The President Is Not Above the Law

[Bunyon]

"Congress has not issued a declaration of war since World War II. When they do, then we can talk about different rules for surveillance during a time of war. Until then, the feds need a warrant."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have only issued declarations of war in the most traditional types of war. We have not done it since world war two. It is probably a power issue. Unconventional wars can't follow all the conventional traditions. The enemy is within our boaders and that calls for quick and drastic action. Bush is a hero and will be remembered by history as such.

 

[KenH]

It is always wise to follow the Constitution and I am opposed to the idea of using our military without a formal declaration of war.

How Bush will be remembered is yet to be determined. Let's check on that in about twenty years.

 

[Bunyon]

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20051223%2F1937386393.htm&sc=1152&floc=NW_3-T


Ken, perhaps this will snap you to your senses. This is how serious this is. We need secrecy and we need swiftness. Just two reasons we should get the courts and politics out of the process. They are trying to get a nuke of some type into the country. Your attitude about Bush's attempts to stop them is somewhat cavalier.

 

[jstrickland1989]

I'm just wondering, how many of you guys were blasting President Bush for not having enough security on 9/11? How many of you guys were blasting the government for not protecting our borders? It seems to me, that in a time of peace, we don't want the President to beef up the security, because everything is going fine and dandy. But in times like 9/11, we seem to blast President Bush for not having enough security. Pick which one you would rather have! 3,000 people dying on a regular basis, or the government protecting us through wiretaps. Which one? And if you say 3,000 people dying on a regular basis, that is un-American. Again, I think we would have a totally different view if our loved ones were killed on 9/11.

James

 

[JGrubbs]

Originally posted by church mouse guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JGrubbs:
CMG, do you have anything other than hateful personal attacks to say? I didn't know running for office once makes someone a cheap politician, escpecially someone who was recognized by Ronald Reagan for his conservative leadership. You speak out of hatred and ignorance my brother.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." --Theodore Roosevelt

See you don't know what you are talking about because the President has acted legally to defend this country and the Constitution Party has sided with the enemies of this country in time of war with their making a false charge that we abused the rights of Islamofascists and their allies. Frankly, Baldwin makes me sick. He likes to throw manure and then run and say that he is a preacher and that you cannot give the manure that he threw back to him. May God reproach Baldwin to his face. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't know what I'm talking about? Did I say anything in that post about the President acting illegally? Can you give one source to your claim that "the Constitution Party has sided with the enemies of this country in time of war with their making a false charge that we abused the rights of Islamofascists and their allies"? All I see in your post is some false accusations, and hatred for Pastor Baldwin.

 

[JGrubbs]

Originally posted by jstrickland1989:
I'm just wondering, how many of you guys were blasting President Bush for not having enough security on 9/11? How many of you guys were blasting the government for not protecting our borders? It seems to me, that in a time of peace, we don't want the President to beef up the security, because everything is going fine and dandy. But in times like 9/11, we seem to blast President Bush for not having enough security. Pick which one you would rather have! 3,000 people dying on a regular basis, or the government protecting us through wiretaps. Which one? And if you say 3,000 people dying on a regular basis, that is un-American. Again, I think we would have a totally different view if our loved ones were killed on 9/11.

9/11 didn't happen because we didn't have the Patriot Act! We DO need to protect our borders, illegal immigration has grown to an all time high since GWB took office in 2000, he has no plans on closing or protecting our borders, but is working to open our borders even more with NAFTA, CAFTA and FTAA. There are 4,000+ people dying every day in America, I would like to see the Bush administration put as much time, effort and focus on saving those innocent lives as they are in trying to ignore the US Constitution to catch the terrorist that they have put the welcome mat out for by leaving our borders wide open.

 

[Bunyon]

I think nafta and the like was all bipartisan.

 

[JGrubbs]

The GOP opposed NAFTA while Clinton was in office, and the Democrats opposed CAFTA with Bush in office. It won't matter who is in office in 2008 they will make sure one of the parties get FTAA to pass. I guess you could call that bipartisan, either way it's selling out the US and working to open our borders!

