Renegade Public Forums
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Patriot Act Renewal rejected by the Senate
Re: Patriot Act Renewal rejected by the Senate [message #184483 is a reply to message #184422] Mon, 02 January 2006 09:35 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
SuperFlyingEngi is currently offline  SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma:
General (1 Star)
runewood wrote on Sun, 01 January 2006 15:45

SuperFlyingEngi wrote on Sun, 01 January 2006 11:06

Nodbugger wrote on Sat


Runewood

Ok listen carefully. Who here likes old Honest Abe? I do. Under the precedents he set up, the President can remove your rights if you commit treason. If you are a terrorist then you have committed treason. Thus if they think you are a terrorist, you HAVE NO RIGHTS. These people are involved in questionable things dealing with treason so they CAN be searched, checked, spy-ed upon.


These people haven't been convicted of ANYTHING. So they cannot legally be viewed as being guilty of treason. Of course, legality never stopped President Bush, but that doesn't mean you should follow his bad example. I highly suggest you give up political science in favor of being a waitor or something.


Thats just it, if you commit treason you dont have the right to a trail. You dont need to be convicted. You have no rights as soon as you commit treason. Which means they can wire tap you, lock you in a box and throw away a key, ect. You are no longer protected by the constitution.





Only if they prove that you committed treason. When someone commits such an act, an alarm doesn't suddenly go off somewhere. There is that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, but, like I said, fortunately President Bush doesn't observe laws.

runewood

There were people acused of treason and they never got a trial. They said, you are a spy, get in jail


Not legally.

runewood

Bush is doing the same.


Not legally.

runewood, you are so deplorably unintelligent on the topic of what is and what is not illegal that I'm afraid to say I don't want to be bothered by you any more.

Nodbugger

These are in no way unreasonable.


That's not why these wiretaps are against the Constitution.

Nodbugger

And what you don't realize is that that rule can be waived for something called probable cause.


That doesn't apply to electronic surveillance. Duh.

Nodbugger

The constitution is meant to be vague and this is one of those situations. If I can't have my machine gun you can't have your warrants.


Great comparison.

Nodbugger

The Wars powers act was created to stop trading with the enemy and was passed 50 years before Vietnam.


http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

Nodbugger


According to the constitution ONLY Congress has the power to declare war. Now the president got around this by not declaring war. This is what they did. The president never supposed to be able to wage war, before war was only fought with a formal declaration. It was just the thing to do. They made the Wars Powers resolution to make this even more so, even though no president has ever been denied, it was a nice try.


Not really.

Nodbugger


And as I said, American citizens can be wiretapped when it involved foreign citizens. To say that they can't wire tap Bob smiths house in Connecticut , but we can wire tap Mohamed's phone in Bahrain , even though they constantly call each other is stupid.


Except that Bob has constitutionally-protected rights, and to say you can violate them because you really want to is just stupid.

Nodbugger

If Bob smith has relations with Mohamed the terrorist, chances are Bob is talking to other terrorists. It is called common sense.


Law works on facts, not common sense.

Nodbugger


Now this will probably get amended, they did receive information on American citizens, but they could always say they didn't know.


Which I suppose you would consider good?

EDIT: Errors with quotation system


"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)

The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship

[Updated on: Mon, 02 January 2006 09:37]

Report message to a moderator

 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Texas politician proposes 50 percent game tax
Next Topic: My Opinions on Clans(Warning: Anti-Clan Rant Ahead)
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Tue Oct 22 11:44:28 MST 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01868 seconds