Moderateman Moderateman

Spying on Americans, so What?

▼

Spying on Americans, so What?

from JoeUser Forums
Simple question time.

Why do you care if the government is listening to your phone calls? I don't care at all. If they capture one terrorist or break up one attack on America then it's well worth it.

If you have something to hide from the government, I suggest you do not use the phone any longer. THE ENTIRE ARTICLE WRITTEN ABOVE THIS WAS GENERATED OUT OF FEAR AND A MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHAT EXACTLY I WOULD BE GIVING UP. i WAS WRONG IN WRITING IT AND ASK SIMPLY FOR UNDERSTANDING THAT I TO DO SOME DUMB THINGS TIME TO TIME. ELIE
11,739 views 42 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry LW but there are already in place items that give the president the right to abrogate the 4th amendment. Can you say "presidential war powers act"?


Yes, but the question at the heart of all this is does it apply to our current situation?

The jury is still out on that one, and I'll leave it to more learned minds than mine to decide.


Seems to me that the congress "declared" war or "something" like that.


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.


Link
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
No need to state the obvious, drmiler! However, there is a good deal of controversy right now over the technical legality of the NSA wiretaps, if it were that cut and dried there wouldn't be this huge public discussion going on, right?


That's the whole point! There should be no discussion about it. The left are the ones pushing this and they conveniently seem to forget about the info I previously posted.
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Interesting discussion Moderateman.  Was that the whole article before your retraction?  I found the comments especially interesting.  As Chak said, it was an enlightening debate.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Thursday, June 01, 2006Interesting discussion Moderateman. Was that the whole article before your retraction? I found the comments especially interesting. As Chak said, it was an enlightening debate.


yup doc was whole article, all I did was add retraction.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Brad WardellPosted: Wednesday, May 31, 2006and would you allow it to save lives?Only if the actual nation state known as the United States was in jeopardy


that was my intention brad, to save american lives. period.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: ChakgogkaPosted: Wednesday, May 31, 2006Although things got a bit heated here, isn't this thread a great ad for the whole idea of political blogging? Someone puts out an idea, people respond and the original poster has the guts to say, "hey, maybe I was wrong"...... usually when we put our ideas out there, it is supposed that this is our considered and final opinion on the matter which we will stubbornly defend to the death. For this reason, people who disagree feel the need to go in hard with their counter-argument, heat is generated, but sometimes only a little light...


I can be reasoned with chak, I cannot be beaten into submission.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
I cannot be beaten into submission.


Pity to the one that tries,!


My feelings on this is that I don't like the idea of the government just will nilly spying and listening on my conversations, especially since I will be talking to my friends about things that are very, very personal. I don't have anything to hide, but it does not make for a good thing if they are just randomly doing it behind my back as they were.

Now if they had said something about it before hand (which I know wouldn't make sense to most people because how else would they find what they're listening for) then it woudn't sound so shocking.

It does however suggests that I have no say on my own privacy and that doesn't make me a happy camper.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
No need to state the obvious, drmiler! However, there is a good deal of controversy right now over the technical legality of the NSA wiretaps, if it were that cut and dried there wouldn't be this huge public discussion going on, right?


That's the whole point! There should be no discussion about it. The left are the ones pushing this and they conveniently seem to forget about the info I previously posted.


What pisses me off is that the "left" voted on this and passed it. Now they're trying to say GW shouldn't be doing it.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution


In other words they very "specifically authorized" the president to use the war powers, but want to villify him when he does.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: foreverserenityPosted: Thursday, June 01, 2006I cannot be beaten into submission.


don't have anything to hide, but it does not make for a good thing if they are just randomly doing it behind my back as they were.


I think they were not listening to people like us Donna, more like people already under suspicion of dealings with a terror organization.

It does however suggests that I have no say on my own privacy and that doesn't make me a happy camper


that is the point where I changed my mind, I do not want the government spying on me either, even with nothing to hide/
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: drmilerPosted: Thursday, June 01, 2006


What pisses me off is that the "left" voted on this and passed it. Now they're trying to say GW shouldn't be doing it.


this has become typical of the left, the left has conviently forgot they too said there were weapons of mass destruction In Iraq.

The forgot they too authorized the President to go to war if Iraq did not obey the 14 or so U.N. provisions.

The left forgot that the troops go where they are told to GO and have no say if they fight or not.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thanks for the retraction, MM. I do understand the tendency to be emotional as much as any. In fact, it is because of my work trying to help families whose Constitutional rights are routinely abridged by social workers claiming the same compelling overriding interest (the "best interests of the child" argument) that cause me to feel as passionately as I do about the issue.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Thursday, June 01, 2006Thanks for the retraction, MM


it was whip reasoning with me that caused me to rethink this, NOTHING you did helped me see shit, all you did was piss me off and made me dig my heels in.
I know I am not very important in your scheme of things gid, BUT things will not begin to be right till you apologize to me for the scurillious claims you made about how I think and what I feel.

I black listed you because I did not want it to escalate , but naturally you had to write not one but 2 articles about it, then to top it off call me MARXIST man. You seem to have no trouble using your blacklist, as you did once to me, but you do seem to have a problem with me using mine against you.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: little-whipPosted: Thursday, June 01, 2006And they also voted for the war, before they voted against it, hahahaha.


oh yeh how could I forget that?
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
I know I am not very important in your scheme of things gid, BUT things will not begin to be right till you apologize to me for the scurillious claims you made about how I think and what I feel.


Have it your way.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Thursday, June 01, 2006I know I am not very important in your scheme of things gid, BUT things will not begin to be right till you apologize to me for the scurrilous claims you made about how I think and what I feel.Have it your way.


NO i WILL NOT BE HAVING IT MY WAY, YOU WILL HAVE IT YOUR WAY, TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS, i DO WHEN IT'S MY FAULT. It's simple I asked for an apology, you denied me one, it's on you, not me.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
NO i WILL NOT BE HAVING IT MY WAY, YOU WILL HAVE IT YOUR WAY, TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS, i DO WHEN IT'S MY FAULT. It's simple I asked for an apology, you denied me one, it's on you, not me.


I denied you one because I won't issue an apology when I don't feel I have anything to apologize for, MM. I do not "owe" you jack, nor do you owe me anything.

If you'd rather stew on it, fine. That's your choice.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Thursday, June 01, 2006NO i WILL NOT BE HAVING IT MY WAY, YOU WILL HAVE IT YOUR WAY, TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS, i DO WHEN IT'S MY FAULT. It's simple I asked for an apology, you denied me one, it's on you, not me.I denied you one because I won't issue an apology when I don't feel I have anything to apologize for, MM. I do not "owe" you jack, nor do you owe me anything. If you'd rather stew on it, fine. That's your choice.


I am hardly stewing gid you are about as important to my life as a zit on my ass, but it is nice to know you are so perfect you simply cannot percieve what an insult is to me. WELCOME BACK TO MY BLACKLIST where you will be taking up permanent residency, asshole.