 

[jstrickland1989]

Originally posted by JGrubbs:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jstrickland1989:
I'm just wondering, how many of you guys were blasting President Bush for not having enough security on 9/11? How many of you guys were blasting the government for not protecting our borders? It seems to me, that in a time of peace, we don't want the President to beef up the security, because everything is going fine and dandy. But in times like 9/11, we seem to blast President Bush for not having enough security. Pick which one you would rather have! 3,000 people dying on a regular basis, or the government protecting us through wiretaps. Which one? And if you say 3,000 people dying on a regular basis, that is un-American. Again, I think we would have a totally different view if our loved ones were killed on 9/11.

9/11 didn't happen because we didn't have the Patriot Act! We DO need to protect our borders, illegal immigration has grown to an all time high since GWB took office in 2000, he has no plans on closing or protecting our borders, but is working to open our borders even more with NAFTA, CAFTA and FTAA. There are 4,000+ people dying every day in America, I would like to see the Bush administration put as much time, effort and focus on saving those innocent lives as they are in trying to ignore the US Constitution to catch the terrorist that they have put the welcome mat out for by leaving our borders wide open. </font>[/QUOTE]Are you kidding me?!?!?!? 9/11 happened because we didn't have security. The Patriot Act has given us more security. Oh yeah, how many terrorist attacks have we had since 9/11? Thats not true. We are trying to progress to make our borders more secure.

Don't tell me how much you want to protect what you can't see in the womb, when you don't even protect that which you can see. These people didn't deserve to die. You know why they died? They died because politicians and people within the United States were comfortable. The were comfortable with the being lax on security. And guess what happen? 9/11!! It's happening ALLL over again. People get comfortable, something like 9/11 happens, then we want more security, and then we get tired of security and want privacy. You can't have both! It's impossible! You have to pick one or the other. And I choose security.

James

 

[Bunyon]

Don't tell me how much you want to protect what you can't see in the womb, when you don't even protect that which you can see. These people didn't deserve to die. You know why they died? "They died because politicians and people within the United States were comfortable. The were comfortable with the being lax on security. And guess what happen? 9/11!! It's happening ALLL over again. People get comfortable, something like 9/11 happens, then we want more security, and then we get tired of security and want privacy. You can't have both! It's impossible! You have to pick one or the other. And I choose security."-------------------------------------------------------------------------

And win one considerst that a truck bomb was set off by terrorist just a few year prior in the underground parking of the WTC, you realize just how true jsstricklands words are.

 

[JGrubbs]

How many terrorist attacks happened in the United States between February 26, 1993 and September 11, 2001?

To say that there have been no terrorist attacks since 9/11 because of the Patriot Act can't be proven. I'm all for protecting us from terrorist, we need to start by closing our borders, not working to open borders even more, we also need to use some wise profiling to prevent those who hate us from being able to carry out their plans. We also need to stop funding and supporting the terrorist nations like Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Hammas, etc. 9/11 was preventable without the Patriot Act, but your right, it happened because our politicians were lax on security.

You can't pass off 4000+ babies being butchered daily as just "what you can't see in the womb"! They are just as important as the 3,000 that died in the WTC on 9/11!

 

[jstrickland1989]

But it can't be disproven either. Hmm... profiling???? That against the constitution! We claim to be strict constitutionalist, but yet when it comes to things we think to be right, we can seem to justify them. And it's not just our politicians fault. It's ours! I can see it right now in America. I predict something like 9/11 will happen again in the next 5 years if we don't start being more security oriented. Oh, we may not have the power to change laws when it comes to security, but we can certainly make our voice known. And I'm sorry if you don't agree with this, but the blood of 3,000 men and women are on our hands all in the name of "privacy."

