maybe this is the ticket for the English , to invade Ireland all over again... let's face it , they have it coming , with BONO'er beeing all uppety about peace and ****...

Bono's a girly man. Probably doesn't even own 30 or 40 guns.

I'm having an extesential crisis ... I just can't figure how to bomb all those Muslims that could turn to terror as a tool of radical Islam. They're all over the place!!!

Then there's this 14 year old kid in my neighborhood of Middle Eastern ancestry ... should I kill him now? If I don't kill him now how my gonna know if and when he goes over to the dark side?

This is all so confusing ... not like good ol' WWII, where the enemy had a head that could be cut off. Why can't I make this war like WWII?

Then I wouldn't have to change tactics at all ...

14 you say?? you might need some heavy weaponry man...

http://www.fluency.paintedtarget.org...ad_tremors.jpg

I probably shoulda whacked him last year ...

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1155222923.jpg

The question is how do we stop creating these terrorists, right? That is the question.....?......?

I mean we wouldn't have to fight them if we never made them in the first place. This looks like sum dat "root cause analcyst" you guys were talking about earlier.

dunno man , Burt dit manage to clip the Graboids himself
Tony on the other hand, he delegates...

What is this moronic obsession with the illegality of warrantless searches? What fool believes that such searches are de facto illegal in the United States? What lawyer worth his salt would even imply such a belief.

Here's a brief review for the civil libertarians that view the law as an a la carte menu, from which you can choose not only what is "right", but what even exists. Now those anti-Bush fetishists who try to gussy animus as principle, pay especially close attention, b/c this will be linked to in the future, whenever the you continue the hackneyed shrieks implying de facto illegality of warrantless searches.

There are powers, long recognized under federal law, to, inter alia:

Detain American citizens for investigative purposes without a warrant;

Arrest American citizens, based on probable cause, without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the person of an American citizen who has been detained, with or without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the home of an American citizen in order to secure the premises while a warrant is being obtained;

Conduct a warrantless search of, and seize, items belonging to American citizens that are displayed in plain view and that are obviously criminal or dangerous in nature;

Conduct a warrantless search of anything belonging to an American citizen under exigent circumstances if considerations of public safety make obtaining a warrant impractical;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's home and belongings if another person, who has apparent authority over the premises, consents;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's car anytime there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or any evidence of a crime;

Conduct a warrantless search of any closed container inside the car of an American citizen if there is probable cause to search the car — regardless of whether there is probable cause to search the container itself;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property apparently abandoned by an American citizen;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property of an American citizen that has lawfully been seized in order to create an inventory and protect police from potential hazards or civil claims;

Conduct a warrantless search — including a strip search — at the border of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search at the border of the baggage and other property of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search of any American citizen seeking to enter a public building;

Conduct a warrantless search of random Americans at police checkpoints established for public-safety purposes (such as to detect and discourage drunk driving);

Conduct warrantless monitoring of common areas frequented by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens and their vessels on the high seas;

Conduct warrantless monitoring of any telephone call or conversation of an American citizen as long as one participant in the conversation has consented to the monitoring;

Conduct warrantless searches of junkyards maintained by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of docks maintained by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of bars or nightclubs owned by American citizens to police underage drinking;

Conduct warrantless searches of auto-repair shops operated by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of the books of American gem dealers in order to discourage traffic in stolen goods;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens working in government, emergency services, the transportation industry, and nuclear plants;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens who are school officials;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens who are school students; and

Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens who are on bail, probation or parole.

Thanks to Andrew McCarthy for the foregoing. He neglected, however to mention the long-established "inherent authority" of the president to "conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information," recognized by federal appeals courts and assumed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review in 2002.

So, here is a sampling of that subject matter for those with blunted jurisprudence, agendas that blind to fact, or both:

"This fact is amply borne out by history. This Nation has a long tradition of wartime enemy surveillance—a tradition that can be traced to George Washington, who made frequent and effective use of secret intelligence. One source of Washington’s intelligence was intercepted British mail. See Central Intelligence Agency, Intelligence in the War of Independence 31, 32 (1997). In fact, Washington himself proposed that one of his Generals “contrive a means of opening [British letters] without breaking the seals, take copies of the contents, and then let them go on.” Id. at 32 (“From that point on, Washington was privy to British intelligence pouches between New York and Canada.”). And for as long as electronic communications have existed, the United States has intercepted those communications during wartime, and done so, not surprisingly, without judicial warrants. In the Civil War, for example, telegraph wiretapping was common and provided important intelligence for both sides. In World War I, President Wilson authorized the military to intercept all telegraph, telephone, and cable communications into and out of the United States; he inferred the authority to do so from the Constitution and from a general congressional authorization to use military force that did not mention anything about such surveillance. See Exec. Order No. 2604 (Apr. 28, 1917). So too in World War II; the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt authorized the interception of all communications traffic into and out of the United States. The terrorist surveillance program, of course, is far more focused, since it involves the interception only of international communications that are linked to al Qaeda." Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, 2/6/2006

And before the wet-diaper-dance crowd gets all "convenient Republican justification for Bush" on me (which isn't even an argument):

On July 14, 1994 President Clinton's Deputy Attorney General and later 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that “The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes…and that the president may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.” This “inherent authority” was used to search the home of CIA traitor Aldrich Ames without a warrant. "It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."

