Defending the Truth

In some ways I think it takes away from movies when directors do that. Then there's movies like "Fun With Dick and Jane" which are entirely political and I don't know...that's not why I go to movies. Hollywood is very political but it's all talk and no walk as far as I'm concerned.

Everyone needs to express themselves politically. Just look at how "American Idiot" by Green Day brought them back into the limelight.

Yeah I know...it's just use or overuse makes some movies suck a lot of ass.

Ahh yes, the liberties card, because the law suddenly grants government more power, somewhere, somebodies liberties must have been violated. Live free or die, is a nice catchy little slogan. Yet if your dead you can't live. Lets ask the 3000 people who died on September 11th how important their privacy is to them. Oh that's right we can't now can we???

Despite all the crying of foul, no one has shown that their rights have been violated in any way. All we have are a bunch hypothetical what ifs. What if this board is being monitored, or what if they are seeing what I am reading, or what if they are listening to my phone calls.

As a conservative, I hate government intruding in people lives, yet at the same time I recognize that without the government protecting my life, I would have no rights whatsoever.

The Patriot Act has given the government the ability to use roving wire taps, once again, technology has changed, once upon a time, government could monitor the phone calls of an individual without the use of a roving wire tap, why??? Because there were no cell phones. Today, more people have cell phones than land lines. The technology changed and so too should the law enforcement techniques.

The Patriot Act declares terrorist suspects as foreign agents. Prior to the Patriot Act, terrorist could not be monitored under FISA, by changing their classification, the government has allowed the intelligence of our country to monitor them as foreign agents.

Following the attacks on September 11th, Congress gave the President the power to use "all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent further attacks against American citizens. Words have meanings, and now Congress doesn't even know what they meant when they offered that resolution. The President is using what he has been advised as legal to prevent further attacks.

The 1972 Keith decision by the Supreme Court held that the President does not have the inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats. However, the court said explicitly that this does not question the President's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad. The NSA does not trap calls in the US, they intercept the calls overseas. They are targeting the known foreign terrorists, if in doing this they intercept calls made by US citizens, they have not broken the law. The target was not the US citizen but rather the foreign agent.

Thus far, all we have heard are unsubstantiated allegations. And of course, everyone is pandering to the press and the citizens by demanding investigation. SO lets have the investigation and see what the facts truly are before we decide who is right and who wrong.

dmk

And all this has to do with the fact, that our own President can't follow the laws set forth by this government, in what way?
You may think you know exactly what the NSA is doing but isn't this because you believe what they are telling us. I am intitled to my 'what ifs' too. With all the lies this administration is currently telling, I feel warranted in these 'what ifs'. US senators are saying that our President is breaking the law. I know they are not all the most honest bunch, but I tend to believe them more than the NSA, a branch of the goverment that will protect this administration in what ever way it sees fit. Of course I think you are also entitled to your opinion, if you really believe what you are saying. My what ifs are an attempt to convey what is actually being said in the senate. Your what ifs are just another attempt to stick up for a bunch of caught in the act liars. I stated the facts of what is going on and then I went into my own opinions. You stated what we are being told, which is not really the verifiable facts, and then went into an attack on my 'what ifs'.
Take your own advice and wait for the investigation.

They sure are taking a long time with this investigation... Maybe they don't have anything good against him.

Ridin, this is certainly true. I think it comes down to interpetation of the laws.
How these laws are made has alot to do with it. More detail needs to be specified in the new Patriot Act so that it is crystal clear what can and can't be done. The fact that Bush is trying to pass it as is, indicates to me, that he would rather not have this administration's spying activities monitored!

Unless you're Bono. Just think Peter Griffin trapped on an island with Bono. Hah.

I've posted some benefits about the Patriot Act quite a long time ago somewhere on these forums. Sure their is argument for the negatives, but you also have to look at what good it could cause. But I don't want to go off-topic here so...

I did not say we should do away with the Patriot Act entirely, just put in some checks and balances that I know you support in general.
As for being off topic, this post's title is 'is bush braking the law?' so I think we are still on topic.
If the act is modified to monitor our domestic spying I have no problem with it. I just think that with all the lies being told and all the covering up going on that it is possible that Bush is using this program for more than is being admitted. If not, than there should be no problem with putting in the checks and balances I'm talking about!