true. but when we find these nucular weapons he will prove us all wrong.

 

I was gonna make you a new one.....but now that you basically said your other one sucks.....nevermind..........

 

He hasn't provided an answer to the 'Why' in disregarding the secret court except to say that he had the 'absolute authority' to do so.

Power corrupts
Absolute power, corrupts absolutely

 

which one did i say sucks? i liked the corona one you made me, It amazes me how you can do that because i sure couldnt make one like that, but i've just had it for a long time so i went to make a new one and deleted it out of my gallery on accident. so i have to use my pink one.

 

nobodys listening to me... i don't fit the profile. but if they want to hear me talk to my wife on the phone... big deal.

we are at war. lets do what it takes to win it. - oaw

 

 

That's a fair statement.
Since the 'War on Terror' will not end during your lifetime, you don't have to worry about getting back 'what it takes to win it' after it ends.

 

I've had interesting conversations with people who have no problem with wiretapping without a court order because we 'have to do what it takes' and because "I'm not doing anything wrong anyway." These same people go nuts, though, if you suggest firearms should have to be licensed/registered because it's such degradation of their rights and it's the "first step down the road to a police state."

I don't understand how anyone can accept such a degradation of their privacy rights simply because the Executive Branch declares it's their perogative based on criteria they invented. That worries me a little...

 

raoul -
gotta try something..... better than sitting on your thumbs and waiting for the enemy to arrive at your front door. can't be afraid to spill a little milk, push some people around, make some waves. that's the way stuff gets done.

js2003 -
you are right. i don't want my guns taken away. i will be the first to say that. but i think that locking down gun owners has far greater effects on the general public than W spying on a few terrorist cells. (that might not even be legal citizens)
i see what you mean though, if we blindly follow W and let him do what he wants.... what's next. eaves dropping to find out who is gay? or jewish? or catholic? or rappers? or metal heads? or whatever might be deemed as a rougue group. i see where it can go too far. but we have to do something to push down these terrorists.

oaw - proud american and gun owner

 

The problem: how do we know he was just looking at a few terrorist cells? How does anyone know what the criteria were/are? What gives him the right to decide who might be a threat? Do we want him to have that kind of power?

How would it decrease the effectiveness of wiretaps if he were to seek appropriate oversight?

I remember Tricky **** Nixon, G. Gordon Liddy and their pals too well to think that we should be comfortable with this kind of infringement of our privacy rights simply because W thinks we should trust him.

 

I think everybody in America should be DNA type matched, and I think all guns should be ballisticly cross-referenced, and stored in a database.

That way, any time a crime is committed, and DNA left, we know where to go to start questioning. (How did you "boys" end up in that gun barrell sir?")
Any time a person is shot, we know who the gun was registered to...

That's just me. If I shoot anyone, it'll be a righteous shot that got fired. Toally defendable. If I have to "Jamzwayne" someone's ****; I'd probably stand there until the cops arrive anyway, picking their teeth out of my hand... Once again; it'd be righteous.

Somethings are "rights" but I don't think rights should make you invisible, if you've done something wrong.

When I got to Fort Hood, they took all our DNA as a part of in-processing- so, my stuff is already on file. If I ever do something, they got me...

A few months later, two soldiers refused to have their DNA taken. It made the news, and they were both facing beign kicked out of the Army. They said beign forced to give up DNA was a violation of their 5th Amendment rights, and by doing so, if they ever committed a crime, it's just like admittign guilt... I saw their point, but, to that I said.... So. Don't committ any prisonable crimes...

 

It is not as simple as the media makes it out to be. A wiretap, even without judicial approval, is not just done on a random basis. A series of checks and balances are in place to insure the scope of the mission is being adhered to.
A wiretap is not some guy sitting in a plumbers van outside your house listening to your phone conversations.

"Big brother" does not have the capability to do a wiretap on everyone in the United States. Unless you are in a position to have contact with known entities of concern, you are not considered to be a source of information.

Even if judical approval is granted, you may never know that you were even looked at. If an investigation does not produce anything, it's dropped or archived until something else comes up.

This is just something that the media jumped on and the democrates are using it to slam the President. I prefer to let the experts do their job, and just maybe, those that died on 09-11 will not have died in vain.

 

Could you provide some links on this info?
I am eager to read up on it.

The only 'check and balance' reported to exist was the Dept of Justice that was circumvented.

 

Oh boy....breath...relax....breath...relax...ok...now I'm ready....

WHAT ARE YOU NUTS!!!...just kidding...partially.

Raoul has it right...

I'm about as conservative as it gets but being a conservative today is similar to being a DC resident. Taxation without representation.

Bush does not and should not have a blank check to do what he thinks is necessary to protect this country without at a minimum following up with a "by the way here is what I did last month" note to Congress.

DNA databases? Ballistic matches? Come on....do you really want to live in a country where as soon as you are born you are cataloged and filed away for future prosecution? The rights we give up now to keep us safe will never be returned.

To the "conservatives" who support what Bush is doing...would you have supported Clinton, Gore, or Kerry doing the same? I think not.

Just because Bush is a GOPer shouldn't allow him the freedom to trample on our rights.

No I have never committed a crime nor do I plan to...but I'm not checking my gun for ballistic ddatabases, giving a sample of my DNA, or signing off on having my emails and phone calls monitored just to keep me safe.

I value my freedom - freedom from government intrusion - entirely too much to just say "well shucks here ya go now keep me safe...I'm a good boy so I don't care if you watch me...I haven't done anything wrong anyhow"

Please people...don't be so quick to give up the rights guaranteed by the blood of 1000s of our citizens in the past for a "sense" of security.

 

Once again.....Vader's intellect is something that I must cheer on.....