Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Protect America violates Constitution' (More Ron Paul Lunacy)
presstv.ir ^

Posted on 02/16/2008 7:49:09 AM PST by no nau

Presidential hopeful Ron Paul opposes the extension of the Protect America Act of 2007 as the legislation violates the US Constitution.

"The misnamed Protect America Act allows the US government to monitor telephone calls and other electronic communications of American citizens without a warrant, which violates the Fourth Amendment," Paul said.

Speaking before the US House of Representatives on Wednesday, he said the Protect America Act sidelines the FISA Court system and places authority over foreign surveillance in the director of national intelligence and the attorney general with little if any oversight.

The 10-term congressman added that it does not provide for the Fourth Amendment protection of American citizens if they happen to be on the other end of an electronic communication where the subject of surveillance is a non-citizen overseas.

"We must remember that the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed in 1978 as a result of the US Senate investigations into the federal government's illegal spying on American citizens," said Paul.

The libertarian-leaning Texan noted that the only legitimate 'upgrade' to the original FISA legislation would be to allow surveillance of conversations that begin and end outside the United States between non-US citizens where the telephone call is routed through the United States.

"Congress should not use this opportunity to chip away at even more of our constitutional protections and civil liberties. I urge my colleagues to oppose this and any legislation that violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution," Paul concluded.

Constitutionalist Ron Paul is an outspoken critic of current US fiscal and monetary policies. He advocates a full troop withdrawal from Iraq and the abolishment of income taxes.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: 110th; fisa; paultards; ronpaul; surveillance
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-143 next last
To: mad_as_he$$
Strikingly, the report said that the FBI's software for recording telephone surveillance of suspected spies and terrorists intercepted 27,728,675 sessions.

That's a hell of a lot of "potential terrorist" activity. Either that, or a lot of indiscriminate spying on US citizens by the Executive branch. Makes Hillary Clinton's 900+ FBI files look positively amateur by comparison.

51 posted on 02/16/2008 9:32:10 AM PST by Alex Murphy ("Therefore the prudent keep silent at that time, for it is an evil time." - Amos 5:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
If Hillary wants to have her Administration eavesdrop on the calls of Americans speaking with foreigners who are suspected to be terrorists or affiliated with them, that would not be a bad thing. She won't of course, because her enemies are domestic Republicans, not foreign terrorists.

The point is that the 4th Amendment is not absolute. It implicitly allows reasonable searches, as determined by objective standards. If an American citizen is speaking on an overseas call with a person he has reason to believe is terrorist-affiliated, he has no reasonable expectation of privacy.

52 posted on 02/16/2008 9:33:50 AM PST by andy58-in-nh (Kill the terrorists, secure the borders, and give me back my freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
One of the highest callings of a citizen of the US is to resist the left due to their "slippery slope" tramline service they seem to be enamoured with.

Seems like 33 out of 34 of their ideas have initial ideas (whether or not it should be addressed, extra-or contra-constitutional aspects of programs or goals, etc) result in a precedent that could be used by tyrants to subvert the healthy tyrant-roadblocks put in by our Founders. The precedent of "hate crimes" can be used to horrible effect by a tyrant.

But FISA? You're being manipulated about FISA. What FISA in the 1970's did was make it explicit (where it wasn't before) that if a communication that was suspect either originated IN or had a destination TO either US Territory OR a US Citizen, then Constitutional protections kicked in and you had to justify a court order (FISA COURT) just like any agent investigating Mafia control of sewage hauling in Kansas City would have to get from the District Court. That's consistent with the Constitution. In fact, it protects non-citizens in our territory with the assumption of innocence (we assume they aren't illegal until proven guilty of the crime, so to speak). That's a big heavy burden that is rightfully borne by law enforcement.

It isn't one that is Constitutional if you apply it to foreign nationals on foreign soil calling other foreign nationals on foreign soil. They don't get the Constitution - they're not covered. See?

53 posted on 02/16/2008 9:34:56 AM PST by Republicanus_Tyrannus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: no nau

Can you prove that there are absolutely no abuses of the monitoring system?

