President Bush

[editor]

Admitting a wrong doing does not make it right. If a child admits to his parents that he disobeyed them even after he was lectured not to do something he would most likely still be punished

I didn't say it made it right. I said it was a start. Re-read the thread.

The rest of your comment reminds me of cherry trees and a certain Master Washington.

[TJones]

Yep. The USSR kept their population in line because they feared they were being watched. We all know what a wonderful place that was.

That's the beauty part, you think the government couldn't watch you if they wanted too ? I am not trying to throw away your rights west, I would fight for your rights and I don't even know you. Your rights effect my rights, they are all OUR rights. I don't like the idea that they have listening devices that can be used anywhere, and you wouldn't know it. I am just saying that if you are a law abiding citizen, you have nothing to worry about. You want to turn a blind eye to the reality that if the Gov. wants you, they are gonna get you, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. You know this , right ?

BTW, where is Mr.Johncoby, he makes an unfounded statement, to get everyone in here, then he vanishes ? So, johnnyboy, where exactly in his speech today was Bush crying for help, where did he admit to wrongdoing ? Better get your facts together chief !

Edited December 20, 2005 by TJones

[editor]

Call it whatever you want. It takes an act of congress to declare war.

Here's your act of congress from October, 2002.

It was a declared war. I think the only undeclared "police action" was Vietnam.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Here's your act of congress from October, 2002.

It was a declared war. I think the only undeclared "police action" was Vietnam.

Editor, with all due respect to you and to everyone in this thread, I think it's fair to say that as a whole, we ALL (including myself) have our facts mixed up. There's almost no way to fairly debate this subject without knowing the facts, but face it, all of us in HAIF, as well as most of America are debating what's fact and what's fiction even more than what's right or wrong. I'm confused 100% as to what happened now. I didn't even have knowledge of an Act of Congress until you had that link. We're debating why we went to war, when I thought the Bush administration abundantly made it clear with Colin Powell in the U.N. meetings why they thought Sadaam's regime was a threat. Hard evidence. Turns out the evidence was faulty. The wire-tapping scandal is brand new news, and there may be more to THAT story because it's brand new.

I think we all just have to step back, look at the big picture, get our facts straight and AGREE on them before we end up having a HAIF Civil War on something. Prior to the war, there were so many media people suggesting that "for the troops sake", if you're against the war, shut up, and boycott France because they didn't believe what they saw at the U.N. Now America looks foolish because France was apparently right. Lets not debate something unless there's something we can all agree is the truth first...

[nmainguy]

Here's your act of congress from October, 2002.

It was a declared war. I think the only undeclared "police action" was Vietnam.

The last time Congress formally declared war was in December 1941.

Only Congress can declare war.

[gardenoaksguy]

That's the beauty part, you think the government couldn't watch you if they wanted too ? I am not trying to throw away your rights west, I would fight for your rights and I don't even know you. Your rights effect my rights, they are all OUR rights. I don't like the idea that they have listening devices that can be used anywhere, and you wouldn't know it. I am just saying that if you are a law abiding citizen, you have nothing to worry about. You want to turn a blind eye to the reality that if the Gov. wants you, they are gonna get you, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. You know this , right ?

BTW, where is Mr.Johncoby, he makes an unfounded statement, to get everyone in here, then he vanishes ? So, johnnyboy, where exactly in his speech today was Bush crying for help, where did he admit to wrongdoing ? Better get your facts together chief !

Believe me, I wouldn't want you to try to protect my rights....you don't value your own. You are lucky there are still some people who do watch out for your rights. Without them, you would have none. Are you too young to have ever had the advantage of taking middle school civics class? It is all of our responsibility to keep our government in check, not to make excuses for bad behavior. I don't care who in the past has done this or that...that is no excuse for now. What a lame ass argument.

[TJones]

Believe me, I wouldn't want you to try to protect my rights....you don't value your own. You are lucky there are still some people who do watch out for your rights. Without them, you would have none. Are you too young to have ever had the advantage of taking middle school civics class? It is all of our responsibility to keep our government in check, not to make excuses for bad behavior. I don't care who in the past has done this or that...that is no excuse for now. What a lame ass argument.

I said I would protect west's right anyways, never said anything about yours. You are assuming that our Pres. has done something wrong, you need to go read your constitution again pal. So, explain to me what exactly we need to keep in check at this point Mr.Civics ?

