Unless you're bleeding or dying....

Dixie said:
We are talking about terror suspects abroad, who's cell phone numbers we have intercepted, and we've been tracking their activity and conversations all over the world, but when they call someone in the USA, the ACLU is standing there wagging their finger in our face, saying it violates the 4th Amendment to listen to their call.
Click to expand...

If they have the cell phone numbers, the warrants are easy to get. that's all they need, in my opinion.

Dixie said:
It's important to note, the 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and not reasonable ones. In this case, your 'privacy' can be 'searched or seized' because there is reason to believe you are consorting with a known terrorist. Because of the logistics you most accurately pointed out, it was necessary for our intelligence to tap first, and deal with the warrant later. I know you don't like that, I know that ticks off quite a few libertarian types, but that is the only "reasonable" way to gather accurate intelligence. The 4th Amendment was never intended to hamstring those charged with our security.
Click to expand...

blurring the line between reasonable and unreasonable in the name of exigency makes for very bad case law. it's only purpose it serves is to allow the government to hack away at the rights that are left, all in the name of exigency. And I disagree with your assessment about the hamstringing. The basis of the constitution was to limit the government and allow them to protect our liberties, not give them carte blanche to provide us safety.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
If they have the cell phone numbers, the warrants are easy to get. that's all they need, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

There's no warrant needed to listen to a cell phone call overseas, they are not in our jurisdiction. The purpose of the warrant is for the sake of who is on the receiving end, not the originator.

blurring the line between reasonable and unreasonable in the name of exigency makes for very bad case law. it's only purpose it serves is to allow the government to hack away at the rights that are left, all in the name of exigency. And I disagree with your assessment about the hamstringing. The basis of the constitution was to limit the government and allow them to protect our liberties, not give them carte blanche to provide us safety.
Click to expand...

There is no "blurring of the line" in my opinion, the Bush Administration made it very clear, this issue of warrantless wiretap was rare and unusual, and had to be authorized by the president himself. Furthermore, any occurrence of such an event, had to be reported within 90 days to the FISA court for retroactive warrants. This was never the "issue" libertarian/liberals made it out to be. It made for great campaign fodder, but in practicality, it wasn't the abhorrent usurping of rights it was portrayed as. I think it fully adheres to the 4th Amendment, with regard to reasoned vs. unreasonable searches and seizures.
 
Dixie said:
There's no warrant needed to listen to a cell phone call overseas, they are not in our jurisdiction. The purpose of the warrant is for the sake of who is on the receiving end, not the originator.
Click to expand...
The constitution LIMITS the gov, it doesn't apply what rights the people have, therefore I can't see this position as tenable.

Dixie said:
There is no "blurring of the line" in my opinion, the Bush Administration made it very clear, this issue of warrantless wiretap was rare and unusual, and had to be authorized by the president himself.
Click to expand...
The president does not have that constitution authority.

Dixie said:
Furthermore, any occurrence of such an event, had to be reported within 90 days to the FISA court for retroactive warrants.
Click to expand...
which removes any protections the 4th amendment is supposed to provide. we've seen that numerous times in oversight reports to congress.

Dixie said:
This was never the "issue" libertarian/liberals made it out to be. It made for great campaign fodder, but in practicality, it wasn't the abhorrent usurping of rights it was portrayed as. I think it fully adheres to the 4th Amendment, with regard to reasoned vs. unreasonable searches and seizures.
Click to expand...
I know that you think it does, that doesn't make it right. you've long been a supporter of security from terrorists over liberty.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
you seriously want to use this argument?
Click to expand...

I have often heard libertarian tards lamenting how our Founding Fathers would have felt about warrantless wiretaps. And maybe they do have a point, I don't know how they would have felt about espionage and intel gathering of the 21st Century... it's kind of irrelevant anyway. But I can't help but imagine... if they had captured Benedict Arnold with his 'dispatch' to the Brits, Ben Franklin would have advocated breaking the seal and reading it. In fact, I don't think anyone would have objected to this... maybe Hamilton? lol
 
Dixie said:
I have often heard libertarian tards lamenting how our Founding Fathers would have felt about warrantless wiretaps. And maybe they do have a point, I don't know how they would have felt about espionage and intel gathering of the 21st Century... it's kind of irrelevant anyway. But I can't help but imagine... if they had captured Benedict Arnold with his 'dispatch' to the Brits, Ben Franklin would have advocated breaking the seal and reading it. In fact, I don't think anyone would have objected to this... maybe Hamilton? lol
Click to expand...

I actually think they would have objected to that, however, they would have had no qualms about dragging his ass in front of a magistrate who would have then ordered it broken.

I'm sure you know that the founders of this nation wanted a legal system of innocent until proven guilty, full due process and all legal protections, and that it would be better to let 10 guilty men go free than to have one innocent man imprisoned, right?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I actually think they would have objected to that, however, they would have had no qualms about dragging his ass in front of a magistrate who would have then ordered it broken.
Click to expand...

