Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush defends surveillance program
AP on Yahoo ^ | 8/18/06 | Deb Reichman - ap

Posted on 08/18/2006 1:48:59 PM PDT by NormsRevenge

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181-186 next last
To: Doe Eyes; sinkspur
I'm curious, Doe Eyes...........do you believe the Constitution protects foreign terrorists, or those within our borders plotting with them......... if taken literally, that is?

Or do you believe that it is implicit within the Constitutional duties of the Commander in Chief to protect American citizens from being blown into bits by terrorists?

101 posted on 08/18/2006 4:37:21 PM PDT by ohioWfan (PROUD Mom of an Iraqi Liberation VET! THANKS, son!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes
noticed you quit quoting the Constitution.

I gave you my opinion of the Fourth Amendment. You disagree.

I'd wager that the Courts will agree with my interpretation.

102 posted on 08/18/2006 4:37:24 PM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
A truly brain-dead statement.

Not really. Terrorism cannot be fought well unless it is done thoroughly and correctly. An open and fully porous border does not indicate that the war on terror is being intelligently waged. This being the case, government and political stupidity undermines the war on terror, making what would normally be mundane issues more important. It is obvious that many "counter terrorism" measures are merely window dressing for political purposes. I am very concerned about what must be lurking beneath the fluff.

There is a constant parade of unconstitutional and heavy-handed acts against American people committed by the government. Reason itself escapes from the day-to-day operations of government entities under the guise of "political correctness". I see a lot more rot on the inside than I do from without.

Bush and major contingencies of our represenatives are globalists. They do not make policy that is in the best interest of this Nation. This concerns me very much, much more than terrorism. I have seen the degradation of life caused by the unmonitored influx of Mexicans who don't give a crap about our Nation. I see this everyday. I haven't seen a single act of terrorism in my own neighborhood. Terrorism does not seem to be as pervasive a problem as the others.

103 posted on 08/18/2006 4:40:48 PM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Alwayswatching

No, I didn't notice but I think the man has a right to be "down" occasionally. After all he is only human. If you had to put up with ignorant and rude people all day long, you wouldn't be skipping rope either.


104 posted on 08/18/2006 4:41:20 PM PDT by conservative blonde (Conservative Blonde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

I didn't see an interpretation. I saw what you wish it meant. The 4th Amendment is clearly stated. Please provide an interpretation.


105 posted on 08/18/2006 4:42:43 PM PDT by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
...show me that they are tapping calls...from NY to Florida, and not NY to Pakistan...

I'm definately on board. I got on the unholy end of this thread because I stupidly thought Bush was defying the Supreme Court. There has been a long line of folks who set out to put me straight. ;-D

106 posted on 08/18/2006 4:44:28 PM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes

These wire tapes are not searching or seizing or depriving individuals of private property. So I do not see where the 4th amendment applies to these wire tapes.


107 posted on 08/18/2006 4:47:40 PM PDT by conservative blonde (Conservative Blonde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Alwayswatching
"I have never seen him so down. His body language,his tone of voice,his state of distraction. And he was late for the presser to boot.It really alarmed me. Did anyone notice this?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------

north korea about to explode a Nuke.

iran attacking our Country on August 22.

chirac promising Bush 3000 french troops in lebanon, in exchange for Bush agreeing to accept france's watered down un resolution. chirac stated that if it were to be their troops on the ground as the commanding force, they wanted to set the rules.

Economy booming but media selling it as if we had carter back in office.

Success in Iraq being lied about using the same deceptive techniques as used to talk down booming economy

Threats that we do not know about.

Half the country hating his guts for keeping their unappreciative arses robustly wealthy and safe.

A$$holes on Free Republic constantly bashing him for their pet-peeve issue.

I am surprised the man can get out of bed in the morning. His faith in GOD, and love for America and her people are all that sustains him!

LLS

108 posted on 08/18/2006 4:48:51 PM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: conservative blonde
These wire tapes are not searching or seizing or depriving individuals of private property. So I do not see where the 4th amendment applies to these wire tapes.