Or do you assume that since it is the Government, and a Republican administration, that all is good?

If these are known identities on the other end of these phone calls, what is the problem with getting a warrant?


54 posted on 02/16/2008 9:36:27 AM PST by Eagle Eye (I'm a RINO cuz I'm too conservative to be a Republican. McCain is the Conservatives true litmus test)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

That’s all intercepts, because they are counting the foreign-to-foreign intercepts in that count because of the MIS-application of the Constitution to those foreign nationals on foreign soil who have their coms routed THROUGH the US. It is an artificially high number because they forced the US to go to the FISA court for calls that were explicitly not covered - foreign to foreign. The dems supported a horrible lawsuit that in effect said that our Constitution protected every citizen of every country in the world, even if they never step inside our borders.

THAT’S the crime against the Constitution - not the PAA or the FISA court.


55 posted on 02/16/2008 9:38:30 AM PST by Republicanus_Tyrannus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: no nau

“Nobody is spying on American citizens.”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

How is the weather in LaLa land? If you believe that statement you are a lot more of an idiot than Mr. Paul!


56 posted on 02/16/2008 9:39:28 AM PST by RipSawyer (Does anyone still believe this is a free country?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
EP you have more to fear from your Government than you do from the terrorists. The actual chances of being a victim of terrorism is five time less than being in a crash of a commercial airliner.

The Sheeple have been duped with the WOT. They follow the leader blindly into the Constitutional Rights Slaughter House gladly and obediently raising their necks to have their throats cut. We have always had terrorist. They were here in the 1700's. Only a fool would believe in the WOT while our elected leave our borders wide open yet wish to be more intrusive in our private affairs.

Homeland Security? A loaded 12 gauge. A concealed weapon while out with the family. The willingness like the passengers on the last hi-jack plane not to become victims. That is Homeland Security and nothing Bush is pushing can match it in effectiveness. The Bush WOT is nothing but a ruse designed to put us under complete government authority. BAA Blind Sheep.

57 posted on 02/16/2008 9:39:37 AM PST by cva66snipe (Proud Partisan Constitution Supporting Conservative to which I make no apologies for nor back down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Emperor Palpatine
You show me anywhere in the Constitution where the word privacy is mentioned. I guarantee that you will not find it there.

The Founding Fathers were all good enough writers that had they intended for there to be a right to privacy they would have EXPRESSLY put it in there.

You are such a dumbass.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

58 posted on 02/16/2008 9:41:03 AM PST by Eagle Eye (I'm a RINO cuz I'm too conservative to be a Republican. McCain is the Conservatives true litmus test)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: kublia khan
I did not trust the FBI BEFORE I read it!
59 posted on 02/16/2008 9:43:52 AM PST by mad_as_he$$ (John McCain - The Manchurian Candidate? http://www.usvetdsp.com/manchuan.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

I’ve always said, when it comes to Liberty, Americans will give it up faster than a drunk prom date when faced with the right threat. We just don’t have the stones for it anymore.


60 posted on 02/16/2008 9:47:29 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: CJ Wolf
To Republican statists, Ron Paul is only correct on constitutional matters when the Democrats are in power. To Democrat statists, Ron Paul is only correct on the constitution when the Republicans are in power.

I'm keeping all of these RP threads in pdf format for when a rat president gets some more of these swell "if you ain't done nothing wrong, you got nothing to hide" ideas. Those "abortion clinic terrorists", "right-wing gun nut militia groups", and those guilty of "hate crimes" (or even better, "hate terrorism") are going to come in real handy.

61 posted on 02/16/2008 9:47:46 AM PST by M203M4 (True Universal Suffrage: Pets of dead illegal-immigrant felons voting Democrat (twice))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Republicanus_Tyrannus
LOL You can believe that if you want. Do so at your own peril.

For ease of access wiki:

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

US Citizens have been tapped for years and are continuing to be tapped. Since 9/11 it has skyrocketed. your statement that US Citizens are not being taped is a bold faced lie and stupid to boot.

