Posted on 07/19/2013 11:10:19 PM PDT by WilliamIII
Former vice president Dick Cheney said Sunday that Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was wrong to suggest that the government’s recently revealed sweeping surveillance techniques are an invasion of Americans’ privacy. “Two-thirds of the Congress wasn’t here on 9/11, or for that period immediately after when we got into this program,” Cheney said on “Fox News Sunday.” He later added: “When you consider the possibility of somebody smuggling something like a nuclear device into the United States, it becomes very, very important to gather intelligence on your enemies and stop that attack before it ever gets launched.”
Cheney defended a National Security Agency program to collect phone records from millions of Americans, about which Paul has expressed deep concerns. The Kentucky senator announced last week that he has taken steps toward bringing legal action against the government over its surveillance efforts.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Absolutely.
Because if we destroy our open society and sacrifice our Freedom in exchange for a little temporary safety, all in the name of fighting Terror, then the Terrorists have already won!
Remember when a few of our perceptive statesmen were saying that after 9/11? It seems as if that principle has been totally cast aside at this point. Suddenly, totalitarianism seems completely reasonable to our leaders.
Now, it's as if our leaders are saying "As long as we can claim to keep the People relatively safe from Terror, then it's OK to have a totalitarian Police State. The First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments are outdated vestiges of a simpler time."
It shall not stand.
.......love Cheney generally speaking but, NO, Dick you are wrong! Give me a choice of running the risk of getting nuked or “the government” having all this information about 300 million Americans I think I would prefer risking becoming charcoal instantaneously. I don’t think “a nuke” is the issue either. I think the issue is people like Jarrett, Axelrod, Pelosi, Obama, Reid and Biden using NSA data to BLACKMAIL a supreme court member (like Roberts) or key congressmen/women. That’s the issue, to me.
I’m to the point given recent history, added to long term history, where I don’t believe ANYTHING the government says about ANYTHING EVER! About the only person I believe in the U.S. Government is Ted Cruz and I worry about him gradually being bought off.
Last year if you said Cheney was a jerk because of the Patriot Act you would of been called a troll, a DUmmy, or whatever else.
Now if you call Cheney a jerk because of the Patriot Act your a patriot.
LOL
Actually the term is ‘needle in a haystack’ not ‘hayfield’. Searching the hayfield would be pretty discouraging if the the hay has any growth. Right after cutting, then you just get out the metal detector. With the haystack, just burn it (if you don’t like the hay!); the needle might be worthless, but you’ll find it in the ashes.
Islam is not a religion; it is a political system hell-bent on destroying human civilization, and replacing it all with a stone-age barbaric tyranny. Their stated goal is to establish sharia law everywhere on earth, including the USA. We, as humans, are not obligated to tolerate or accept any group of people whose stated goal is to sublimate American citizens under some foreign barbaric system.
Many European countries have banned the display of NAZI flags and symbols. Many muslim countries have banned the practice of Christianity. Neither of those is a threat tho those nations' survival, yet the bans exist. Islam is a threat to all humans and nations. Nations must do what is the interest of their national survival, or they will perish.
You may be tolerant of having your head chopped off, but you will likely find yourself in a minority.
On one hand, perhaps the reaction to your support of Cheney on this issue - equating you to a lib isn't very rational. On the other hand - do you think that the NSA (and other fascist elements of the FdGov), is in any way benevolent, or motivated by national security as envisioned by the constitution?
My post (link below) speaks somewhat to my knowledge and experience:
post #112: Dick Cheney: Rand Paul is wrong on government surveillance
Poignant.
Replace the word "hay" with "liberty" and that sums up our current state.
That is the laugh I still feel, no one ask me why? Now I have had my fun and solicited the responses I expected.
I am as conservative as they come. I come from a long line of military folks, spent years in the Navy myself. I just happen to casually remark that I would rather support Cheney than Rand Paul and all hell breaks loose.
And the comments still keep coming ... got to be a best for something said as a causal aside.
The approach of Bush and Obama to terrorism is not much different than the approach of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter to Communism.
Its “containment” that ultimately allows the cancer to spread.
I sure as hell remember it. It was hard to believe.
Islam is not a religion. It's a political cult that brooks no opposition. Like the other tyrannical cult, Communism.
But on that day I thought there would be a silver lining: at least now the barbarians would be evicted, the fences and defenses would be fortified, and what had come to pass would be the catalyst for taking us back to where we used to be.
But no. Mr. Bush opened the Mexican border the next day, capitulated to Islam as a whole, and took it out on us by cursing us with an internal police state that we are only now seeing the full scope of.
Sorry Dickie. You had a chance, but you screwed the pooch.
