Third state jumps on the impeachment bandwagon. And this might stick!

[DaveE]

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
I have nothing to hide from Hillary, if she were to overhear me plotting to kill thousands of people, then maybe.

Do all surveillance camera's require a federal warrant? What is the difference?

I think you are intentionally taking the most simplistic viewpoint. The spying can be about ANYTHING if there is no warrant, no accountability. One could spy on their political enemies for example. It no longer has to be about terrorism when you don't have to explain why to a judge.

Surveillance cameras are generally used in public places or else warrants have been neccessary. I don't like them but they have been approved by COURTS.

[Rick Lee]

I much rather have Dick Cheney as president. He's far more of a real conservative than Bush and better yet, he probably irritates liberals more than Bush does, to boot.

[Tim Hancock]

Originally posted by Rick Lee
I much rather have Dick Cheney as president. He's far more of a real conservative than Bush and better yet, he probably irritates liberals more than Bush does, to boot.

+1

[Jim Richards]

NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by speeder
I honestly think that we would have been better off w/ no govt. at all then these last 6 years. They rode in on a fraudulent election, allowed the biggest terrorist attack in history to occur under their noses, started a war under false pretenses and looted the US treasury while making their friends a lot richer. All while convincing a percentage of voters, (at one time fairly large), that they were competent and looking out for the country's interests.

Murderous, thieving dictators in Africa and Latin America will have pictures of W and Cheney on their walls for generations as heros of an impossible ideal that they can never achieve as criminals.

Well said Denis.

I can't wait to get my country back!

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by DaveE
I think you are intentionally taking the most simplistic viewpoint. The spying can be about ANYTHING if there is no warrant, no accountability. One could spy on their political enemies for example. It no longer has to be about terrorism when you don't have to explain why to a judge.

There seems to be some strange mental block on this rather simple and logical point.

As for the "let em' tap my phone and read my mail, I have nothing to hide" contingent, perhaps you would be more comfortable in another country.

Try China for starters, if you don't feel safe enough there, there's always North Korea.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Rick Lee
I much rather have Dick Cheney as president. He's far more of a real conservative than Bush and better yet, he probably irritates liberals more than Bush does, to boot.

If that were to happen, we'd have a Democratic sweep in the elections that followed.

Last time I saw Cheney's approval rating, it was 18%.

[Rick Lee]

Yeah Rodeo, North Korea is a great comparison - concentration camps, imprisoning three generations of one's family for minor infractions, EVERYONE is watched, millions starve, human experiments, basically unimagineable horrors, so bad that SK (and plenty of others) even wants them covered up so as not to be embarrassed for doing nothing about them. Yeah, that's just he we live here now. Go take your meds, Rodeo.

[Tim Hancock]

At this time in history, trying to gather intel from suspected or possible ME terrorists is a necessity if we want to have a chance at limiting future 9/11 type attacks on our soil. Closing your eyes and tapping your feet 3 times will not help deterr another attack.

I feel much better viewing this from a "simple" point of view as opposed to a stupid point of view Rodehard.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Rick Lee
Yeah Rodeo, North Korea is a great comparison - concentration camps, imprisoning three generations of one's family for minor infractions, EVERYONE is watched, millions starve, human experiments, basically unimagineable horrors, so bad that SK (and plenty of others) even wants them covered up so as not to be embarrassed for doing nothing about them. Yeah, that's just he we live here now. Go take your meds, Rodeo.

But its SAFE! No terrorist attacks, ever. That's the most important thing right?

[Rick Lee]

Originally posted by techweenie
If that were to happen, we'd have a Democratic sweep in the elections that followed.

Last time I saw Cheney's approval rating, it was 18%.

Don't be so sure. Cheney would act like a real conservative and energize Republican voters, maybe even inject some spine into the Congressional leadership. As it is, Dems are gonna do very well this November because Bush is just an almost-conservative and so Republicans will almost come out and vote. That won't cut it.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
At this time in history, trying to gather intel from suspected or possible ME terrorists is a necessity if we want to have a chance at limiting future 9/11 type attacks on our soil. Closing your eyes and tapping your feet 3 times will not help deterr another attack.

I feel much better viewing this from a "simple" point of view as opposed to a stupid point of view Rodehard.

Slight revision. You guys keep fogetting the important stuff!!