That being the case, you don't think the government needs a warrant to tap your phone?

109 posted on 08/18/2006 4:50:22 PM PDT by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes

Not my phone. I am not a terrorist nor do I have a malicious agenda of any sort. Nothing to hide here.


110 posted on 08/18/2006 4:52:35 PM PDT by conservative blonde (Conservative Blonde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: GingisK

well, let me ask you - what are you going to say if he has to violate the supreme court - because there is a 50/50 chance this case will be upheld.

can the supreme court issue an unconstitutional decision? what are they, infallible? OK you say, then its up to Congress to get involved. But look at the Gitmo decision, the SCOTUS had laws passed by congress specifically to curb their involvement with certain types of cases - they simply sidestep them. the SCOTUS essentially amended the Geneva treaties, where did they get the consitutional power to do that?

so what do you do next? impeach those justices? its not going to happen.

do you see now why the left, above all else, seeks to control the judicial branch of government? its the most powerful branch, the most arbitrary, with the fewest (if any) checks and balances.


111 posted on 08/18/2006 4:53:17 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: conservative blonde
Not my phone. I am not a terrorist nor do I have a malicious agenda of any sort. Nothing to hide here.

I have nothing to hide, but I don't want the government tapping my phones or taking my guns!

112 posted on 08/18/2006 4:56:07 PM PDT by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes

just don't call pakistan, and you'll be fine.


113 posted on 08/18/2006 4:56:42 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes
I didn't see an interpretation. I saw what you wish it meant. The 4th Amendment is clearly stated. Please provide an interpretation.

No. I told you what it means. "Probable cause" is not a standard for surveilling non-American citizens. There is no standard.

And American citizens talking to these up-to-no-good non-citizens have to be surveilled right along with them.

I will ask again: do you believe terrorists have the protection of the Constitution? And, if you say they should, why should they?

114 posted on 08/18/2006 5:02:50 PM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"Probable cause" is not a standard for surveilling non-American citizens. There is no standard.

Where does this come from? I have not found it in the Constitution.

115 posted on 08/18/2006 5:05:30 PM PDT by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: GingisK
There is a constant parade of unconstitutional and heavy-handed acts against American people committed by the government.

Now you're sounding like a conspiracy nut.

Bush and major contingencies of our represenatives are globalists. They do not make policy that is in the best interest of this Nation.

More Birchite conspiracy nonsense.

With all these other boogeymen in your life, it's no wonder you don't recognize the threat of terrorism.

116 posted on 08/18/2006 5:06:15 PM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes
Where does this come from? I have not found it in the Constitution.

For the third time: does the Constitution protect the rights of foreign terrorists?

Your unwillingness to answer this question is a flashing red light.

117 posted on 08/18/2006 5:07:39 PM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

"I strongly disagree with that decision, strongly disagree," Bush said, striking his finger on a podium to underscore his point. "That's why I instructed the Justice Department to appeal immediately, and I believe our appeals will be upheld."

Prayers up for that.. How the hell can some idiot district judge have the power to put this Nation in jeopardy from the very people we are in a war with?? Also, where is the GOP, they should be shouting from the rooftops.


118 posted on 08/18/2006 5:08:47 PM PDT by SeaBiscuit (God Bless America and All who protect and preserve this Great Nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Over and over again I find myself saying that there are no words to express by anger at these liberal pieces of dirt. WE ARE AT WAR YOU IDIOTS! This is all for politics, which should make American citizens run like the wind from democrats.


119 posted on 08/18/2006 5:09:11 PM PDT by ladyinred (Thank God the Brits don't have a New York Times!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"Probable cause" is not a standard for surveilling non-American citizens.

Before you get too deep in this, search the Constitution for "person" versus "citizen". You will find that the BOR applies to person, not citizens.

120 posted on 08/18/2006 5:10:00 PM PDT by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181-186 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson