Comments on: War Without Warrants & Subpoenas

By: The Protestant Pub

The Protestant Pub — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:41:51 +0000

Strata-Sphere: War Without Warrants &#38; Subpoenas
I have a question. Why in Muhammad&#8217;s name is our government not getting warrants to enter Iraq and Afghanistan?
What? We&#8217;re at war?
Oh&#8230;THAT EXPLAINS IT!
Actually, this explains it better:

War Without Warrants &#38; Subpoenas

To al…

By: William Oliver

William Oliver — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 13:26:52 +0000

No, you are sticking to an assertion. It is merely an assertion, even if stated with absolute certainty. There are people who state with absolute certainty the “fact” that the earth is flat. Further, in contradiction to your claim, there are lots of well-qualified lawyers who have stated that the President has overstepped his authority.

In fact, you contradict yourself. You state that it’s a “fact,” yet you move on to acknowledge that you do not have a clue what the Supreme Court will have to say on the matter when it comes to them.

Flippant disdain for civil liberties is not the hallmark of a free society.

By: The Uncooperative Blogger

The Uncooperative Blogger — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 19:15:20 +0000

I will stick to the facts, my comment as stated is correct. In fact, no one that knows the law is arguing that what I just said is not completely accurate. I cannot tell you one day to the next how SCOTUS will decide anything. See the Kelo decision and Medical Marijuana and try and make sense of those rulings. I can only tell you that the Executive Branch does have the right to intercept international calls as long as the U.S. citizen is not the target. Also, nothing discovered about the U.S. Citizen can be used in court without a warrant.

If you don’t want the government to listen in on your calls, do not talk to a terrorist overseas.

If you are overseas and you don’t want to get blown up, don’t dine with terrorists

By: William Oliver

William Oliver — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 18:48:22 +0000

Well, unless you happen to have a line to the Supreme Court that I don’t know about, your assertion is pretty much that — just an assertion. I can just as easily assert that he does not have the constitutional responsibility to do so, but instead has the constitutional responsibility to respect the civil liberties of the citizens of the US. You seem to forget that the primary concern of the Founders was *limiting* the power of the executive branch, not *increasing* it.

Further, of course, regardless of what the Supremes decide, it has nothing to do with whether it is ultimately right or wrong. Unless, of course you want to start justifying random seizures of property on the basis of Kelo, or claim that slavery was a good thing until the 14th amendment was passed.

There’s an old saying among lawyers that if your client is innocent, plead the facts and if he is guilty argue the law. The same is true of these abuses of power. If you can’t justify it on the basis of the basic principles of the founding of this nation, argue that it doesn’t matter because it’s legal.

Lots of dictators in the past have justified their excesses on the basis that they got laws passed to make it “legal.” That is not, and never has been, an excuse. And its not an excuse for excesses in today’s society either.

By: The Uncooperative Blogger

The Uncooperative Blogger — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 01:45:01 +0000

The President has the constitutional responsibility to perform these intercepts and he does not need anyones approval in the context I explained earlier. Fers, and civil liberty concerns have no standing. ONLY if he used this EXCLUSIVELY domestically would there be a problem.

By: William Oliver

William Oliver — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:36:31 +0000

Well, apostle, you are certainly welcome to your opinion. But you have to realize that your opinion ignores 200 years of American history, where the government has consistently abused its power in this manner. I would challenge you to point to that halcyon era of American history where politicians did not do so.

Early America? No. Remember the Sedition Acts?

War Between the States? No.

World War I? No.

World War II? No.

Cold War? No.

Vietnam? No.

Civil Rights era? No.

Can’t blame the ACLU for all of those. The truism remains that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We established limits on government for a good reason.

By: apostle

apostle — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 10:55:12 +0000

I disagree. I don’t believe that just because its the government that it will inevitably use the act to violate my civil liberties. Sure, in the hands of Hillary that could be a problem. But the problem wouldn’t be Hillary tapping my phone, it would be the ACLU and other leftists not investigating. Remember, this is an attack on Bush. It is strictly political. You will never convince any logical American that it is anything but. If a liberal president were to tap my phone no one would make a peep.

By: William Oliver

William Oliver — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:53:32 +0000

The problem is that the government traditionally does not limit its use of such things to “the war.” A good example is the Patriot Act, which is sold as an anti-terrorism act, but is used primarily in general law enforcement that has nothing to do with terrorism.

People seem to forget the reason we put these limits on surveillance and intrusion — because it was grossly misused in the past. There is no reason to believe that it will not be misued now.

Sure, we all love President Bush and know he will never allow it to be used wrongly. But how about President Hillary Clinton? How about President Kerry, or President Gore?

What amusing is to see all the people who were appalled by the “Know your Customer” policies the Clinton administration tried to put in place, now embrace essentially the same provisions.

By: Rev. Thomas S. Painter (R)

Rev. Thomas S. Painter (R) — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:01:28 +0000

Wikipedia Coverup! ACLU Admin vs Anti-Communist "Vandals"!

By: The Uncooperative Blogger

The Uncooperative Blogger — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:57:30 +0000

As portrayed, the act is completely legal. As long as the target of the eavesdropping is overseas the President needs no warrant. Let’s keep in mind that they are targeting known terrorists or groups that support them OVERSEAS. They cannot use anything against the U.S. side against them.

If you don’t want people listening in, don’t talk to terrorist!