FISA vs. the Constitution

WSJ ^ | 29 December 2005 | ROBERT F. TURNER

[Aussie Dasher]

Who could possibly trust, Leahy, Kerry, Lard Ass, Hitlery (to say nothing of Specter & co.) with America's security?

The Founding Fathers certainly had foresight!

[mathluv]

Under the toon, we could not even trust the president.

[md2576]

Congress can't usurp the president's power to spy on America's enemies.

There, fixed it.

[Aussie Dasher]

I do believe we're about to see a ZOT!

[rhombus]

For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful.

This is an interesting paragraph. What makes a "declaration of war" formal? And that being asked, what is meant by a state initiating an "aggessive war"? Those who fight a passive war, usually lose.

[md2576]

For that? Give me a break nanny. The Patriot Act should not be excepted by conservatives.

[rhombus]

The Patriot Act should not be excepted accepted by conservatives.

There, fixed it. Now be more specific about what it is in the Patriot Act that you would change or eliminate.

[xcamel]

Now, Prove it.

[Aussie Dasher]

I'm sure those good souls who perished on 9/11 would be very supportive of he Patriot Act.

[md2576]

Now be more specific about what it is in the Patriot Act that you would change or eliminate.

The list is long but I will take the time to list them later. In a nutshell, no warrant searches, holding persons indefinitely without council or a judge, bank privacy, no accountability for the president or CIA. There is more I will list in my summary.

I could care less if Bush spies on us as long as there is accountability. The Patriot Act should be dismantled and other laws that not only protect us from attacks but also protect our rights should be put in place.

The sad thing is that the ACLU has picked this fight up and if they are for it I, and many others, are usually against it. This is a conservative fight against bigger government with powers that are unaccountable and possibly illegal.

[conservativecorner]

1.6 million killed in NYC if the terrorists get their hands on a Hiroshima type weapon that can easily fit into a delivery truck. Nothing was done other than use good intelligence to thwart any possible attack against the USA. It's only a problem if you are a terrorist or want America to lose the WOT. Either way, it's tough shite' to both groups because we aren't playing that game any more.

[md2576]

Many more have perished to protect our rights as Free Americans. On 911 we knew the terrorists wanted more than anything to shake our resolve and scare us into giving up our free way of living. Now they seem to be winning with laws like we have in the PA.

[rhombus]

Perhaps this link will help you be more specific

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

Too many whine about the Patriot Act and then cite generalities. As for the ACLU, I watched all those Pro-Kerry ads during the election that spoke about "fixing the Patriot Act" but never specified what it was they wanted to fix.

You want accountablity for the president or the CIA, how about judges? Do they also not have to be "accountable" in your world? They are not even elected - as are presidents.

The bottom line that people must ask is "are we at war" or are we not?

[Wolfie]

The Patriot Act should not be excepted by conservatives.

Oh don't worry, they won't. But not until a Dem sits in the White House.

[Aussie Dasher]

Care to address the issues raised in post 11?

[rhombus]

But not until a Dem sits in the White House.

Ah Wolfie, ever the cynic. :-)

[md2576]

Well I am sorry to be the one to tell you this but we will all die eventually.

It's how we live which makes us who we are.

I for one would not want to live in so much fear of an imminent attack that I would give up me privacy and freedoms to The president. Especially if that president were Hillary Clinton, John Kerry Or Howard Dean.

[stocksthatgoup]

Spying on foreign enemies and their contacts seems appropriate to me.

[md2576]

The bottom line that people must ask is "are we at war" or are we not?

When can we claim victory for this war to be over so we can regain our freedoms again?

[md2576]

Spying on foreign enemies and their contacts seems appropriate to me.

Very appropriate, We've been doing it for decades.