Edited December 20, 2005 by TJones

[Jeebus]

Gotta watch 'dem Quakers who knows what there putting in them oats. I'll let you in on a little secret. The government is wise to them subversive pacifist Quakers. As we speak the President's mother has infiltrated their front Oat organization as there spokesperson.

You seem content to take a stranger at his word. How do you know they're really Quakers, just because you read in in the newspaper? How reliable is that? When have you ever met anyone up to no good, just come out and be honest about it? I'm not saying they're not innocent Quakers - but out of 275 million citizens, they drew the attention of the government.

Believe me, I wouldn't want you to try to protect my rights....you don't value your own. You are lucky there are still some people who do watch out for your rights. Without them, you would have none. Are you too young to have ever had the advantage of taking middle school civics class? It is all of our responsibility to keep our government in check, not to make excuses for bad behavior. I don't care who in the past has done this or that...that is no excuse for now. What a lame ass argument.

You're being a zealot. TJones does value his freedom, but at the same time he realizes at what price he must pay for it. You're right that it is our job to keep the government in check, but subversion, anarchy, and dissidence is not how.

But hey, you keep screaming - you're just diverting all the attention from all the rest of us normal people.

[nmainguy]

You seem content to take a stranger at his word. How do you know they're really Quakers...

You seem to be the only person anywhere that questions the Quaker's religious orientation.

Has anyone read about anyone else questioning the Quaker's religious orientation?

[TJones]

You seem to be the only person anywhere that questions the Quaker's religious orientation.

Has anyone read about anyone else questioning the Quaker's religious orientation?

, ^ explain please, you know I'm just a bumpkin like ol'George.

[nmainguy]

, ^ explain please, you know I'm just a bumpkin like ol'George.

Ref: post #64.

[HeightsGuy]

I haven't really weighed in here, but I would like to. I think the President has the right to do this based on the precedent that was set with the Patriot Act. Bush has done nothing wrong or impeachable IMO. Personally however, I think it's a misguided policy. The shout-downs we are getting that Time is helping the enemy by publicly announcing this is ludachris. C'mon, even stupid stoner high school kids know better than to talk about buying dimebags on the phone, who in their right mind thinks anything useful has ever been said by the enemy over a telephone line?

[Gary]

Although I generally stay out of these discussions, I can't understand why some seem to be blind to the fact that both parties are corrupt.

I'm not a Bush fan, but let's at least be honest with one another and understand that our country needs heavy political reformation on both sides.

Edited December 20, 2005 by Gary

[Jeebus]

You seem to be the only person anywhere that questions the Quaker's religious orientation.

Has anyone read about anyone else questioning the Quaker's religious orientation?

I'm not questioning the Quaker's religious orientation. I'm questioning whether the man is in fact a true Quaker as he claims to be. Questioning his religious orientation would consist of me asking what religion he practices versus that of what he claims. Either way, everyone here seems content to just assume that because a man told a newspaper that he is a Quaker, then he by no means be a dissident of any type.

A man claims that he is doing nothing wrong, and that he is a Quaker. Does this mean the government must drop the investigation because he's a religious man? There's no way a man of religion could ever do anything bad - right?

He's hiding behind religion which, per any other situation, should have no merit when investigated by the government. If not, then anyone can hide behind religion. I'm not saying that the man was up to no go or not - but for everyone here to say: "Oh, well.. he was a Quaker. I'm sure he was doing nothing wrong because he is a Quaker.." is just naive.

[dbigtex56]

I thought the following would be helpful to all involved to properly frame any further discussion.

It's a letter from F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman, and John Conyers, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives to John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States:

Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:

As the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, it is our responsibility to conduct oversight of the Department of Justice’s efforts to combat terrorism, which includes implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act (“Act”) signed into law by President Bush on October 26, 2001....Please respond to the following questions:

Link to full text of letter

What? You read the whole thing already?

riiiight......

The point I'm making is that even with all these bewildering new powers (which even the people we elect don't fully understand) that Bush admits that he approves of exceeding them, and his supporters defend his actions.

