If it wasn't this war keeping them away from home it would be another. The U.S. isn't happy unless it's testing weapons systems on foreignors.
Posted by steve duncan at December 23, 2005 10:27 AMIfind it amazing you know care about where soldiers are spending their Holidays when with Clinton s do more with less military outlook many spent the holidays away from home and all we got from the left was to bad you signed up talk about hypocracy. Well the left nevers seems to ammaze me on how far they will try to exploit the plight of military for its political aims in the US.v Maybe thats way 70% voted for President Bush they kow Bullshitters when they hear then speak. I know the soldiers, NCO's and officers I served with did.
'Tis a shame they didn't teach you to talk 'Mer'kin like yore leedur do!
Posted by Avenger D-22 at December 23, 2005 10:30 AM>
I'm glad that you served and I hope you got citizenship papers out of it. Otherwise, you would have had to have learned English first.
70% voted for Bush? Are you talking about America in general or just his immediate family?
Posted by Mr. 69.3.220.41 at December 23, 2005 01:52 PMNext time post the link, Doofus!
Posted by Mr. 24.45.166.74 at December 23, 2005 01:55 PMThat previous post is from the BLOG powerline
You forgot the link, dolt!
I'm sure the THOUGHT POLICE will Delete that as well
The Blog Lord has allowed us that privelege.
FREE and OPEN DEBATE does not apply to LIBERALS!!
Yeah, O'Reilly and Hannity already told us that.
This brings us back where we started, i.e., the Constitution. The only constitutional limitation on the President’s power to intercept communications by Americans for national security purposes is that such intercepts be “reasonable.” Is it reasonable for the administration to do all it can to identify the people who are communicating with known terrorists overseas, via the terrorists’ cell phones and computers, and to learn what terrorist plots are being hatched by those persons? Is it reasonable to do so even when—rather, especially when--some portion of those communications come from people inside the United States? I don’t find it difficult to answer those questions; nor, if called upon to do so, would the Supreme Court.
Bush and his cult followers have not made a case that it was necessary for warrants to be disregarded in order to do surveillance. You imply that warrantless surveillance is the only possible kind that can be done. Clearly it is not and we know that much of the surveillance was done with proper warrants. So the question is, why do some need warrants and some not? THIS is where your "reasonableness" question will be.
The Right has been thrashing around trying to concoct an answer to this. The most recent one I have seen touted is the need for "agility". But tell me, we have a dozen FIMA judges and one president who is well known to go to be early. Who do you think would be easier to contact in a pinch. Or do you think that Cowboy George is out there personally in the mail van monitoring the wiretaps?
Posted by Unagidon at December 23, 2005 02:03 PMThere is one relevant constitutional provision that acts as a restraint on the President's inherent power as Commander in Chief. That is the Fourth Amendment
I know that the sissy right simply comes all over themselves at the thought of a Republican "Commander in Chief". But Bush is not the Commander in Chief of the United States. He is Commander in Chief of the military. Of are you saying that the Constitution holds that the US is a military dictatorship. (Bush seems to.)
Posted by unagidon at December 23, 2005 02:07 PMThat previous post is from the BLOG powerline Posted by ROOFWhoopee.
There are at least two answers to Powerline:
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.
-- United States Constitution, Amendment IV
The second is that the FISA law specified that tape without warrants on Americans were legal only under specified circumstances. Bush ignored those circumstances. Under our constitution, being president does not allow anyone to commit actions specifically made illegal by statute. That is defined as criminal. There is no argument on this. It has been decided by Supreme Court case law. There is no excuse not to meet the requirements of the act.
Powerline's reasoning is specious.
Posted by Mike at December 24, 2005 02:51 PM