"On the other hand - do you think that the NSA (and other fascist elements of the FdGov), is in any way benevolent, or motivated by national security as envisioned by the constitution?"In retrospect, I should have asked...
By saying:
"Between Rand Paul and Dick Cheney, I think I will go with Cheney."... since the topic of the article is on NSA surveillance of every American
... do you agree with Cheney that the FedGov needs to collect every Call Detail Record (CDR) on earth (so called "medadata", which is actually where knowledge is derived):
"“What information [was collected]?” asked Cheney. “And the answer is phone numbers and who contacted who. But we don’t have any names associated with it. It’s just a big bag of numbers that’s been collected."Cheney proclaimed a bald-faced lie, but I'm sure you will concur that this is a serious issue that abridges more than the spirit of our constitution.
See my post #112
Sorry, Islam may be a totally screwed up religion, but its a religion. In the United States, you cannot ban a religion (or a political party). And if you did ban Islam, you know what the libs would be pushing next? To ban Christianity. Be careful what you wish for.
Your contempt for the Constitution is evident. I’m sure you’d be quite comfortable in the Democrat party.
“There are 7,000,000,000 people on this planet and our government has reason to spy on 6,700,000,000 of them. Why then is Obama spying on the 300,000,000 of us and not them?”
You’re wrong they are spying on EVERYBODY on this planet.
My point is that they should be spying on everyone else; not the American people. This is a point that Cheney and others miss. In fact, that was probably the Bush administration's intent when the program started. It's since been perverted by Obama into something sinister.
Bush and Cheney were,and are, not pro-Constitution and pro-America.Just another couple of NWO CEOs.
I’ll support Rand Paul on this one,and a number of other issues.
Like many Freepers I liked Cheney’s unapologetic style, and Rumsfeld’s and Bush’s. Let’s be clear here though. Bad-ass in-your-face attitude when everyone else is turning tail and running is refreshing, but it is NOT CONSERVATISM. Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld and the rest of them are somewhere between Moderate Republicans and neocons. I can tolerate them for a time especially when they are playing a useful role in the midst of international conflict, but let’s cut the hero worship crap. Now that the discussion is about an out-of-control Marxist attempting to create an all-powerful, all-knowing State versus privacy and civil liberties, it’s time for those guys to shut up. Until this country is back to normal and the derailed Bill of Rights is put back on its tracks, I want to hear from Rand Paul and others like him.
If Dick Cheney were right more resources would have been dedicated to the Boston Bombers... and the FBI wouldn’t have had to release pictures of two men that were easy to find and already on their radar.
Mr. Bush opened the Mexican border the next day, capitulated to Islam as a whole, and took it out on us by cursing us with an internal police state that we are only now seeing the full scope of.
The Bush/Cheney administration's tough talk on "national security" was mostly that - talk. The Patriot Act unleashed government surveillance on law-abiding American citizens while Bush's Saudi pals and the special interests that operate on cheap immigrant labor were coddled and protected.
Your contempt for the Constitution is evident. I’m sure you’d be quite comfortable in the Democrat party.
You're real quick to stoop to name-calling without knowing anything about a person or the topic being discussed. That's Alinskyite behavior.
Any religious practice that violates the rights of other people, or involves criminal acts, is already banned by laws of various sorts. Just about everything the muslim sub-humans do that defines their so-called religion is already a crime of some sort.
The "Free Exercise" clause of the First Amendment does not give any religion or person the right to violate the rights of other people, nor to violate existing laws, nor to corrupt our legislative or judicial processes.
IANAL, but I'd guess the people and the states could easily show a "compelling interest" in the discussions of banning the muslim practices of beheading those with whom they disagree, or stoning women for getting raped, or killing those who leave islam for some other religion, or just plain old every-day-muslims-blowing-up-stuff-and-killing-people-just-because.
Here's a wiki summary of the Free Exercise Clause for you to read while you're thinking up your next round of name-calling.
Here's another fer-instance for you:
If a so-called Christian preacher wanted to handle rattlesnakes as part of his show, that would be his right. If he were to get bitten and die from the practice, that would be his choice, and I'd be just as happy as everyone else to wish him well in the afterlife.
Now, if this same idiot preacher were to toss rattlesnakes upon unwilling recipients, and some of them were to get bitten and die, then that would be murder, and I'd be just happy to see that idiot preacher properly tried and hanged for that/those crimes.
Additionally, should a growing epidemic of such idiot preachers start spreading across the land, similarly tossing the rattlesnakes upon unwilling recipients, then the people and the states would have a compelling interest in banning such practices, and sentencing the practitioners to confinement or exile some great and safe distance from functioning humans.
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.