Our own Sen. Cornyn was on TV the other night, trying to explain this away because "After 9-11, it's a different world." No, Senator. The terrorists didn't empower you to revoke the Constitution. Just because we're "at war" doesn't give anyone - even the President - the right to break the law. The wiretaps were done without judicial oversight, which is spelled out in the Patriot Act.

And what puzzles me is that breaking the law seems so unnecessary. It didn't make us one iota safer. They didn't get information which they otherwise would have been denied. It's the equivalent of the administration flipping the public the bird, and seeing if anyone notices...or cares.

And apparently a lot of people don't.

[nmainguy]

I'm not questioning the Quaker's religious orientation.

I'm questioning whether the man is in fact a true Quaker as he claims to be.

Questioning his religious orientation would consist of me asking what religion he practices versus that of what he claims. Either way, everyone here seems content to just assume that because a man told a newspaper that he is a Quaker, then he by no means be a dissident of any type.

A man claims that he is doing nothing wrong, and that he is a Quaker. Does this mean the government must drop the investigation because he's a religious man? There's no way a man of religion could ever do anything bad - right?

He's hiding behind religion which, per any other situation, should have no merit when investigated by the government. If not, then anyone can hide behind religion. I'm not saying that the man was up to no go or not - but for everyone here to say: "Oh, well.. he was a Quaker. I'm sure he was doing nothing wrong because he is a Quaker.." is just naive.

"I'm not questioning the Quaker's religious orientation."

Of couse you are; in fact you question whether they are Quakers at all:

"How do you know they're really Quakers..."

but then you say:

"I'm not saying they're not innocent Quakers..."

It sounds like you don't even know what you think.

Re-read the article. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/bro...mostemailedlink

No one is hiding. No one is claiming many of these people are not Quakers. Quite the contrary. Pointing out that many of these people are Quakers only shows how absurd the DOD's surveillance is. Don't they have enough to do prosecuting the war than spying on clearly harmless Americans?

Being naive would be assuming Bush is a practicing Methodist-as he claims to be-yet holds parts of the Dicipline in distain-as he clearly does.

The Hypocrite in Cheif needs to keep his focus on things other than spying on Americans.

[RedScare]

I don't care if they are Quakers or not. That has nothing to do with why the DOD investigating American citizens is wrong.

But, a person who says, "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about", would not understand my point anyway.

[editor]

The last time Congress formally declared war was in December 1941.

Only Congress can declare war.

Splitting hairs, but here's a great page to show you that you're right.

The last time Congress issued a formal war declaration was June 5, 1942.

The last time Congress approved an American military engagement was October 16, 2002.

Either way -- Congress approved it. In the case of the current war, the vote was 77-23 in the Senate, and 296-133 in the House.

[Jeebus]

Of couse you are; in fact you question whether they are Quakers at all:

but then you say:

It sounds like you don't even know what you think.

God your dense. Here is my original statement:

You seem content to take a stranger at his word. How do you know they're really Quakers, just because you read in in the newspaper? How reliable is that? When have you ever met anyone up to no good, just come out and be honest about it? I'm not saying they're not innocent Quakers - but out of 275 million citizens, they drew the attention of the government.

Now, do you see anywhere in there where I'm questioning a Quaker's religious orientation? No. Now, I do question whether he is even a Quaker or not - but I don't question what religion, as a Quaker, he practices. Yes, that is what you accused me of asking - not whether the man was a certain religion or not (Quaker), but rather what religion he practiced.

Just in case you didn't get that.. Let's just say (since this would be the most common application of the term "orientation") that the press said Gay, instead of Quaker. I questioned if the man was even Gay (Quaker) to begin with. You accused me of questioning what the "Gay's" (Quaker) sexual (religious) orientation was. No, I was not asking if the man was Quaker but practiced Catholicism.

Hey, you made the accusatory statement.

I don't care if they are Quakers or not. That has nothing to do with why the DOD investigating American citizens is wrong.

But, a person who says, "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about", would not understand my point anyway.

I agree. The man claiming to be with a group of Quakers should have nothing to do with a government investigation. I also agree that the more serious matter is the government illegally spying on us.

I still say, if you have nothing to hide, then don't worry. Why? Because if they want to get you - they will, innocent or guilty. So why get ulcers over something you cannot control? Its all part of the privilage of living here. Well, I see it as a privilage to live here. I guess some see it as a risk?

