-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The President Is Not Above the Law
- Thread starter KenH
- Start date
I don't see the Amish as being a threat. This is where Bush is getting into really deep doo doo when he spies and wire taps groups that are not a threat to our National security. Without a doubt groups like PETA will always pose a threat to Bush's political career but that does not entitle him to cross the line and abuse his executive priviledges.
Following laws is too cumbersome? Not following them means breaking them, engaging in lawlessness for the sake of convenience. That way lays anarchy.
The Miranda rights are read at arrest-time, not during the investigation so I really don't understand what point you are trying to make with that, um, odd question.
Yes, the president should not authorize unlawful acts.
jstrickland1989
New Member
It may happen, but it doesn't change the fact that it is un-constitutional.
James
I retract what I stated about Bush spying on the Amish community. I had them confused with Quakers.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/pbccentral/content/local_news/epaper/2005/12/15/m1a_patriot_1215.html
LAKE WORTH — When a group of about 20 activists met in Lake Worth last year to talk about how to keep young men and women from joining the military, their ranks included five Quakers, a disabled Boca Raton man and a 79-year-old grandmother.
Members of that group, which now calls itself The Truth Project, consider themselves a harmless band of idealists and peaceniks.
But the Pentagon considered their inaugural 2004 meeting a "threat," according to a classified database of information obtained by NBC News that lists information about suspicious people and activity inside the United States
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/pbccentral/content/local_news/epaper/2005/12/15/m1a_patriot_1215.html
LAKE WORTH — When a group of about 20 activists met in Lake Worth last year to talk about how to keep young men and women from joining the military, their ranks included five Quakers, a disabled Boca Raton man and a 79-year-old grandmother.
Members of that group, which now calls itself The Truth Project, consider themselves a harmless band of idealists and peaceniks.
But the Pentagon considered their inaugural 2004 meeting a "threat," according to a classified database of information obtained by NBC News that lists information about suspicious people and activity inside the United States
According to the FBI reports they have spied on the Quakers, PETA, some vegetarian group, and a few other "activist" groups, in addition to all of the muslim groups that are being monitored.
When they have a special judge that is ready 24/7 for issuing warrants for spying, it only makes sense that they follow the law and get the warrant.
How will the Bush supporters feel when Hillary or the future Antichrist uses these unlimited "war powers" to spy on Christians and conservative groups all in the name of security during the "war on terror"?
It may happen, but it doesn't change the fact that it is un-constitutional.
James </font>[/QUOTE]In your opinon it's un-constitutional, but the Constitution says nothing about it being un-constitutional.
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Where does that say anything about profiling?
Here is a real example that was used while I was doing ride alongs with the police department:
It was 11:30 pm, we saw a car coming out of the projects with one person in the car, it was a white woman, this neighborhood was know for drugs. We used profiling to assume that she was in the neigborhood to buy drugs, we pulled her over, while talking to her, found she had a broken tail light, told her that was her offense, asked to search the car, and sure enough found some drugs in the passenger floor board. Thise would not have been found had we not used common sense profiling.
Here is another example. Islamic terrorist from Saudi Arabia killed 3000 people on 9/11. Profiling would say to treat every Islamic tourist with extra security at the airports, and to make sure they are no simply allowed to pass through security while the little old lady from Kansas is asked to remove her shoes and have all of her bags searched.
The Galatian
Active Member
Actually, this is illegal, and it is dangerous to all Americans, regardless of who does it. I don't want Bush to be impeached or go to jail for it.
I just want it to stop. The argument that the government needs to spy on law-abiding Americans in order to fight terrorism is a cynical lie.
I just want it to stop. The argument that the government needs to spy on law-abiding Americans in order to fight terrorism is a cynical lie.
Ken wrote:
While I have not formed my full opinion on this yet, I'd simply like to ask everyone who thinks wiretaps against terrorist groups are unAmerican (or whatever), just remember the next time a child-molester gets off because of a paperwork technicality, you have no right to be angry. The next time someone murders a man because he's gay and the arresting officer put the handcuffs on too tight, you cannot say anything. And don't tell me you disagreed with the OJ verdict. You have no right to do so anymore.
