Is Bush acting in our best interest?

[fromtheright]

First of all, I'm curious if anyone can expound on something I heard yesterday but the President's supposed unauthorized skirting of the FISA Court was under an exception authorized under the law.

Also, as I understand it, the ones whose conversations have been captured by NSA are those who have been identified as terrorists. If this is true, I'm not sure how my rights are infringed, or anyone's come to think of it, except those who are likely to cause massive destruction to innumerable American citizens and civilians.

I submit that protecting us from a nuclear device can be done legally and without draconian measures that trample on the U.S. constitution and federal law.

And, if these actions help to do just that or from some other awful attack, was it worth it? Would it have been worth it, to target the conversations of terrorists if if is your relatives who are killed? I agree with Bunyon, there is nothing "draconian" in this. I wouldn't go as far as hillclimber, that our very form of government is a danger, but it certainly carries extra risks. There are small compromises that can be made to avoid very great danger from very determined and deadly enemies.

And this is not, as it might sound, a matter of "Well, MY rights are secure, I don't care about yours." It is a matter of your AND my rights being secure but that terrorists who may be plotting attacks are not.

 

[carpro]

I believe the Patriot Act altered slightly the definition of "agent of a foreign power" making it
cover citizens as well as foreigners who have known connections to any terrorist organization.

The President's action are Constitutional and that will eventually be born out. But the accusations flying around give his opponents reason to smile for a while and that's their primary goal.

It's just another form of obstructionism from the party of no ideas or solutions.

 

[Bunyon]

"How do police states get away with it? From Hitler to the present, totalitarians say that we must give up our rights and freedoms because it’s the only way for law enforcement to have the tools to protect us from catastrophic terrorist incidents. Of course, that’s the opposite course advocated by America’s Founding Fathers, like Benjamin Franklin, who counseled: “They that would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.”"---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a straw man. It is always necessary to give up a modicum of freedom in dangerous situations. Do you think everything remained as before during ww2.

The reasoning is faulty. It is like saying that smoking Marijuana always leads heroin abuse. It happens, but most folks who smoke marijuana never go any farther. Just because we have to take extra precautions now does not mean we will become Nazi Germany. That had more to do with Hitler than the burning of the Reichstag. You don't think Bush is a Hitler do you.

 

[poncho]

I think the New World Order the Bush's have been pushing for is made up of fascist control freaks. Bush and his adminisrtaion are only third level management.

 

[Bunyon]

If there is anyone driving the new world order it is the multinational corp. with all the hidden off shore accounts.

 

[poncho]

Originally posted by Bunyon:
If there is anyone driving the new world order it is the multinational corp. with all the hidden off shore accounts.

These are second level globalist managers that coerce and manipulate government with gifts, bribes, campaign contributions, blackmail, promotions, threats, violence etc. Same strategy and tactics Al Capone used to control police, judges, congressmen, senators and such more or less.

Between first and second line globalists are the CFR and Trilateral "advisors" and the UN, WTO, WHO, etc that have sworn no oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States or any other country (that I know of). They only serve as propagandists and to implement the one world government by "advising" governments on how to be "harmonized" into the "sustainable" global future.

First line globalists are the international banks that make a 250% profit from nothing and use this fiat money system itself as a means of control over the whole dirty deal.

 

[Bunyon]

So the anitchrist will be a banker?

 

[poncho]

The antichrist will be just what the Bible says he will be. I posted The Coming Battle in another thread that explains how the central bankers control the government. Here is the link to it again. The Coming Battle. It was written in 1899. Hope you can find the time to read it Bunyon.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Originally posted by just-want-peace:

You seem to be obsessed with the notion of a nuclear bomb being detonated on American soil. I understand being concerned, but you act as though it is certain to happen if we don't surrender some of our rights up to the government.

Certainly no more than you Bush Bashers seem to think that the chance is infinitesimally small that it WILL happen.

It might surprise you to know that many of us "Bush-bashers" are concerned with this happening, we just don't all think that we need to give up this liberty in order to keep us safe.

And, as requested already, "what rights have you, or someone you personally know, lost?" (Not what the propagandists are "afraid you MIGHT" lose).

Loaded question, but I will answer it this way. The Executive branch of government should not have the right to wiretap or in any way get involved with our personal correspondence or records without the check and balance of the Judical branch.

--it is also possible that we could have another nuclear accident like we had at Three Mile Island or what happened in Chernobyl.

That is like comparing the society of the USSR with the USA; two totally different entities.

Are you really suggesting that 3mile & Chernobyl are comprable? Surely you jest!

You read too much in my post. I did not compare the U.S. and the USSR at all. I simply pointed out two well known nuclear accidents that have occurred in the past. And, I do think that the U.S. facilities are much safer that those in the USSR, but they can still have an accident.

 

[jstrickland1989]

Well, Terry, you still didn't answer the question. I don't care what you think about wiretapping, thats your opinion. The question was, what rights have you personally gave up? Not the neighbor down the street. Not someone else. You?

James

 

[Dunamis XX]

You seem to be obsessed with the notion of a nuclear bomb being detonated on American soil. I understand being concerned, but you act as though it is certain to happen if we don't surrender some of our rights up to the government.

Many never thought three airplanes would be hijacked on 9/11 and two of them flown into the Twin Towers. Nobody is being obsessed, it's about security and protecting U.S. citizens. If a nuclear bomb did go off in the U.S., I'm sure many will be pointing the finger at Bush saying he didn't do enough!

 

[poncho]

Yeah, those in Washington and the media are so afraid of another terrorist attack they'll leave the borders wide open and call anyone willing to help the border patrol vigilantes.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by poncho:
How to tell if you are in a tyrannical police state...Tyrannical police states have certain universal characteristics. They spy on their own citizens, kidnap people at will, and imprison them without bothering to charge them with crimes or even give them a trial by jury. Police states imprison innocent people, again and again and again. And torture or kill them at will.

Uh-oh!

 

[Bunyon]

Yeah, Daisy. I'd say that is a really accurate description of the USA. NOT!

 

[poncho]

What's not accurate about it Bunyon?

 

[Bunyon]

What is accurate about it Daisy?

 

[poncho]

What's not accurate about it Bunyon?

 

[Bunyon]

What is accurate about it Poncho?

 

[poncho]

I asked you first Bunyon. C'mon yer not scared to answer are ya?

 

[Bunyon]

The burden of proof is on the accuser.