At this time in history, trying to gather intel WITHOUT A WARRANT OR ANY ACCOUNTABILITY from suspected or possible ME terrorists OR ANYONE ELESE THE PRESIDENT DECIDES TO SPY ONE is a necessity if we want to have a chance at limiting future 9/11 type attacks on our soil.

[Rick Lee]

Originally posted by Rodeo
But its SAFE! No terrorist attacks, ever. That's the most important thing right?

No, it's not even close to safe. The state is one giant terrorist entity, inflicting gross abuses on its populace. The entire country is a penal colony. I'd take an occasional al Qaeda hit any day over daily life in NK.

Go take those meds.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
At this time in history, trying to gather intel from suspected or possible ME terrorists is a necessity if we want to have a chance at limiting future 9/11 type attacks on our soil. Closing your eyes and tapping your feet 3 times will not help deterr another attack.

I'd rather risk another attack than live in a police state.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Rick Lee
No, it's not even close to safe. The state is one giant terrorist entity, inflicting gross abuses on its populace. The entire country is a penal colony. I'd take an occasional al Qaeda hit any day over daily life in NK.

Go take those meds.

Oh .... I thought it was all about safety. Now you seem to be talking about human rights and civil liberties. I thought those were expendable, so long as we stop terrorist attacks.

Get your story straight or I'l have to start taking meds to keep up with you.

[Rick Lee]

Rodeo, I know you know better than this. NK's #1 concern in the world is the survival of the state (the Kim dynasty) at all costs. Pretty sure you won't love Bush for this, but I think his #1 concern is national (not to be confused with state) security.

[Jim Richards]

RL, I agree with you; however, B2 could do this using legal means, or press Congress to make necessary changes to the law to give him a more agile means to legally accomplish national security.

Rodeo, you might want to avoid the immediate jump to extreme points when arguing your case.

[914GT]

Originally posted by Rodeo
When did "conservatism" get so upside down that it embraces government intrusion into our private lives? That it not only tolerates but welcomes secret monitoring of our communications with others?

Small price to pay? Our constitution is a small price to pay for safety? All I can say is WOW!

How about the government paying the "small price" and getting a warrant before doing all this? How about, let's not trust the government, let's have checks and balances?

This is how totalitarian states get off the ground I suppose. Peope get scared and give them too much power.

Are you really that scared that you will tear down the checks and balances that have served America for over 200 years? So they don't have to spend a few minutes getting a warrant?

Warrantless surveillance totally inside the United States violates the fourth amendment, except in limited cases. What we are talking about are warrantless surveillance of communications to persons outside of the United States. In my opinion, the government has every right to monitor all enemy communications including those to/from individuals inside the country. It's no different than checking people at customs or inspecting packages by mail. Do you complain that your rights are violated if the postal service inspects your package from South America? Do you complain if the customs agent inspects the trunk of your car when you drive back from Canada or Mexico? Why doesn't that concern you as a government intrusion also?

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Rick Lee
Rodeo, I know you know better than this. NK's #1 concern in the world is the survival of the state (the Kim dynasty) at all costs. Pretty sure you won't love Bush for this, but I think his #1 concern is national (not to be confused with state) security.

I don't know what either Kim's or Bush's No. 1 priority is. I know that mine is to stay safe while preserving the constitution and rule of law.

In terms of spying on US Citizens, it's not that hard. You go get a warrant and spy all you want.

Some people think this minor check, this almost inconsequential action of permitting accountability and oversight, invites a terrorist attack. They won't say why or how, though. Perhaps you'd like to give it a shot?

How does obtaining a warrant make us less safe from a terrorist attack?

[speeder]

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
At this time in history, trying to gather intel from suspected or possible ME terrorists is a necessity if we want to have a chance at limiting future 9/11 type attacks on our soil. Closing your eyes and tapping your feet 3 times will not help deterr another attack.

I feel much better viewing this from a "simple" point of view as opposed to a stupid point of view Rodehard.

The disconcerting thing in all of these discussions of current policy is the premise that there are only 2 courses of action possible;

A) The current, absolutely failed and ridiculously expensive policies of GWB and his puppet masters, or,

B) We do nothing at all.

Like there are no other viable options, and if you do not support Bush policies you are in favor of further terrorist attacks. And that our current course of action is protecting us from terrorists around the world. You seriously consider that an honest debate??