Posted on 01/01/2006 2:55:51 PM PST by SunSetSam
December 30, 2005 - The argument over whether President Bush has the authority to direct the National Security Agency to listen in on the conversations of suspected terrorists on US soil is split primarily into two camps; those who believe we are engaged in a war for our very survival against radical Islam and those who believe – and always have – that terrorism operates under a set of rules that govern its actions and therefore should be treated as a law enforcement issue. This is just another example of why there should have been a formal declaration of war after September 11, 2001.
It needs to be repeated as many times as necessary until every single American acknowledges this supposition as a distinct possibility; should we lose this war against radical Islam and the terror it uses to breed fear and submission, our way of life, our government and our country, will cease to exist as we know it.
Those on the “progressive” left have just begun mentally chewing on what for them is a gargantuan idea, that the military conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are but battles in a much more monumental war. Those who understand the danger facing our country have come to the realization that there are two major fronts in our struggle for survival; the physical front (locations of armed conflict) and the ideological front (where the battles for the mind of a society take place).
It is very important to be victorious on the physical battlefields and so far we have been successful. As much as the “progressive” left and the mainstream media would have us believe that we are struggling to achieve victory, the evidence of our success is overwhelming and validated by the millions of purple fingers we have seen in Iraq over the course of three truly free elections. It is further evidenced by the free elections in Afghanistan and accurate polling of both countries that indicate their people believe that their “future’s so bright they have to wear shades.”
If we are to compare Iraq to Vietnam in any way at all it would have to be in contrast. US military efforts in Iraq stand as testimony to the idea that if allowed to do their jobs, and complete their mission devoid of interference from the “progressive” elite in Washington DC and their blind followers who haven’t the vision to see past the daily protest march, the US military will always be victorious. They are superiorly trained and equipped, and motivated by the desire to fight for the freedom of oppressed people rather than, by gutless default, pave the way for tyranny.
More difficult than armed conflict, the ideological front is a battle for the will of our society and is already taking place on our own soil. The controversy over the NSA directive issued by President Bush is a prime example.
Again it needs to be repeated as often as need be; should we lose this war against the oppressive mandates of radical Islam our country will cease to exist as we know it. There will be no civil liberties. There will be no judicial recourse. There will be no petitioning of our government. There will be no First Amendment rights, or Second, or Third. If we fail to be victorious over the fundamentalist zealots who promote radical Islam, not only as a religion but as a totalitarian way of life, this “experiment in democracy” that is our government will be, if texts other than the Quran are even allowed, a short chapter in The History of Infidel North America Before Islam.
It is ironic then that an organization such as the American Civil Liberties Union is fighting for the “rights” of those who would dismantle and outlaw the ACLU, if not behead its leaders, should radical Islam be victorious.
It is paradoxical then that defense lawyers are attempting to have courts overturn the convictions of confessed terrorists and self-avowed al Qaeda operatives. For these lawyers to stand on principle is one thing, for them to stand on principle only to see their freed clients return to the battle against the very principles used to free them is quite another.
It is reckless for “progressive” politicians and activists to be arguing points of order regarding the president’s execution of this war effort when the same points of order, directives and tactics have been used by past presidents and validated by established courts and authorities. In fact, their obstinate refusal to acknowledge recorded history can very well be considered aiding and abetting the enemy and there are consequences for those actions written into the Constitution, unlike the mounting number of fictitious rights frequently referred to by the “progressive” left.
In an effort to safeguard the ideological liberties the Framers had in mind at the writings of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, the “progressive” left is willing to enable our enemies to use our own system to bring about our country’s demise. If the “progressive” left is truly supporting our troops and if they truly want to win the war against the encroaching influence of radical Islam and the terror they use to victimize all who stand in their way, if they are really on our side then it is time for their actions to speak for them instead of their words. So far their words have been selfishly divisive and irresponsible. It is beyond naïve to believe that their words are not being put to good use in the ideological battle our enemy is ruthlessly waging against us.
Lots of murder takes place under the right to privacy.
Thanks for the ping!
Have you lost your mind or just the ability to use reason?
I said that we do not have the right to murder just because it is done it private. I didn't say that it doesn't happen. Those caught murdering others are punished for it.
Get it? There is no right to do it.