Only, there was no magistrate or court to order anything on the basis of a constitution, because it didn't yet exist. In any case, where our intelligence can obtain proper warrants beforehand, they do so. The WW provisions were very specific isolated incidents, where they had reason to believe contact may be a matter of national security. No one questions whether the government has the right to tap your phone without a warrant, that was how the issue was portrayed by libertarians and liberals.

I'm sure you know that the founders of this nation wanted a legal system of innocent until proven guilty, full due process and all legal protections, and that it would be better to let 10 guilty men go free than to have one innocent man imprisoned, right?
Click to expand...

No, it would be better, in matters regarding the security of our nation, for 11 men to be imprisoned until we can sort things out.
 
Dixie said:
NO, It's NOT a lie! This is why they are talking about "raising the debt ceiling." Did you think that was some sort of African dance move? We're $12 trillion in the red as it stands now, and we've broken records for spending the past two years in a row. You're a fucking moron if you don't understand we are broke.
Click to expand...

Jesus H Christ on a cracker you crack me up! :rofl:
 
Dixie said:
It's not "Nazi" and it sure as hell ain't "Utopia" but I bet most would find a way to survive. I'd say it's probably slightly better to be indigent here, as opposed to say... Cuba, don't you imagine?

As I said earlier, the "Unless you're bleeding or dying" approach, does two things... it saves us an awful lot of wasted resources, and helps to instill the values of self determination, self reliance, and self responsibility. These are very important aspects, not to be simply ignored, even though you pinheads are doing a very good job of it.

The System fully allows you to take whatever charitable actions you wish, it has zero restriction on your ability to do that! So we can't blame "a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception" now can we? You can do like Apple says he wants to do, and open a daycare center to take care of people's kids who have to work. If you think he has a good idea, maybe you two can pitch in together on it, and make it happen? Like I said, get it off the ground, and I'll send you a donation, I think it's a great idea!
:good4u:
Click to expand...

As I said before and will say again.

You are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone who can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate. It is a negative form of thought that is incompatible with a free and open society. It is anti-democratic in nature and builds nothing, it can only tear things down. The last 30 years are a concrete example of the failure of conservatism.

Conservatism throughout human history has always created a aristocracy, plutocracy, or some form of oppressive society where there is a ruling class or hierarchy. Today's aristocrats and hierarchy are not kings, they are captains of industry, the CEO's, corporations, free marketeers, and the business elite. Conservatives will defend to the death McDonalds right to slowly poison our children, but they never defend our children's health and well being.

I've lived to see the total failure of two revolutions of extreme ideology. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution. Unfettered communism and unfettered capitalism creates the same end...failure.

Conservatism has no investment in human capital...NONE. Other people are not even part of conservative lexicon, unless it is being critical or degrading. Conservatism is based on fear and believes everyone is basically evil, so it treats people accordingly. Conservatives always create a fear of 'others', some group of people that must be excluded or ostracized.

Liberalism is faith in human beings and a trust that the human spirit can solve all man-made problems. Liberalism is a belief that everyone is basically good, and all they need is a level playing field, a fair opportunity to succeed and sometimes a hand up.




Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone
 
Bfgrn said:
As I said before and will say again.

You are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone who can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate. It is a negative form of thought that is incompatible with a free and open society. It is anti-democratic in nature and builds nothing, it can only tear things down. The last 30 years are a concrete example of the failure of conservatism.

Conservatism throughout human history has always created a aristocracy, plutocracy, or some form of oppressive society where there is a ruling class or hierarchy. Today's aristocrats and hierarchy are not kings, they are captains of industry, the CEO's, corporations, free marketeers, and the business elite. Conservatives will defend to the death McDonalds right to slowly poison our children, but they never defend our children's health and well being.

I've lived to see the total failure of two revolutions of extreme ideology. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution. Unfettered communism and unfettered capitalism creates the same end...failure.

Conservatism has no investment in human capital...NONE. Other people are not even part of conservative lexicon, unless it is being critical or degrading. Conservatism is based on fear and believes everyone is basically evil, so it treats people accordingly. Conservatives always create a fear of 'others', some group of people that must be excluded or ostracized.

Liberalism is faith in human beings and a trust that the human spirit can solve all man-made problems. Liberalism is a belief that everyone is basically good, and all they need is a level playing field, a fair opportunity to succeed and sometimes a hand up.




Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone
Click to expand...

Holly shit you truly are retarded. :palm:
 
You are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone who can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate. It is a negative form of thought that is incompatible with a free and open society. It is anti-democratic in nature and builds nothing, it can only tear things down. The last 30 years are a concrete example of the failure of conservatism. [Endless Liberal blather]
Click to expand...

The last 30 years, hell... the last 70 years, we have been inundated with nothing but liberalism! We've followed liberalism down the path of socialism and altered nearly every aspect of society to conform with the politically correct liberal agenda, and now you want to argue it has been the other way around? You're out of your mind, pinhead!

Yeah, I want a group of people to evaporate... LIBERAL PINHEAD SOCIALISTS!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top