62 posted on 02/16/2008 9:48:24 AM PST by mad_as_he$$ (John McCain - The Manchurian Candidate? http://www.usvetdsp.com/manchuan.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: no nau

Do you want Hillary or Obama to have these “patriot” act powers?


63 posted on 02/16/2008 9:51:47 AM PST by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$

You’re not serious, and if so, you’re not rational. Bye tinfoil, be sure to post exactly how you can use sheep’s bladders to predict earthquakes.


64 posted on 02/16/2008 9:53:02 AM PST by Republicanus_Tyrannus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

It disturbs be a great deal when even Rush talks about not having rights unless they are written in the Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written in times of National Crisis, yet they still installed protections against heavy handed government actions.

And I do think that one’s position on McCain is the Conservative litmus test.


65 posted on 02/16/2008 9:53:36 AM PST by Eagle Eye (I'm a RINO cuz I'm too conservative to be a Republican. McCain is the Conservatives true litmus test)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: rb22982
What’s scary are the number of people in this country who think it’s ok.

And the number of freepers who are STILL big wussies afraid of "the terrorists".

66 posted on 02/16/2008 9:54:57 AM PST by jmc813 (Ron Paul is the only pro-lifer/non-gun grabber left running for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

Don’t worry about ol’ Rush, he’ll change his tune when Hillary’s in office. He knows how to serve up the Kool-Aid, all flavors.


67 posted on 02/16/2008 9:55:19 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Republicanus_Tyrannus
You’re not serious, and if so, you’re not rational. Bye tinfoil, be sure to post exactly how you can use sheep’s bladders to predict earthquakes.

Anyone with two functional brain cells can see the end our nation is headed toward and that both parties intend to take us there. If you want to be enablers to those wishing to destroy this nation from within by suspending the Constitution through fearmongering so be it. As for me I'd rather take my chances in a society the founders intended. I hope you enjoy your government issued security. Think nothing about it when you find yourself on their bad side. It fer der good of der nation dat you sumbmit. Heil whatever. I'm certain the Germans who bought into Hitlers security and WOT thought they were right also.

68 posted on 02/16/2008 10:00:28 AM PST by cva66snipe (Proud Partisan Constitution Supporting Conservative to which I make no apologies for nor back down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Emperor Palpatine
Who's side are you on? Terrorists and their enablers/sympathizers should have no rights, period.

When you consider that the people who will be likely wielding these powers are the same group who refer to suicide bombers as "militants", and yet have the penchant for calling any group to the right of Hillary (especially if they advocate the ownership of fireatms--like the NRA) "terrorists", I think concern is warranted.

69 posted on 02/16/2008 10:01:33 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Republicanus_Tyrannus
I am very serious. There are literally hundreds of references to wiretapping abuses (Goolge says 29,000)just since 9/11. You are delusional if you do not believe that.

Source:

http://www.telecom-gear.com/Justice-Department-Calls-FBI-Wiretap-Abuses-Outrageous-article11688--1.htm

By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN, Associated Press Writer The FBI engaged in widespread and serious misuse of its authority in illegally gathering telephone, e-mail and financial records of Americans and foreigners while hunting terrorists, the Justice Department's chief inspector said Tuesday. The FBI's failure to establish sufficient controls or oversight for collecting the information through so-called national security letters constituted "serious and unacceptable" failures, said Glenn A. Fine, the internal watchdog who revealed the data-gathering abuses in a 130-page report last week. Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, Fine said he did not believe the problems were intentional, but were generally the result of confusion and carelessness.

70 posted on 02/16/2008 10:02:11 AM PST by mad_as_he$$ (John McCain - The Manchurian Candidate? http://www.usvetdsp.com/manchuan.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
I’ve always said, when it comes to Liberty, Americans will give it up faster than a drunk prom date when faced with the right threat. We just don’t have the stones for it anymore.

Well said.

71 posted on 02/16/2008 10:05:40 AM PST by Tiemieshooz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

Look, I’m not saying you’re all crazy, nor am I saying that you aren’t conversant with possible violations of the Constitution - I’m saying you guys are factually incorrect.