This is just as false as Bush saying the terrorists hate us for our freedom. The terrorists hate us becuase we aren't them.
While I have not formed my full opinion on this yet, I'd simply like to ask everyone who thinks wiretaps against terrorist groups are unAmerican (or whatever), just remember the next time a child-molester gets off because of a paperwork technicality, you have no right to be angry. The next time someone murders a man because he's gay and the arresting officer put the handcuffs on too tight, you cannot say anything. And don't tell me you disagreed with the OJ verdict. You have no right to do so anymore.
I don't have a problem with the NSA using wiretaps and monitoring terrorist groups, or even terrorist suspects, but whenever a US citizen is involved they need to use the 24/7 court that was set up for them to quickly get the warrant needed to be legal. This is in place to protect the US citizen's constitutional rights. If the suspect is not a US citizen, then they have no Constitutional rights and the NSA has every right to monitor them to keep our country safe. Where the Bush administration crossed the line is not in using wiretaps, but in using them on US citizens, especially the ones with no terrorist ties, without a warrant. It's not like they have to have to go down to the courthouse and wait for days for the warrant, they have a special court with special judges that are available 24/7 just for the purpose of obtaining these warrants, Bush just decided that the laws in place don't matter, and he uses the "war on terror" to wiretap and monitor any group he pleases. Even if he has the best intentions, these unlimited war powers will be used by the next president who may not have the best intentions.
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
--James Madison
"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from the government."
--Thomas Paine
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither safety nor liberty."
--Benjamin Franklin
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
--James Madison
"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from the government."
--Thomas Paine
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither safety nor liberty."
--Benjamin Franklin
"The Miranda rights are read at arrest-time, not during the investigation so I really don't understand what point you are trying to make with that, um, odd question."----------------------------------------------------------------
In the interest of educating the lovely and spirited "Miss Daisy". The arresting officer has no obligation to read Miranda. I never read it. That is hollywood stuff. It is only necessary if you plan to question the suspect about a crime he committed. It is most often read just prior to a formal questioning in an interview room.
In the interest of educating the lovely and spirited "Miss Daisy". The arresting officer has no obligation to read Miranda. I never read it. That is hollywood stuff. It is only necessary if you plan to question the suspect about a crime he committed. It is most often read just prior to a formal questioning in an interview room.
"Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profiling has never been based on the "making or enforcing" of a law. It is an investigative technique and nothing more. One of the basic skill I had to develop as part of my academy training was the ability "to recognize the criminal element". Some crime are disproportionally committed by different races, it is completely rational and effective.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profiling has never been based on the "making or enforcing" of a law. It is an investigative technique and nothing more. One of the basic skill I had to develop as part of my academy training was the ability "to recognize the criminal element". Some crime are disproportionally committed by different races, it is completely rational and effective.
"They're not informed of their right to a lawyer at arrest time? I was only arrested once, with my mother's permission, but I was a juvenile (no charges)."----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can, but there is no need to unless you plan to question the suspect. It is meant to protect them during interrogation, not during arrest. And if they tell you something voluntarily without being questioned it does not matter.
You can, but there is no need to unless you plan to question the suspect. It is meant to protect them during interrogation, not during arrest. And if they tell you something voluntarily without being questioned it does not matter.
James Madison, Thomas Payne, and Benjamin Franklin never had to face UBL and muslim extremists.
That was not necessarily directed at you, my Razorback friend
That's a bromide, pure and simple. As a tax preparer, I can tell you that I and my colleagues saw the greatest benefit from the Bush tax cuts coming to working Americans and the middle class. Everytime we hear that the tax cut was for rich people, we all joke that "rich people" are people who make at least minimum wage
I disagree. Reagan and Bush were unable to pass NAFTA because of democratic resistance. As David Bonior and others have suggested, why was NAFTA such a great idea from Clinton when it wasn't under Reagan or Bush?