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 ...
Between Rand Paul and Dick Cheney, I think I will go with Rand Paul.
We have lost and maimed enough heroes for WHAT? We have been meddling in countries that have no U.S. national security interest. Protect Israel, to hell with the rest of them. Bombs not boots, when necessary.
Lets see, we got secret judges making secret decisions and secret enforcement and only one side gets to present their case to them and 99% they win against no opposition. And under Obama.Search warrants have to be disclosed. They are limited in scope and duration. And if the police get a warrant to search my house they eventually have to leave it; they don't get to stand around watching just in case I later do something they don't like.
To be fair, these decisions are for the approximate equivalent of search warrants. I don't recall the target of a proposed search warrant ever being given the opportunity to show why it should not be granted.
I think I will stick with the 4th Amendment.
We already are. Our country is dying before our eyes.
Not sure if we will ever recover.
Screw cheney, he supports globalism, gay marriage, and amnesty.
Of course it is important to know what a Nation’s “Enemies” are up to.
The key word here is “Enemies”.
Spy on America’s “Enemies” all you want.
The NSA, IRS, EPA, DOJ, TSA, HSA, CIA, and other Harassment and Surveillance has been targeting AMERICAN CITIZENS, and for exercising their 1st and 2nd Amendment Rights.
My point was simply that the issuance of warrants has never been subject to contention by the object of the warrant.
Not that these warrants are a good or constitutional idea.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits “general warrants” as issued under the Crown. These warrants bear an uncomfortable resemblance.
“The Fourth Amendment prohibits “general warrants” as issued under the Crown. These warrants bear an uncomfortable resemblance.”
But its for your safety and the chilldruuun.
Latinos, should be a natural constituency for the party, Paul argued, but "Republicans have pushed them away with harsh rhetoric over immigration." ...he would create a bipartisan panel to determine how many visas should be granted for workers already in the United States and those who might follow... [and the buried lead] "Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers...[Posted on 04/21/2013 1:52:42 PM PDT by SoConPubbie]
...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]
Here's the passage at issue: In the 1980s, the war caucus in Congress armed bin Laden and the mujaheddin in their fight with the Soviet Union. In fact, it was the official position of the State Department to support radical jihad against the Soviets. We all know how well that worked out. Let's leave aside for now the insulting, utterly asinine, sickening, inexcusable use of the phrase "war caucus" to describe those (including Reagan!) who supported the mujaheddin against the Soviets. That word choice alone is almost entirely disqualifying for its purveyor to ever be president. Instead, let's just look at a little history here -- because the ignorance evident in this paragraph is truly astonishing. One would be hard pressed to find even a single historian, whether right, left, or center, who would argue anything other than that the Soviet failure in Afghanistan was not just a huge factor, but probably an essential one, in the Soviets' ultimate loss of the Cold War. The mujaheddin did much to help bleed the Soviets dry, at a comparatively negligible cost to the United States (for smuggled military hardware and some intelligence). "We all know how well that worked out," said Sen. Paul, dismissively, of the work of our "war caucus" to support the mujaheddin. Yes, we do: It played a key role in helping us win the Cold War. Anybody who doesn't understand that is either foolish or invincibly ignorant. Second, it is a myth that the United States "armed bin Laden." False, false, false. It is also a falsehood to say that bin Laden was a major player within the mujeheddin or in the anti-Soviet war effort at all. Finally, it is false even to say that the Afghani effort against the Soviets was primarily, or even largely, about "jihad." It was a defensive effort against armed invaders, not an offensive effort by "radicals" in the name of Allah.[Posted on 02/09/2013 7:33:41 AM PST by LSUfan]
If Ron Paul supporters wish to spam attack FR, our members, our Commander-in-Chief, our war effort, etc, please feel free to do it elsewhere. Antiwar activism is no more welcome on FR than is abortion activism, gay rights activism, gun control activism or any other leftist/socialist cause.[Posted on 10/23/2007 10:41:04 PM PDT Jim Robinson]
The problem for the government here is the difference between intelligence gathering and criminal investigation.
Intelligence gathering by definition requires looking at an enormous mass of material to determine which of it requires more careful observation. Look at the criticism of the government after 9/11 for not having prevented the attacks. The only way they could conceivably have done so is by separating the signal of the attackers plot out of a nearly infinite amount of background noise.
I suspect a major reason why the NSA is looking at “everything,” is political correctness. Somewhat similar to searching everybody by the TSA.
Can’t focus on the more likely dangers, that would be profiling. So they are forced to gather data on everybody if they want to have data on the real threats.
Not saying they’re right in doing so, just that this is the dynamic at work.
Yeah, he’s king of the chickenhawks. Lieberman is Queen. Honorable mention goes to Frank Gaffney. He makes McCain look like a pacifist and he also got five deferments. And don’t forget Bolton.
In protecting his daughter, Dick is overlooking the purpose of the spying. Perhaps had the Republicans been as willing as their counterparts to use their intelligence gathering to fix the news and the elections we wouldn’t have had the current government mess.
He who controls the information and the information providers has some latitude in how the world runs.
You gotta be kidding me! Every one of the abuses & overreach by 0dumb0 were put in place by pandering dumb ass GW Bush and Dick Cheney. Ben Franklin described it accurately when he said those who sacrifice freedom for security, end up with neither. That's exactly where we are today. The NSA has not protected us from ANY terrorist threats or attacks. In fact they couldn't even protect us from the Boston Marathon bombers with all sorts of warnings posted about them.
You would rather go with NWO, CFR, pro-homo, pro-lesbian, pro-gay marriage, pro gubmint intrusion, pro-Islam "religion of peace", anti-TEA Party, anti-Christian, anti-conservative, Dick Cheney.
I would rather go with conservative Libertarian Rand Paul in a heart beat!
" We have to bug your granny's phone, your daughter's phone, your phone and your wife's phone...just in case you might be a terrorist.
Then, and only then, we will let you blow up Boston at your digression.
discretion.. but I digress.
And you muffed it. Completely. Whether it was incompetence, Saudi and Kuwaiti influence buying, or simply lack of willpower, you screwed the pooch, throwing thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars down the rathole.
So just shut up and go away.
I think I will go with the Constitution.
One of the problems with Cheney’s view is that it is somewhat hypocritical. The government is not doing much spying on the bad guys. All this is being used to control us. The preparations are against us. The people profiled are us. The people targeted for harassment are us.
And so on, ad nauseum.
Outside the country, the same government is supporting & funding terrorists. Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood. “Negotiations” with the Taliban. How long before Obozo starts funding the Taliban? Not as far fetched as one would think.
Thats possible but I don’t think so. They are doing this because they can. They now have the technology and the (unconstitutional) authority to do this. They sit back and build a case that they might be able to find an enemy this way and of course it fits into Bam bams agenda.
Its how govts and people in positions of power have always functioned when they don’t have any controls.
BTW FU NSA
Yep, still sticking with Rand.
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.