Quote :

"i thought the argument by people that "we went to war over WMDs, where are the WMDs?" had been answered 2 years ago"

and that answer was "lalalalala. we did and you have to deal with it! what's YOUR plan for peace in iraq!!!"

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 2:37 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2006 2:36:44 PM

^^they are related

^no...the answer was that WMDs were not the only reason we went to war in iraq...the wikipedia link could answer that for you in 5 seconds

8/17/2006 2:37:13 PM

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

NOT IRAQ

THNX

8/17/2006 2:37:15 PM

they are related

if you want to compartmentalize everything as separate i dont know how you can even connect thoughts

are you that narrowminded to think they arent related?

8/17/2006 2:39:34 PM

please explain the connection

this issue is about a federal judge declaring that warrentless wiretapping is unconcstitutional

8/17/2006 2:41:33 PM

I guess smcraff...we're talking about constitutional rights that only Americans should receive...I'll admit they aren't related then.

However, I was talking about human rights, granted to everyone...

So, you admit then...contitutional rights don't apply to non-citizens...even in Guantanimo?

8/17/2006 2:41:33 PM

Quote :

"Also, that Iraq looks like Vietnam just shows a poor understanding of the magnitude of Vietnam. I have no problem with people wanting to categorize it as a "mini-Vietnam" but claiming it is going to be worse will just make you look foolish in a decade...not that that should prevent you from thinking that way though. "

I'm refering more to the quagmire situation similar to 'nam, but i could see the war lasting as long as vietnam, b/c now just pulling out really isn't an option.....we're entrenched, which only adds to the overall problem.

8/17/2006 2:42:02 PM

Quote :

" So, you admit then...contitutional rights don't apply to non-citizens...even in Guantanimo?"

hahaha what the shit kind of logic is that

8/17/2006 2:42:03 PM

Its simple logic retard...

You: Right of Iraqis and rights of our constitution are independent topics, not related
Me: So, Guantanimo inmates also aren't covered by our constitutional rights
You: hahaha, logic...I don't understand that.

8/17/2006 2:43:52 PM

Quote :

"So many "tough" americans willing to live on their knees, rather than to stand up for freedom, democracy and liberty."

honestly I don't like the wiretaps either... but the government is big enough now that they will tap your phone whether you like it or not... whether they have a warrant or not...

but it's funny how when I stand up for my gun rights, liberals tell me I shouldn't feel that way

8/17/2006 2:43:53 PM

Quote :

"I do have a problem with this whole "wiretapping is so bad, life isn't worth living without freedom" mentality in the same thinker as "we shouldn't be in Iraq, the dictator of another country is not our problem""

I completely agree that all peoples are deserving of the liberties and freedoms that we are so lucky to have in America. To say that it is our job as a country to police the rest of the world and make sure this happens, I'm not so sure I agree with that. The human rights in the constitution is what we as a people believe to be right, and may not be how other societies and cultures view human rights. I would say it is our job to protect the freedoms of the American people, and allow those who are not so lucky in other countries to recieve political asylum here.

8/17/2006 2:44:33 PM

Quote :

"they are related if you want to compartmentalize everything as separate i dont know how you can even connect thoughts "

i can agree with that....these subtopics are parts of a whole.

8/17/2006 2:44:41 PM

pick and choose rights again

8/17/2006 2:45:53 PM

Quote :

"You: Right of Iraqis and rights of our constitution are independent topics, not related Me: So, Guantanimo inmates also aren't covered by our constitutional rights You: hahaha, logic...I don't understand that."

yes, that is in fact horrible logic

Quote :

"honestly I don't like the wiretaps either... but the government is big enough now that they will tap your phone whether you like it or not... whether they have a warrant or not... "

i don't think "they are gonna do it anyways" is justification enough to allow something

the difference over gun rights is that there is debate over what the right is

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 2:47 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2006 2:46:15 PM

bgmins, so you then admit that you are in favor of torture?


