Ummm, actually it was *only* calls from the US to an overseas number that
had been identified as linked to terrorists. It always amuses me when the
left was bleating about this loss of "privacy" when many of those people so
bleating have no qualms about loudly carrying on cell phone conversations
in public regardless of how personal the subject.
In this case, you lost zero rights as opposed to the rights that the
current administration is no kidding taking away:
The rights of contract law in which a judge can set aside a contract and
force a lender to alter the *principal* amount of a loan. Any idea how
hard it would be to get a mortgage in the future if this happens? (Good
news is that even the Senate wasn't stupid enough to go along with this and
defeated it today 51-45 -- but that 45 is scary).
The right to make whatever your employer thinks you are worth. Right now,
it's bank CEO's and employees. The administration has said that it also
wants to impose the same kinds of rules on companies that have not taken
federal money. Once they decide this for corporate officers, what's to
stop them from deciding what *you* are supposed to be making?
The administration has made no bones about looking at ways to abridge the
second amendment and take away the right to keep and bear arms.
If you are concerned about loss of privacy in cell phone or internet
communications, I would think you would really be concerned about loss of
privacy with the proposed health care database in which the fed will have
all of your health care records in their files.
So then you are extremely outraged by the recently released Department of
Homeland Security memos that identified people who actually support a
constructionist interpretation of the Constitution as potential extremists?
And the extremist lexicon they just released that identifies those who
support federalism as extremists but fails to mention Islamic
fundamentalists? You are sufficiently outraged to demand that Napolitano
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
What right did you lose? Let me count the rights I'm about to lose under the
The right to be an activist the first time in my life on April 15 and then
be marginalized not only by the Messiah and his Administration, the Drive
By Media, The Liberals, The Leader of Congress...
The right to work hard and earn every penny I deserve and then have to give
it to a Government that's out of control!!
The right to watch the culture I grew up with and love be smeared and
diminished by your Walk on Water Leader and his Party.
The right to watch Judges make decisions not based on the Constitution but
emotional liberal ideals.
The right to watch my children get strapped with outrageous debt!
The right to watch my right to bare arms disappear.
The right to watch the Chosen One travel to other countries and trash our
values and culture.
The right to be a Capitalist
I could think of 100 other rights I'm about to lose because of a rank
immature amateur renting the White House for 4 years. Lets hope its only 4
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
<snip a litney of gov't services evodawg will accept but just does not
want to pay for them.>
If the world is to survive, it requires organized societies.
To have organized societies requires government.
Government costs money, in the USA, some where around 35%-38% of GDP,
same as it was in the late 40's when I heard this same rhetoric as a
kid growing up.
Other countries either have similar or higher rates.
So basically, sit down, bitch for a while, it's the American way, then
shut up and write out the check, mail it and have a beer.
who the fuck are you to tell me to shut up? You might be willing to take it
up the ass like the rest of the sheep. Cut Government spending instead of
expanding it, you ignorant pinhead... Was that clear enough?
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
There was no "domestic" wiretapping - except by accident. All tapped
communication involved at least one foreign subject.
The first instances of intercepting enemy electronic communications took
place during the Second War of Independence when both the Union and the
Confederacy tapped into their adversaries telegraph lines - without
warrants, I might add. Such surveillance continues to the present day with
the heyday during the times when we cracked the Japanese "Purple Code" and
the Brits at Benchely Park deciphered the Enigma machine. We didn't need
warrants to listen in to the Japanese fleet traffic and the British didn't
require a QC warrant to follow the German submarine fleet.
The Left and the Right talk past each other: The Left sees all the issues as
crimes and constitution. The Right sees the issues as war problems. The 4th,
5th, and 6th Amendments deal with "crimes" as in "In all criminal
proceedings..." The Left asserts that detainees and everybody else are
entitled to constitutional protections.
The Right sees things through the president's Article II powers. The
detainees at Gitmo, according to the Right, are not criminals - they have
committed no crimes and are not charged with crimes. As such, they are not
entitled to lawyers, courts, witnesses on their behalf, indictment by a
grand jury, speedy trials, and all the other constitutional privileges we
give to criminals. For example, we incarcerate people all the time who are
not "criminals:" Civil contempt, juveniles, illegal aliens, contagious
disease carriers, and more. None are constitutionally entitled to a trial,
lawyers, compulsory process for witnesses, avoidance of self-incrimination,
and the like.
During WW2, several hundred thousand captured German and Italian prisoners
were housed on US soil (Texas alone had over 100 POW camps). Of these
hundreds of thousands of prisoners, many were U.S. citizens (usually dual
citizenship). Not one got access to our courts. Not one got legal
representation. Why? Because they were not criminals.
I'm not saying the good folks at Gitmo are POWs, far from it*. I am only
illustrating that there are parallel tracks of justice: one for criminals
and one for events arising under the rules of war. These tracks are NOT the
same and, from legal perspectives, are treated differently, with different
rules by different people.
* The people at Gitmo are "unlawful enemy combatants" in the same category
as spies, guerrillas, saboteurs, fifth-columnists, etc. Under the customary
rules of war, they can be summarily executed.
The 5th amendment starts "No person shall..." so you'd think it applies to more
than just criminals. One of the independent clauses continues " nor be deprived
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." No crime
All subject to habius and judicial review, no?
Who says they are "unlawful enemy combatants"? Regardless, they are entitled
to judicial process under the Geneva Convention, which covers all persons in an
occupied country or combat zone, just solely combatants. You're right, it does
not have to be the same process as US citizens. Except for a few, we have
failed to provide them any judicial process.
No, they no longer can be summarily executed. They need at least a drumhead
The U.S. government asserts this because they: a) Engaged in combat upon
our civilians and our military troops, and b) Did so with meeting any of
the GC qualifications to be considered a protected class of military POW:
They didn't wear identifiable uniforms being the most obvious breach.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and more wrong. The only element of the GC that
applies to them is that there has to be a formal finding of their
status. Once they have been identified as not being a member of any of
the classes protected by the GCs that we've signed (civilian refugees,
uniformed military, POWs, etc.) we have NO legal obligation to them
under the GCs nor do they have any right or claims upon us under the
GCs. You might actually try reading the GCs to see how this works. As
a point of interest, Reagan properly refused to sign additional later
GCs that *would* have protected non-uniformed, non-identifiable
This is a prime example of why its impossible to have a reasoned discussion
with the Bush-haters. They invent rights that never existed, fabricate
spurious legal obligations, and generally make it up as they go along - much
like they do when interpreting the US Constitution. In actual fact, there
are a number of good arguments to be made for extending some level of civil
rights to unlawful combatants, but legality is one of them.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and more wrong. There have been formal military tribunals
in GTMO with counsel present to act exclusively in defense of the accused.
This is not something your arch-nemesis W invented. Military tribunals in
such circumstances have a long and studied history in the United States.
Again, a history book might be in order. Note that I'm not saying I love this
as a way to handle the problem, merely that it is lawful and has precedent.
Tim Daneliuk firstname.lastname@example.org
Except some of them were not, they were shopped to the U.S. by Afghan
warlords looking to collect rewards for Taliban or Al Qaeda fighters and
said warlords' motivation was getting paid, that and maybe settling a
personal or tribal grudge too. Many residents of Gitmo are without question
rat-bastard terrorists and guerillas, and some were just in the wrong place
at the wrong time and were held for years even when their captors had
long-since figured that out. Legalities aside, when did we decide that
simple human decency was something we no longer cared about?
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.