[west20th]

Jeebus. Why don't you move to some country with a totalitarion regime. I'm sure you will fell much more comfortable there. If we let the terrorist attacks erode our freedoms haven't they won?

[editor]

If we let the terrorist attacks erode our freedoms haven't they won?

If we let the terrorists attack and kill people, then they've certainly won.

[Jeebus]

Jeebus. Why don't you move to some country with a totalitarion regime. I'm sure you will fell much more comfortable there. If we let the terrorist attacks erode our freedoms haven't they won?

So which are you more concerned with? Terrorists "eroding your freedoms", or simply Terrorists "killing hundreds, if not thousands of U.S. citizens"? I'm more concerned with the latter - aren't you?

The purpose of terrorism is to disrupt daily life. How is your daily life affected by the government secretly spying on you? Now, how is your daily life disrupted when a terrorist detonates a dirty bomb one square mile from your location?

I'll take my chances with erosion.

[nmainguy]

God your dense.

I still say, if you have nothing to hide, then don't worry.

6 million jews might disagree with you on that one.

Otherwise, you pretty much lost me with your opening insult.

Edited December 20, 2005 by nmainguy

[gwilson]

404 Illegal activity not found.

404 Violation of constitution not found.

Constitution protects against unreasonable search, FISA gives power for REASONABLE searches without warrants in instances when the seeking of a warrant will hinder the acquisition of vital intelligence and it strictly limits the type of snooping that can be done, on whom, and under what circumstances.

As far as the faulty intelligence, he has never said that all the intelligence was faulty and the war was still quite justified. Also, knowing NOW it was wrong is far different from knowing THEN it was wrong. Rewind, go back and have the SAME intel, make the SAME decision. Doing otherwise would be malfeasant.

[Jeebus]

6 million jews might disagree with you on that one.

Otherwise, you pretty much lost me with your opening insult.

Nice.. when in doubt, just toss the Holocaust out there. It makes for a nice catch all. If you can even relate our government to Hitler's Nazi Germany then I hope our government is spying on you.

Edited December 20, 2005 by Jeebus

[HeightsGuy]

Yep Jeebus, not unlike the catch-all term 9/11.......

[Jeebus]

Yep Jeebus, not unlike the catch-all term 9/11.......

Hey, I didn't throw that one out there - or the Holocaust for that matter. Besides any reference I've made to terrorism far precludes 9|11.

[Gary]

Guys, regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, isn't it obvious that there are times that this specific type of wire tapping is warranted? I certainly believe that the activity discussed here has merit on both sides, but to say that we shouldn't monitor selected conversations in regards to possible terrorism is foolish imo.

We are living in scary times and I for one want to know when someone mentions the B word over the phone.

[west20th]

Nice.. when in doubt, just toss the Holocaust out there. It makes for a nice catch all. If you can even relate our government to Hitler's Nazi Germany then I hope our government is spying on you.

It wasn't like POOF and Hitler and the Nazis were there. It was an erosion and suspension of freedoms in Germany. So Jeebus. I suppose you would not have a problem with being held w/o charges. Shouldn't government officials be able to take us into custody, secretly and indeffinately. I mean as long as it keeps us safe. We can trust the government to look out for our best interests. Can't we?

Edited December 20, 2005 by west20th

[TJones]

Jeebus. Why don't you move to some country with a totalitarion regime. I'm sure you will fell much more comfortable there. If we let the terrorist attacks erode our freedoms haven't they won?

You are basing this arguement on what you believe to be true, that Bush did something illegal. Show me where he did something illegal West. You THINK he bugged some phones of Americans like you and me. He didn't do that. And he is not going to do that, are you a secret Al-Queda operative, do YOU have terrorist ties ? If not, then what are you yammering about ? The Government authorized wiretaps for suspected Al-Queda agents, and suspected people who have ties to them. You got this whole Quaker thing mixed in with it, and they are 2 totally seperate deals. Obviously the Quakers had made some kind of comment or protest threatening either the Pres. or some other high ranking official or someone made an anonymous call saying you ought to look into these people . No WIRETAPPING occurred on these people, at least none that has come to light, unless you or Red have an article somewhere.

6 million jews might disagree with you on that one.

Otherwise, you pretty much lost me with your opening insult.

100,000 Kurds would disagree with you about getting Saddam out of power also nmain.