The government will protect it's own should push come to shove. I have faith in the 2nd amendment to protect me and mine.
If that is what we are facing -- and I think that we are -- why are we focusing on Americans without shutting down the borders? Why aren't we bombing them into oblivion everywhere that they are found? Why are we still referring to their 'faith' as the religion of peace?
The feds haven't shut down the borders.
They haven't rounded up the illegals.
They haven't armed the pilots (to any measurable degree).
There are more IRS agents with guns pointed at us to make sure that we haven't cheated the government out of the tax on our Christmas bonus than there are INS agents with guns at the border to stop illegal immigration or drugs or terrorists from entering.
When the government exercises it's properly delegated authority to protect the nation, and we are still at risk, then a review of power should be looked at, but not until then.
Don't treat me as a potential terrorist when you haven't moved to stop them from entering the country.
The government is protecting it's own bloated ass, not yours or mine. Don't lose sight of that little fact.
I have no doubt that the government will protect itself, but I am not saying that my guns will protect me. I am saying that I don't want my government to disarm me in the name of fighting terrorism and thus rendering me unable to protect me and mine.
Taking a gun to a gunfight doesn't mean that you'll win, It only gives you a fighting chance. The government that does disarm me will be my enemy.
Answers to your questions:
"I've heard international calls only then it was international calls terminating in the U.S., then it was international calls originating in the U.S."
Yes, those are both international calls. They both involve signals traveling into the United States. If something foreign is invading your territory you have a right to inspect it.
"Where in the Constitution does it say that?" (that the president has the right to examine these international phone calls).
You really should read it for yourself.
Article II, Section I.
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"
"When called into actual service," see. And when were the armed forces called into service?
Go back to 2001:
"Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
...
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 September 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."
"All necessary and appropriate force." Got a problem with that? Talk to your elected representatives and senators.
I guess that also answers the "Who gets to decide who is a terrorist?" question.
This "debate" is settled in my mind. But I'm tired of always being on the defense. It is time we go in the offensive.
Non-Sequitur, please tell me what law, specifically, you think President Bush broke? I don't want to hear any, "Well, I don't know, but I'll leave that to an investigative committee."
Give it your best guess.
I don't see the paradox, as I detailed in #58.
The section that text appears under is titled "Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces." It says nothing about wiretaps or the NSA.
Please be advised that some FReepers are aware that what's really on the mind of some of the craziest and nastiest "anti-terrorism measures" posts is a disgustingly selfish concern: "How might this anti-terrorism measure affect my obtaining the illegal drugs I covet?"
Lincoln didn't violate the law when doing it.
Suspension of habeas corpus is a legislative power. Congress passed a measure that gave Lincoln his power.
In Ex parte Milligan, 71 US 2 (1866), the Supreme Court held that the denial of habeas corpus to Milligan was in violation of the law. That doesn't mean that all denials of habeas were outside of the law, that is, some of the military detentions and denial of access to Article III courts was legal. But the Court held that Milligan's was not.
Any call with one end out of the US, regardless of who originated the call (makes sense, think "I'll call you back"); where warrantless targeting of the US end is somehow restricted.
I've asked a couple times, "Why draw the line there?" What if both of the terrorists are in the US? What about domestic terrorism? Why require warrants at all, where the objective is prevention? Not that I advocate this, but such surveillance shares the prevalanet "anything to stop terrorist attack" justification.
With regard to the legal justification for the warrantless targeting of domestics, the administration's arguments are well summed up in Assistant Attorney General's Letter to Senate Intelligence Committee.
I'll add a few ...
OKC - Murrah
DC Sniper
Columbine
The Bath School Bombing
Warrantless surveillance has been a tool of the WoD. I don't know if it still is. See 1975 Senate Hearings on NSA Activity.
The protection of the 4th amendment is an anacronism, compared with other countries; and in light of the erosions obtained in court, the protection of the 4th is fairly weak in practice.
" Do you honestly believe that the Islamo-fascists are capable of conquering the U.S.?"
With help from the progressives it may be so. Amen.
" Do you honestly believe that the Islamo-fascists are capable of conquering the U.S.?
And those competent authorities would be? The Liberal elites , of course. Maybe Hillary or Teddy Kennedy as Judge. Get a life my friend. Amen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.