I'm all for stopping abortion. I agree that it's the most wicked,vile, and distasteful act of our time. But how can we say we are for stopping abortion, and on the other hand, we won't give a little privacy up to have more security? It's hypocritical. It's really time we start being consistent, and stops getting on one issue such as abortion, and claiming it's relevant to all issues. I don't believe abortion is relevant to 9/11. I'm sorry, but I just don't believe it!

James

 

[JGrubbs]

Can you show me where in the Constitution it says that profiling is "against the constitution"? profiling when use properly is just good common sense!

I agree, if we don't close our borders and stop welcoming the terrorist into our country, something like 9/11 will happen again, with or without the Patriot Act!

 

[jstrickland1989]

It's called the "Equal Protection Clause" under amendmentXIV. The clause grants all people "equal protection of the laws," which means that the states must apply the law equally and cannot give preference to one person or class of persons over another. You can't profile. Thats against the constitution.

Yes, I agree. But I believe the patriot act has helped us in some areas of security.

James

 

[Bunyon]

"It's called the "Equal Protection Clause" under amendmentXIV. The clause grants all people "equal protection of the laws," which means that the states must apply the law equally and cannot give preference to one person or class of persons over another. You can't profile. Thats against the constitution."------------------------------------------------------

That would only be true if profiling was something to be protected from. All races can be profiled, so it is not a selective thing in a general sense. You are misapplying the amendment. It is only a problem because the hatemongers want to make it a problem.

 

[JGrubbs]

I agree with Bunyon on this! I used to do ride alongs with the police department, there were many times that profiling was used and led to an arrest. Profiling is not racist, it just common sense.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Bunyon:
Ken, perhaps this will snap you to your senses.

Monitoring air is hardly the same thing as breaking into someone's home or listening to telephone conversations or reading email.

By the way, the above can be done instantly for good cause but a warrrant has to be obtained after the fact.

 

[church mouse guy]

Originally posted by KenH:
Congress has not issued a declaration of war since World War II. When they do, then we can talk about different rules for surveillance during a time of war. Until then, the feds need a warrant.

And on what basis do you make this statement? Do you have any legal scholarship or is this just your personal opinion?

 

[Filmproducer]

That would only be true if profiling was something to be protected from. All races can be profiled, so it is not a selective thing in a general sense. You are misapplying the amendment. It is only a problem because the hatemongers want to make it a problem.

In theory that may be true, but we all know it is not true in reality. All races are not "profiled" equally. The theory itself is absurd. It has nothing to do with "hatemongers" wanting profiling to be a problem. It IS a problem when innocent people are NEEDLESSLY profiled for any reason. It cannot be justified under the 14th amendment, and it is never applied equally to all races, or classes of people. If it were it would not be profiling.

 

[church mouse guy]

Originally posted by JGrubbs:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by church mouse guy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JGrubbs:
CMG, do you have anything other than hateful personal attacks to say? I didn't know running for office once makes someone a cheap politician, escpecially someone who was recognized by Ronald Reagan for his conservative leadership. You speak out of hatred and ignorance my brother.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." --Theodore Roosevelt

See you don't know what you are talking about because the President has acted legally to defend this country and the Constitution Party has sided with the enemies of this country in time of war with their making a false charge that we abused the rights of Islamofascists and their allies. Frankly, Baldwin makes me sick. He likes to throw manure and then run and say that he is a preacher and that you cannot give the manure that he threw back to him. May God reproach Baldwin to his face. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't know what I'm talking about? Did I say anything in that post about the President acting illegally? Can you give one source to your claim that "the Constitution Party has sided with the enemies of this country in time of war with their making a false charge that we abused the rights of Islamofascists and their allies"? All I see in your post is some false accusations, and hatred for Pastor Baldwin. </font>[/QUOTE]Why don't you knock off the hate speech stuff--you sound like Jesse Jackson. I don't hate Pastor Baldwin--I just think that he is ignorant and has attacked our national security for crass political motives and he is way out of bounds for a preacher to be making accusations without any legal knowledge about what he is talking about. For one thing, the Supreme Court has ruled that what Bush has done is legal.