I’ll make a compromise. I’ll leave off my critique of your “FBI Over-reach” rants if you agree that the Contitution does not apply to a Turkish national in Turkey calling a Jordanian national in Phillipine National waters. If you can see that as reasonable (That the Constitution covers US territory and US nationals and not other citizens in other nations), then you should re-read the PAA and FISA legislation - and you’ll see that having FISA extend to Foreign-to-foreign calls simply because the comms go THROUGH the US is an unwarranted attack on the Constitution.

I’m not talking about your supposed FBI overstep and other frantic concerns - if you can’t agree on the above, then we cannot possibly understand each other’s points.


72 posted on 02/16/2008 10:08:56 AM PST by Republicanus_Tyrannus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$

One, I lost friends on 9/11 so your point is quite moot.

Two, I never fly commercial airliners anymore. Stale nuts, horrific scheduling, and seats made for midgets.

I prefer the train....even if Amtrak’s government run, hehehe.


73 posted on 02/16/2008 10:10:26 AM PST by Emperor Palpatine ("There is no civility, only politics.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

Not become victims? As heroic as the passengers on Flight #93 were, they still died.

Their heroism is small consolation to their families and loved ones.


74 posted on 02/16/2008 10:13:30 AM PST by Emperor Palpatine ("There is no civility, only politics.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

Again, bad reasoning and the sort of bad reasoning that gave us terrible law like “Roe”.

Funny that our national patron saint Abraham Lincoln did far worse during the Civil War and FDR suspended much of the Constitutional guarantees during WWII.

Or has that little elementary school history lesson been forgotten in your dotage?


75 posted on 02/16/2008 10:16:20 AM PST by Emperor Palpatine ("There is no civility, only politics.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$

Oh boy...Wikipedia is sure a credible source......


76 posted on 02/16/2008 10:17:44 AM PST by Emperor Palpatine ("There is no civility, only politics.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

We’ve had RICO for thirty plus years. The same dire predictions were made about that law, too.

Funny, I don’t worry about RICO because I’m not a made man. I don’t fear this law either because I’m not a terrorist or sympathizer.

Use some common sense, people! How bad do you think the rights suspensions will happen if another major attack on a scale or larger than 9/11 happens?????

I wish to prevent such a thing.

And some of you claim to be for national security. Yeah, right!


77 posted on 02/16/2008 10:21:46 AM PST by Emperor Palpatine ("There is no civility, only politics.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Emperor Palpatine
Source:

http://www.gonzalez.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=54&Itemid=37

Despite this positive sign, however, a number of disturbing statistics in the same report reveal that we have a long way to go in preventing death and injury on the rails. While accidents, as the FRA defines them, have declined for two years in a row, they are the cause of only a tiny fraction of total train-related fatalities. Last year a total of 12,833 train-related accidents or incidents are reported to have occurred in the United States. 2,834 of these were actual train accidents, primarily involving train collisions or train derailments. This is the category of train wrecks traditionally used by the FRA in press releases claiming progress on rail safety. The number in 2005 was 3,225, demonstrating a decline of 391 "accidents" from 2005 to 2006. Another 2,897 wrecks involved highway-rail collisions. Highway-rail accidents are considered separately from train accidents and are statistically far more deadly. While 6 people were killed in train accidents in 2006, 362 people were killed in highway-rail accidents. As the FRA admits, fatalities in the highway-rail accident category actually increased 1.4% from 2005 to 2006. Finally, an additional 7,102 "other incidents" occurred in 2006. The vast majority of fatalities in 2006 resulted from highway-rail collisions, or from other incidents, often involving trespassers on the rails. To reiterate, the number of fatalities due to train accidents, that is, involving individuals riding trains and killed as a result of impact in a crash, was just 6 last year, down from 33 the previous year. Sadly, the combined number of fatal train accidents, highway-rail accidents, and other train-related incidents increased from 808 in 2005 to 850 in 2006, resulting in a total of 915 deaths, up from 888 in 2005.

