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 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-186 next last
To: sinkspur

according to the SCOTUS - yes. not in this wiretap case, I agree with you there - but generally speaking, what else can you call granting Habeas rights to Gitmo detainees?


121 posted on 08/18/2006 5:10:44 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
what are you going to say if he has to violate the supreme court

I would favor Bush's impeachment at that juncture. He is not above the law. He has, in fact, taken an oath to uphold the laws and abide by the laws. I expect him to honor that oath.

I do agree that the SC is a mess.

The political situation in the US is heartbreaking. There is nothing but us-vs-them, with very little common sense shown on either side. The SWAT-style invasions for most any reason are just plain uncalled for. I am concerned very much about these situations. They are more important than terrorism.

I favor isolationism and gun-boat diplomacy where natural resources are concerned. I'd rather see all Islamics driven from this Nation ... and a Constitutional Ammendment to overlook Islam as a religion if necessary.

122 posted on 08/18/2006 5:11:02 PM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes
The BOR does NOT apply to foreigners on foreign soil. That is the most ludicrous assertion I've seen in weeks.

For the fourth time: does the Constitution protect the rights of terrorists?

123 posted on 08/18/2006 5:14:40 PM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
what else can you call granting Habeas rights to Gitmo detainees?

A mistake.

124 posted on 08/18/2006 5:15:42 PM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: GingisK
The country would not survive with an isolationist President.

Fortunately, none has a chance of ever being elected, so we can focus our energies on keeping treacherous leftists out of the White House......

125 posted on 08/18/2006 5:17:21 PM PDT by ohioWfan (PROUD Mom of an Iraqi Liberation VET! THANKS, son!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
For the fourth time: does the Constitution protect the rights of terrorists?

NO, and you haven't asked me that four times.

126 posted on 08/18/2006 5:17:25 PM PDT by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: GingisK

well then, you have just decided that the judiciary has unchecked powers above the other two branches. if they are free to make any aribitrary decision and decide that its "the law" - and you are then directing congress to impeach the president based on any violation of their decision, then 5 justices on the SCOTUS essentially control the country - a judicial oligarchy.


127 posted on 08/18/2006 5:17:29 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

well yes, we agree on that.


128 posted on 08/18/2006 5:18:16 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: GingisK
I'd rather see all Islamics driven from this Nation ... and a Constitutional Ammendment to overlook Islam as a religion if necessary.

You ignore foreign terrorists, yet you want to drive innocent American Muslim citizens out of the country.

Thank God you're nowhere near the levers of power.

129 posted on 08/18/2006 5:18:32 PM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Now you're sounding like a conspiracy nut.

I'm just well read. I can also compare the differences in life in the US a few decades ago to what it is now. Few of the adverse differences are caused by terroism or even the "threat of terroism". (Americans are not supposed to cower when threatened.)

...it's no wonder you don't recognize the threat of terrorism.

As I stated previously, I can compare America over a few decades. The decay did not start with 911. It started on Capital Hill, in State governments, and in neighborhoods. It is a creeping crud of the left; and, this is far more destructive than terrorism has been and ever will be. Terrorism will not terminate the US. Crappy politics will.

130 posted on 08/18/2006 5:18:44 PM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes

Well then, if foreign terrorists are not protected by the Constitution, why are warrants required to listen in on their conversations?


131 posted on 08/18/2006 5:19:54 PM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
The country would not survive with an isolationist President

I think it would do just fine. The plan is for the country to be assimilated by globalism. It most certainly won't survive under a string of globalist presidents.

132 posted on 08/18/2006 5:20:43 PM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
...innocent American Muslim citizens...

Ever see any of them protest terroist acts? There are no innocent Muslims. They all rejoiced on 911.

133 posted on 08/18/2006 5:22:47 PM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: GingisK
Ever see any of them protest terroist acts? There are no innocent Muslims. They all rejoiced on 911.

That is completely false.

Oh, it's a popular sentiment, and sure to win points with the Deus Vult crowd---but it is absolutely 100% bull****.

As you were.

134 posted on 08/18/2006 5:24:58 PM PDT by Wormwood (Iä! Iä! Cthulhu fhtagn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: GingisK

Well then, it's a good thing that we don't HAVE a 'globalist' President now, isn't it?


135 posted on 08/18/2006 5:25:47 PM PDT by ohioWfan (PROUD Mom of an Iraqi Liberation VET! THANKS, son!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Well then, if foreign terrorists are not protected by the Constitution, why are warrants required to listen in on their conversations?

I thought we were talking about people living in the United States.

I can't imagine why anyone would think the Constitution applies to people who live in other countries,

136 posted on 08/18/2006 5:26:59 PM PDT by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Wormwood
...but it is absolutely 100% bull****.

Must have been five or six someplace. I've seen no evidence that could convince me to change my mind. If you monitor the news for just a month, you will notice that the vast majority of violence is committed by Muslims. Worldwide.

137 posted on 08/18/2006 5:27:44 PM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes

actually, the SCOTUS is very close to declaring that foreign persons IN foreign countries, do get constitutional protections once they come under control of the US military of the CIA. what do you think about that?


138 posted on 08/18/2006 5:29:35 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
...we don't HAVE a 'globalist' President now, isn't it?...

We do have a globalist President, right now. The wide-open southern border is just one example of that.

139 posted on 08/18/2006 5:29:37 PM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
actually, the SCOTUS is very close to declaring that foreign persons IN foreign countries, do get constitutional protections once they come under control of the US military of the CIA. what do you think about that?

Do you mean do I think we should obey the Supreme Court, the Constitution?

You know, I really don't care. I like talking to you guys, but my opinion doesn't make a difference to anyone.

140 posted on 08/18/2006 5:34:26 PM PDT by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 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