriate prior warrant procedure.

We cannot accept the Government's argument that internal security matters are too subtle and complex for judicial evaluation. Courts regularly deal with the most difficult issues of our society. There is no reason to believe that federal judges will be insensitive to or uncomprehending of the issues involved in domestic security cases. Certainly courts can recognize that domestic security surveillance involves different considerations from the surveillance of "ordinary crime." If the threat is too subtle or complex for our senior law enforcement officers to convey its significance to a court, one may question whether there is probable cause for surveillance.

Nor do we believe prior judicial approval will fracture the secrecy essential to official intelligence gathering. The investigation of criminal activity has long [407 U.S. 297, 321] involved imparting sensitive information to judicial officers who have respected the confidentialities involved. Judges may be counted upon to be especially conscious of security requirements in national security cases. Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act already has imposed this responsibility on the judiciary in connection with such crimes as espionage, sabotage, and treason, 2516 (1) (a) and (c), each of which may involve domestic as well as foreign security threats. Moreover, a warrant application involves no public or adversary proceedings: it is an ex parte request before a magistrate or judge. Whatever security dangers clerical and secretarial personnel may pose can be minimized by proper administrative measures, possibly to the point of allowing the Government itself to provide the necessary clerical assistance.

Thus, we conclude that the Government's concerns do not justify departure in this case from the customary Fourth Amendment requirement of judicial approval prior to initiation of a search or surveillance. Although some added burden will be imposed upon the Attorney General, this inconvenience is justified in a free society to protect constitutional values. Nor do we think the Government's domestic surveillance powers will be impaired to any significant degree. A prior warrant establishes presumptive validity of the surveillance and will minimize the burden of justification in post-surveillance judicial review. By no means of least importance will be the reassurance of the public generally that indiscriminate wiretapping and bugging of law-abiding citizens cannot occur."

Link
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
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
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

JustMyPOV said:
It does not absolve him of his duty to uphold the constitution. In the Supreme Court case that examined this during the Vietnam era, there was a unanimous decision that even for matters of national securty, the president is still required to seek court approval before spying on US citizens. Here's a quote from the decision, followed by a link to the full decision:

"These contentions in behalf of a complete exemption from the warrant requirement, when urged on behalf of the President and the national security in its domestic implications, merit the most careful consideration. We certainly do not reject them lightly, especially at a time of worldwide ferment and when civil disorders in this country are more prevalent than in the less turbulent [407 U.S. 297, 320] periods of our history. There is, no doubt, pragmatic force to the Government's position.

But we do not think a case has been made for the requested departure from Fourth Amendment standards. The circumstances described do not justify complete exemption of domestic security surveillance from prior judicial scrutiny. Official surveillance, whether its purpose be criminal investigation or ongoing intelligence gathering, risks infringement of constitutionally protected privacy of speech. Security surveillances are especially sensitive because of the inherent vagueness of the domestic security concept, the necessarily broad and continuing nature of intelligence gathering, and the temptation to utilize such surveillances to oversee political dissent. We recognize, as we have before, the constitutional basis of the President's domestic security role, but we think it must be exercised in a manner compatible with the Fourth Amendment. In this case we hold that this requires an appropriate prior warrant procedure.

We cannot accept the Government's argument that internal security matters are too subtle and complex for judicial evaluation. Courts regularly deal with the most difficult issues of our society. There is no reason to believe that federal judges will be insensitive to or uncomprehending of the issues involved in domestic security cases. Certainly courts can recognize that domestic security surveillance involves different considerations from the surveillance of "ordinary crime." If the threat is too subtle or complex for our senior law enforcement officers to convey its significance to a court, one may question whether there is probable cause for surveillance.

Nor do we believe prior judicial approval will fracture the secrecy essential to official intelligence gathering. The investigation of criminal activity has long [407 U.S. 297, 321] involved imparting sensitive information to judicial officers who have respected the confidentialities involved. Judges may be counted upon to be especially conscious of security requirements in national security cases. Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act already has imposed this responsibility on the judiciary in connection with such crimes as espionage, sabotage, and treason, 2516 (1) (a) and (c), each of which may involve domestic as well as foreign security threats. Moreover, a warrant application involves no public or adversary proceedings: it is an ex parte request before a magistrate or judge. Whatever security dangers clerical and secretarial personnel may pose can be minimized by proper administrative measures, possibly to the point of allowing the Government itself to provide the necessary clerical assistance.