Clinton and Carter both authorized their respective Attorneys General to perform warrantless searches for purposes of foreign intelligence threats.

Check here for more on the bipartisan nature of warrantless searches in connection with foreign intelligence.

Oh, also, we have a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, awareness of the existence of which probably didn't fit in between pro bono ACLU clinics.

In 2002, in Re Sealed Case No. 02-001, for example, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review examined all the significant appellate decisions. They noted all the Federal courts of appeal having looked at the issue had concluded that there was such constitutional power. Furthermore, if there was such power, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power......

So, continue the benighted whiner's disinformation campaign that every search requires a warrant or that warrantless searches -- ESPECIALLY in the context of foreign intelligence -- are de facto illegal. But know that we know that henceforth, you're not merely an ignorant political hack, you are lying, plain and simple.

JP

Well said [ofcourse].

You may be overpaid, but you're no slacker. Nice compilation of irrelevant garbage.

Killer rebuttal!:rolleyes:

it was quite accurate though

No daddy. The question is how do we confront and defeat the forces of radical Islam?

PART of the solution involves killing bad guys.
PART of the solution involves engaging moderate Muslim leaders to speak out.
PART of the solution involves not doing things against our interests that radicalize more Muslims.
PART of the solution involves offering alternatives to disaffected young people.
PART of the solution involves protection and prevention.

When you get off your WWII analogy, lots of possibilities open up.

Mark my words dear friends: I can predict that the war with Iran is coming very soon. The 11 vanished egyptian students and the twarted airline bombing plot are psyops analogous to 9/11 followed by the anthrax scare. The goal of these events is to prepare the public opinion for attacking Iran, as it will be perceived as defense rather than attack. My guess is that the Iran war will start by the end of August. Form there, things will degrade into WWIII when Russia and China take sides. We are in for a rough ride in the next 5-6 years. This is my gut feeling, and I`d rather post it and be wrong than keep it for me and be right. Now, you can call me a tin foil hat nut if you wish...

Aurel

Easy. Overrule the Constitutional protections on equal protection and liberty as they relate to religious beliefs and immutable characteristics. Then, start racial profiling starting with religious secs. These terrorists are protected from identification under the liberal interpretations of our own Constitution.

You are a tin foil hat nut! :D

Thanks pbs. I think THAT is what we are being prepared for.

I am ready. You want to protect your way of life here in the USA? You don't have anything to hide?

Sit down, strap in, hold on and shut the f up.

Crap. I'm with Rodeo on most of this. I'd say that the first PART is at least the sum of the others, however.

If anybody cares enough, I'll find the link for the info I'm about to set forth... essentially the view of a majority of Islamofascists is apocalyptic; and no where more so than Iran. A tenet of education in Iranian textbooks is the notion that there HAS to be a conflict, and either the infidels (even the Canadians) are converted ... and Islam wins, or there's a world wide apocalypse ... killing everyone, and since Muslims get their rewards, Islam wins.
Pardon the oversimplification, but it does boil down to that. If you disagree, just assume for a moment that it does. In that case, there is no "root cause" to address, and there is no disincentive (such as mutually assured destruction we "enjoyed" with the Soviets b/c the "Russians Loved Their Children Too...") to prevent holocaust.

We die, they win. They die, trying to kill or convert us, they win.

Killing the proponents of this death cult is the surest path to relative peace and safety.

I'm chewing on another thread topic right now... that militant Islam or Islamofascism is not a religion and does not deserve the rights, privileges, protections and deference we liberal (lowercase l) westerners allow for religion. I'll put it up in a few days. I first wanted to research some of the definitional games our legislators and courts have played with "religion" and "religious activities."

lendaddy -
If I'd received anything other than blithe dismissal of counterfactual information, I'd have fallen out of my chair. In fact, I enjoyed what essentially amounts to "Facts are stupid things" as a "riposte."

I doubt Rodeo read the whole thing, and moreso that the esteemed American jurist in Rotterdam plodded all the way through what he'd decided was garbage early on. Margaritas ante Porcos. Mea Maxima Culpa

JP

I fear a wider war as well ... it's one of the reasons I am so dispirited being bogged down in Iraq.

We are woefully unprepared in the face of grave threats. Criminally unprepared in equipment, manpower and money.

The longer we stay in Iraq, giving our resources away to a foreign nation that hates us, the worse it gets.

See, I am already right about that...and I know I am right about the rest too ;)

Aurel

I agree with Aurel, it is a matter of time.