SEE HOW FUCKING STUPID THAT IS?

8/17/2006 2:47:54 PM

did you miss me saying that I don't like it


no I don't like it, nor do I approve of it

I don't like ANY of our rights being violated


and you're a fool to think that the government won't do something because "they can't do that"

the government has trampled many peoples rights... current administration and the past beloved regime of clinton also

I think what he is saying is that you are picking and choosing rights and who gets them so that it meshes with whatever political agenda you are spouting off about

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 2:49 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2006 2:48:12 PM

Quote :

"I completely agree that all peoples are deserving of the liberties and freedoms that we are so lucky to have in America. To say that it is our job as a country to police the rest of the world and make sure this happens, I'm not so sure I agree with that. The human rights in the constitution is what we as a people believe to be right, and may not be how other societies and cultures view human rights. I would say it is our job to protect the freedoms of the American people, and allow those who are not so lucky in other countries to recieve political asylum here."

That is a consistent opinion that I can respect. Well done.

I happen to feel we might should "police" more...in order to prevent genocide when possible. But at least I can respect a contrary opinion when put the way you put it.

8/17/2006 2:48:45 PM

I'm not picking and choosing rights, and thats exactly why I thought the first posts by Randy and TreeTwista were retarded

8/17/2006 2:50:22 PM

Quote :

"bgmins, so you then admit that you are in favor of torture? SEE HOW FUCKING STUPID THAT IS? "

We agree...that was a fucking stupid argument

Let me complete the steps you left out.
I agree that they aren't afforded the constitutional rights of Americans, such as lawyers and being allowed to hold them without charge. However, I believe (as do the courts) that they are covered by Geneva Convention standards...which explicitly ban torture.
Some Americans would argue they also deserve trials and due process in the way guaranteed by the US Constitution...I do not.

8/17/2006 2:50:53 PM

^^but you are... hence the gitmo comment that he made


nvm


it's dumb


but yeah

how can people be like OMF WIRE TAPS/PERSONAL FREEDOM/TRAMPLING THE CONSTITUITON and then tell me that the government should be able to take away my right to defend myself

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 2:53 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2006 2:51:32 PM

You are trying to argue what the role of our government and military is in policing the world. It is another issue/

8/17/2006 2:51:34 PM

this thread has deteriorated to the point of being uncohesive.

8/17/2006 2:53:50 PM

Quote :

"and then tell me that the government should be able to take away my right to defend myself"

no one wants to take away your right to an organized militia

(see how the debate is over what exactly the right is and how its a different issue?)

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 2:57 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2006 2:54:39 PM

They simply want to rape its effectiveness by requiring you to arm yourselves like the Sharks in West Side Story....::snap snap snap::

8/17/2006 2:55:44 PM

^^umm yeah they do


I guess you missed out on Janet Reno's tour de force

so yeah, I can't arm myself
I can't hang out with like minded people and have an arms collection thats legal

so umm yeah

pick and choose rights much

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 2:58 PM. Reason : SELECTIVE RIGHTS FOR SELECTED PEOPLE]

8/17/2006 2:57:57 PM

^

Quote :

"(see how the debate is over what exactly the right is and how its a different issue?)"

and on Gitmo, the problem is the hybrid war-law model of law. read david luban's "the war on terrorism and the end of human rights"

/tangents

so how about we get back on topic now

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 3:00 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2006 3:00:30 PM

Ok, but you'll probably be shocked.

I don't mind the government getting warrants for wiretaps of US citizens. I want the process to be easy and fast enough as to not damage their effectiveness.

8/17/2006 3:04:06 PM

Since this thread has gone way off topic, I spose I will just follow it.

I'll be honest and say that I haven't followed the anit-gun movement at all, to the point that I have no idea what kind of restrictions there are on getting a gun and what kind of gun you can get in today's society.