Thus, we conclude that the Government's concerns do not justify departure in this case from the customary Fourth Amendment requirement of judicial approval prior to initiation of a search or surveillance. Although some added burden will be imposed upon the Attorney General, this inconvenience is justified in a free society to protect constitutional values. Nor do we think the Government's domestic surveillance powers will be impaired to any significant degree. A prior warrant establishes presumptive validity of the surveillance and will minimize the burden of justification in post-surveillance judicial review. By no means of least importance will be the reassurance of the public generally that indiscriminate wiretapping and bugging of law-abiding citizens cannot occur."

Link

LMFAO not during war time kid genius.

ENNN wrong this was before the RICO acts that and FISA warrants are not required in international phone calls. And need I remind you that what you stated was for criminal suspects and does not effect in any way the presidents inherent powers during WAR TIME!

IE this:

That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
 
Last edited:

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
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
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

Napoleon's Nightingale said:
Waleed al-Shehri - Found alive in Morocco without any connections to Al Qaeda. He's a pilot of Saudi Arabian Airlines..not a terrorist.

Wail al-Shehri - Found alive in Saudi Arabia. Not a terrorist.

Abdulaziz al-Omari - Found alive in Saudi Arabia without any connections to Al Qaeda. He's an engineer at the Saudi Telecoms company..not a terrorist.

Satam al-Suqami - Alive and well in London. Not a terrorist.

Mohand al-Shehri - Alive in Saudi Arabia. Not a terrorist.

Khalid al-Mihdhar - Alive and well. Not a terrorist.

Saeed al-Ghamdi - Found alive. He's a pilot for Tunis Air. Not a terrorist.
lies, mistaken identity, conspiracy theory, and propaganda.
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
So, it's apparent that you don't know who the hijackers really were and neither does the CIA since they have not even attempted to fill the gaps.
no it's apparent that you are a lier and the sites which you claim are propaganda because they are in direct contradiction of the 9-11 commission report.

Napoleon's Nightingale said:
Within the law.

Within whatever the president deems necessary to ensure the security of the nation.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
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
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

Stace said:
See that word there, appropriate? Yeah..usually, things that aren't legal/lawful aren't considered appropriate.

While this particular paragraph might not specifically say anything about the law, it is certainly implied, and you can't take things like this paragraph by paragraph...you have to take them in their entirety.

Your interpretation of appropriate has no basis on the issue, in fact the majority of America would consider tapping international calls of people from alQaed with people from the U.S. very appropriate if not necessary. What is not appropriate is to expose this intelligence gathering technique to undermine the war on terror and bring down an administration during war time.
 

Stace

Boobie Jubilee
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
7,254
Reaction score
364
Location
Clarksville, TN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Your interpretation of appropriate has no basis on the issue, in fact the majority of America would consider tapping international calls of people from alQaed with people from the U.S. very appropriate if not necessary. What is not appropriate is to expose this intelligence gathering technique to undermine the war on terror and bring down an administration during war time.

But see, here's the thing.....we're not officially at war. We are engaged in an extended military conflict that has been approved by Congress, but Congress has not declared war.

FISA only authorizes the surveillance without a court order in the case of war being declared by Congress. And, well, since that hasn't happened, he still needs the court orders.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
lies, mistaken identity, conspiracy theory, and propaganda.

Nope. The CIA already apoligized to the Saudis but not until after the Saudis complained about it.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
no it's apparent that you are a lier and the sites which you claim are propaganda because they are in direct contradiction of the 9-11 commission report.

LOL. Most of the information in the 9/11 commission report is faulty and those men weren't found alive until AFTER the report had been released. It amazes me that you consider the 9/11 report to be a holy grail especially considering the conduct of the partisan politicians at it's helm and the grandstanding during the hearings.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Within whatever the president deems necessary to ensure the security of the nation.

No. The Supreme Court ruled against just this sort of thing when Nixon was in office and the term "apropriate force" means within the law. In anycase we'll find out which one of us is correct after the hearings are over.
 

JustMyPOV

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
LMFAO not during war time kid genius.

Oh, really? That's what Nixon said, too, and that's what this decision is all about. This case came about during the Vietnam era, and the president made the same argument about inherent powers during times of war. So, ummm... Nice try.

ENNN wrong this was before the RICO acts that and FISA warrants are not required in international phone calls. And need I remind you that what you stated was for criminal suspects and does not effect in any way the presidents inherent powers during WAR TIME!

IE this:

That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

The Bill of Rights, as much as you and yours would like to think that it does, does not lapse in times of war. Tell me, did the group of Quakers in Florida help to plan, authorize, commit acts of terrorism, aid or harbor terrorists? How about the animal rights group, PETA? Maybe it was the Vegans in Illinois? We all know how those vegetarians love to assist Al Qaeda. :roll: THAT is why the checks of the FISA law were set up in the first place, to prevent this sort of activity against constitutionally protected dissenters.
 
Top Bottom