Source:

http://www.mattbarr.com/archives/2006/09/your_chance_of.html

Your chance of dying in a terrorist attack According to one estimate, your chance as an American of dying by accidental drowning is 66 times greater than your chance of dying in a terrorist attack. (Or it might be seven times greater; see the post.) As many Americans have been killed by lightning, accident-causing deer and allergic reactions to peanuts as terrorism, since they started keeping track, they say. You're twice as likely to die crushed under a vending machine as you are to die in a terrorist attack, according to this source. You are 225,409 times more likely to die in an auto accident, another source says. More people accidentally shoot themselves to death than die in terror attacks, it says here.

I am sorry about your friend.

However, if we stop living our way the terrorist win.

78 posted on 02/16/2008 10:23:21 AM PST by mad_as_he$$ (John McCain - The Manchurian Candidate? http://www.usvetdsp.com/manchuan.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Emperor Palpatine
You just don’t get it. They and not GW Bush and his friends did more to stop future attacks than anything to stop attacks. They chose their response and in doing so stopped the terrorist plans. Is GW Bush saying Americans need to arm themselves? What about the armed air crews? Where are they? We had planes hi-jacked out the ying yang in the 60’s and 70’s yet they were stopped not by violating law abiding citizens rights but by Air Marshals. We didn’t have a Stooge TSA to herd us around. Other than try and build data bases on you me and the guy next door and create jobs for yet more of his long time family friends Bush has used the WOT as an excuse for everything he wants done.

I won’t fly for two reasons. One is I refuse to surrender myself to search without warrant. The other is security now has everything so screwed up you stand a far better chance arriving on time by driving. Terrorism is nothing new. It’s just that people are now gullible as hell and buying into government generated fears.

79 posted on 02/16/2008 10:24:12 AM PST by cva66snipe (Proud Partisan Constitution Supporting Conservative to which I make no apologies for nor back down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Emperor Palpatine

It was a loser argument then and it was the loser argument again in a Supreme Court decision regarding the rights of American citizens.

The dissenting opinion claimed that ‘...the Constitution is not a suicide pact...” but the overwhelming opinion was that when it comes to our rights, it was the government’s duty to protect them despite the risk.

I’m sorry that I can’t recall the case but IIRC, it was in the late 1940s and the dissenting justice was Feinberg or Feinstein.


80 posted on 02/16/2008 10:25:57 AM PST by Harvey105
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: no nau
Nobody is spying on American citizens.

What? Do you think only non-citizens were on the receiving end of these calls into the United States?

81 posted on 02/16/2008 10:26:22 AM PST by ksen (Don't steal. The government hates the competition. - sign on Ron Paul's desk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republicanus_Tyrannus
I’ll make a compromise. I’ll leave off my critique of your “FBI Over-reach” rants if you agree that the Contitution does not apply to a Turkish national in Turkey calling a Jordanian national in Phillipine National waters. If you can see that as reasonable (That the Constitution covers US territory and US nationals and not other citizens in other nations), then you should re-read the PAA and FISA legislation - and you’ll see that having FISA extend to Foreign-to-foreign calls simply because the comms go THROUGH the US is an unwarranted attack on the Constitution.

According to the article, RP thinks that's perfectly allowable under the Constitution. Whoever posted the article seems to consider this "lunacy".

82 posted on 02/16/2008 10:27:13 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

Terrorism per se is nothing new.

Terrorism on the scale of 9/11 is. The potential for losing a city and half a million citizens in seconds makes the threat one that must be dealt with.

By any means necessary.

If that means listening into overseas calls, so be it. If that means closing all mosques and arresting all imams, so be it.

Incidentally, I have no problem driving anywhere. I have an Escalade. It certainly has better seat room and a better ride than any airliner and a much better sound system. Plus my Akita/Shiba Inu mix dog can ride shotgun with me.


83 posted on 02/16/2008 10:29:44 AM PST by Emperor Palpatine ("There is no civility, only politics.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: ksen

people here getting calls from the Mideast deserve to be watched, too.


84 posted on 02/16/2008 10:30:45 AM PST by Emperor Palpatine ("There is no civility, only politics.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Emperor Palpatine
The Founding Fathers were all good enough writers that had they intended for there to be a right to privacy they would have EXPRESSLY put it in there.