I personally believe that people should be able to own guns, but only after proving ability and knowledge in safely operating one. This system could already be in place, like I said, I have no idea. I don't think people should be able to just walk in a store and pick one up without having ever used one, there should be a period of time like when a driver learns to drive with his parents before getting a real license. I own a shotgun, and while I see no reason for individuals to own concealable handguns, it is your right.

8/17/2006 3:05:11 PM

^^You mean like an easy fast FISA court?

^theres already a gun thread, you can cut and paste there.
thanks

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 3:07 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 3:07 PM. Reason : stay on topic please]

8/17/2006 3:06:42 PM

that can even be retroactively used for up to 72 hrs.

8/17/2006 3:07:29 PM

^^^That's about on par with most gun-owners' thoughts as well.

Although it isn't difficult to use a shotgun safely. They should allow you to purchase rifles by simply demonstrating the safe use of one before they sell it to you.



[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 3:08 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2006 3:07:41 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act

8/17/2006 3:09:05 PM

Yes actually, that is what I mean. I don't have a problem with this ruling. Sorry I got off topic. Although if they can be retroactively used...it really should be labeled "no more wiretapping without a warrant...at least in the near future"

8/17/2006 3:09:22 PM

Bgmims - I was not refering to any official source, although I do remember hearing a few, to say that I had the foresight to see many of the events unfolding in Iraq before the war started.

I was just saying *I* did, along with several of my direct peers. I'm not looking to back this statement up, since I qualified it already when I first mentioned it.

8/17/2006 3:15:31 PM

Ok, fair enough.

8/17/2006 3:18:10 PM

The smart $texas says the NSA didn't stop doing this today just because of this ruling...

--

Also, fire up your "activist judge" engine. Something tells me we're about to go for a ride on rhetoric...

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 3:27 PM. Reason : ...]

8/17/2006 3:25:54 PM

I would have to agree.

8/17/2006 3:26:22 PM

activist judges
http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=426970

8/17/2006 3:30:47 PM

it's expected that the NSA will immediately appeal this decision so that they may continue their warrantless wire taps until the appeal is completed.

8/17/2006 3:36:31 PM

yeah even if none of the appeals courts reverse the decision it will be months before this would go into effect

8/17/2006 4:13:13 PM

oh....this thread is about that crazy idea that you should only wiretap those who have terrorist connections. how outrageous.

8/17/2006 4:56:05 PM

What? I'm not sure, but it sounded like you...like...wiretapping terrorists...
Please tell me I don't agree with you on a point...were you mocking it somehow?

8/17/2006 4:58:19 PM

...yea, and ONLY those w/ terrorist connections or other criminal shit

8/17/2006 5:00:09 PM

thats pretty much how they do it now

i really do think the govt cares more about listening to terrorists' phone calls than listening to you call your buddy to see what time he wants to go to the bar tonight

8/17/2006 5:01:01 PM

Quote :

"thats pretty much how they do it now "

youre quite naive

the courts already approve any of this, and you could even wiretap then file for a warrent 72 hrs later. the only reason youd go around the court is if youre using roving wiretaps.

8/17/2006 5:11:12 PM

youre quite paranoid

if you arent on the phone talking about terror attacks that you are aware of or large scale crimes you are going to be/were a part of the govt doesnt give a shit about tapping my calls or your calls

8/17/2006 5:20:17 PM

then why would you go around on the fisa courts? there only reason would be that youre going after people not connected to terrorists.

you explain why. you offer an explanation.

8/17/2006 5:41:31 PM

because we are at war and need to be able to keep track of new enemies with the quickness...we dont need some bureacratic shit to potentially fuck up our intel and allow an attack to occur...i mean the NSA seemed to do a pretty effective job of helping with the recent foiled plot in Britain

you probably wont like that answer but thats my explanation

8/17/2006 5:44:00 PM

you are retarded.

8/17/2006 6:17:18 PM

you are a communist

8/17/2006 6:19:43 PM