Are you under the impression that Americans only have those rights "EXPRESSLY" stated in the Bill of Rights.

If that's the case then you are wrong.

85 posted on 02/16/2008 10:32:01 AM PST by ksen (Don't steal. The government hates the competition. - sign on Ron Paul's desk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Harvey105

Well, Lincoln had the stones to threaten to lock up the entire Roger Taney court.

We’re at war. get with the program.


86 posted on 02/16/2008 10:32:59 AM PST by Emperor Palpatine ("There is no civility, only politics.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Emperor Palpatine; rb22982
Ben didn’t have to contend with savages like the Islamists.

Psst! There were Islamists around in Ben Franklin's day.

87 posted on 02/16/2008 10:33:37 AM PST by ksen (Don't steal. The government hates the competition. - sign on Ron Paul's desk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ksen

They didn’t have any way of blowing up Philadelphia back then, either.

All they did back then was seize some ships, and Decatur handled that.


88 posted on 02/16/2008 10:35:39 AM PST by Emperor Palpatine ("There is no civility, only politics.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Exactly, and the PAA was extended over the objections of the President instead of having a simple exception as RP stated (first time I agreed with him) as well as a protection for telecoms who cooperate with a FISA request.

Instead, now PAA lapses and ALL the stuff goes through FISA, which blinds us to activation calls, coordination calls, and disposable contact numbers for action groups positioned previously if they are in US territory.

Some of those last will get through now. For the next 10 days, the terrorists have been told how to operate in the clear on our soil with an assured number of untraceable calls for a pre-determined level of security.

This is a lot more complex than Wired lumping all intercepts of all types under one classification that changed only once in our entire history.

89 posted on 02/16/2008 10:37:30 AM PST by Republicanus_Tyrannus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Emperor Palpatine
We’re at war. get with the program.

Amazing what passes for "war" anymore.

90 posted on 02/16/2008 10:37:39 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Emperor Palpatine
I have nothing to hide anyway. If they want to listen in on me ordering pizza from Vocelli’s, then they can be my guest.

I don't own any guns, if they want to repeal the Second Amendment, to use your words, "then they can be my guest". BARF

91 posted on 02/16/2008 10:38:00 AM PST by theymakemesick (The war on drugs benefits government agencies, politicians and drug dealers, they don't want to win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Emperor Palpatine
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Yea, that pesky 4th Amendment thingy is sooooo outdated.

Ben didn’t have to contend with savages like the Islamists.

Actually he did. Read up on the Barbary Pirates you twit.

It's unreal how historically ignorant Freepers are....

L

92 posted on 02/16/2008 10:38:27 AM PST by Lurker (Pimping my blog: http://lurkerslair-lurker.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Emperor Palpatine
And some of you claim to be for national security. Yeah, right!

I am for national security. I would jerk every perfume prince 0-7 and above in the Pentagon out of their chairs and put their lazy hides back on watch in our skies 24/7/365. I would have armed planes on alert status sitting on Tarmacs at unannounced airbases. I would close our borders to anyone who doesn't have a legal Visa. I would make the hiring of illegals a felony punishable by no less than 5 years prison and make company CEO's and owners do the time for the crime.

I would stop the United States dependency on foreign goods. I would stop supporting China's national defensee with American dollars. Change before trade. No change in national policy? No Trade! All military and national defense needs would be Made In USA no exception. I would halt 8 year military obligations and put it back to a reasonable 6 year one with the GI Bill restored. I would call for an immediate raise of Active Duty Armed Forces End Troop Strengths by one third.

I would place security for commercial air travel where it actually belongs. I would turn it over to the airliners themselves. In doing so they could do as they wish security wise as it would be THEIR private property.

I would encourage private gun ownership and suspend the Brady Bill. I would allow concealed carry and make it a felony for any law enforcement agency to try and harass the gun owner or subvert that right of a law abiding citizen. No records would be kept by the government as to ownership beyond a theft report filed by owner. Note I said law abiding.. Notice Bush has not proposed any of this. Why not? It's easier to herd a nation of willing cowards perhaps?

93 posted on 02/16/2008 10:40:43 AM PST by cva66snipe (Proud Partisan Constitution Supporting Conservative to which I make no apologies for nor back down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

“Amazing what passes for “war” anymore.”

Ain’t that the truth!


94 posted on 02/16/2008 10:41:02 AM PST by FReepapalooza (Look away, look away, look away Dixieland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Emperor Palpatine

The Constitution restricts government, not individuals.

The 9th Amendment clearly states that there are other rights that are not enumerated.

You are not in any position to say that free citizens should not have a right to privacy. In fact, stating the opposite pupts you in opposition to freedom and liberty

Lincoln may be your patron saint but not mine.


95 posted on 02/16/2008 10:41:42 AM PST by Eagle Eye (I'm a RINO cuz I'm too conservative to be a Republican. McCain is the Conservatives true litmus test)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Emperor Palpatine
Terrorism on the scale of 9/11 is. The potential for losing a city and half a million citizens in seconds makes the threat one that must be dealt with.

Really? Then explain this one. Look up hijacked airliner +Oak Ridge, Tennessee +Weapons Plants and get back to me. BTW I live ground zero from there. You tell me how the threat was dealt with both then and future.

96 posted on 02/16/2008 10:43:28 AM PST by cva66snipe (Proud Partisan Constitution Supporting Conservative to which I make no apologies for nor back down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Emperor Palpatine
Not to mention the Paul kooks here.

As opposed to the kooks screaming and pleading with conservatives to get behind McStain.

You guys made your bed; now lie in it. You called the best conservative Republican in the race with huge grassroots support & who was the only one who can defeat Hillary or Obama all the names under the book.

Now you're stuck with a liberal RINO who has cut more deals with the Dems than any other Republican presidential candidate in history with no backing from the conservative base. And we all know those vaunted "independents" and "moderates" will just vote for the Dem, when a guy like Paul could have attracted the independents and cross-over Dems needed to defeat Hillary.

I'll be writing in Paul's name in the general election, and I'll be grabbing the popcorn as McStain loses in a landslide and the GOP will still be clueless as to why they lost another election.

97 posted on 02/16/2008 10:50:09 AM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (The Constitution does not give me the authority to run your life - Ron Paul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Emperor Palpatine

Sic semper tyrannus.

Lincoln was a tyrant who trampled the Constitution and the principle of States Rights and you hail him as a hero. No wonder you like expansive federal powers. It also goes with your screen name quite well.

Just who and what do you think that we are at war with? American citizens and individual liberty? That seems to have been the focus of this war so far along with increased power for the government.

Why would you surrender your liberty to our own government in a so called effort to defend that liberty from attack by terrorists?


98 posted on 02/16/2008 10:51:12 AM PST by Harvey105
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Ron Paul...Mr Cut and Run isolationist.

Oh, he’s a racist with ties to WAR, et. al., too.


99 posted on 02/16/2008 10:53:08 AM PST by Emperor Palpatine ("There is no civility, only politics.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
Just injecting a note of friendliness here to all the above Freepers.

If I mocked you previously, please accept my apologies, it was meant in good humor, not in meanness or with a jaundiced eye.

I will not willingly impugn anyone's clear dedication as Americans to our Republic's Founding Documents, though I may call into question someone's full knowledge and understanding. This is to inform and to possibly BE informed, and I always come away from such discussions with more to learn about and a deeper appreciation of how universal our Americanism runs throughout the political spectrum. Yes even Democrats, I trust, feel much the same as us in most cases. This even though we can spot the looney easiest on the other side pretty often and those loonies (Michael Moore, etc) are clearly UN-American. Remember that a bunch of your neighbors are Democrats but aren't Leftists. They're our opponents, not our enemies.

But it is foolish, I think we all agree, to assume we have no domestic enemies. We should pause every once in a while and clear our heads, and make sure we differentiate between our neighbors who are just mainly interested in arguing about traffic light placement, and our enemies (far Left and terrorists).

100 posted on 02/16/2008 10:54:37 AM PST by Republicanus_Tyrannus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-143 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson