The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by str8outavannuys
I've received a lot of emails from WH-apologist friends today with stories of previous administrations conducting warrantless searches in the foreign intelligence realm pursuant to the President's inherent constitutional powers. Most of these stories begin by discussing warrantless electronic surveilance, and seem to say that previous Presidents have engaged in identical behvaior. However, the stories use the term "warrantless searches". My guess is that this refers to physical searches, and not electronic eavesdropping. The interception of communications without judicial review is new ground.

If those stories are passing along the RNC talking points channeled by Drudge about Clinton and Carter executive orders, they are wrong - the Clinton and Carter executive orders did not permit warrantless searches of US citizens.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
My basis is knowing someone who works at DOJ on these issues, and tells me that like any cops FBI wants unfettered wiretaps, and an informed guess at how things might work in the white house.

Isn't that why the law was passed in the first place? Because the Congress decided that the FBI can't have unfettered wiretaps?

[Raggedy Ann Coulter]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
This reminds me of every cop's testimony for why a search was reasonable: "There was clearly a reasonable suspicion--he was the first off the bus, he was carrying a big bag, he paid cash for his ticket, he had on a large down jacket."

Translation: He was black.

All the more reason to suspect he's a perp.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Southern Patriot
repeater

Sounds like you read Turtledove's altnerate history book "the Guns of the South". Did you approve when you hero Robert E. Lee freed all the slaves in the end?

[Raggedy Ann Coulter]

taxwonk
I simply turned your question around on you, Hank. Once again, if the warrants (that's how the word is spelled by the way) are so easy to obtain, then what possible reason could there be for not obtaining them?

I guess the word "Delay" only enters to a Demwit's mind when discussing the Representative of Texas.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Raggedy Ann Coulter
All the more reason to suspect he's a perp.

Something I've always wanted to ask you - who'd you have to sleep with to get your job?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You get The Alamo; we get Yosemite.

Woo hoo! You guys are getting hosed.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
And all that stuff about how all men are created equal, and endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights was just puff advertising?

If that's the case, then the only argument that you can really make about Iraq is that we went there because it's more convenient for us to have a democratic (well, up to a point) state than it was to have Saddam.

And if your ability to claim certain rights is based solely on an accident of birth, then what real moral basis is there for those rights?

You have Tys disease of jumping to conclusions that are not warranted. Just because I believe in Universal Human Rights does not mean that I believe in all the rights granted in the US constitution are universal rights. In addition, some of the rights we grant have other purposes other than just respecting international norms of rights. In addition, it doesn't mean that if all the governments of the world don't grant those rights then the US has to respect them from citizens of those countrys whose governments don't.

In a perfect world everyone would have those rights. But in a perfect world every country in the world would have our democratic values and our economic system. But that isn't the case is it? And in that world Terrorism wouldn't exist. Or wouldn't be as omnipresent as it is today.

When you have a country like Saudi Arabia that doesn't respect those rights and educated their citizens to hate and want to destroy all non-muslim civilization then those citizens do not get the full weight of the US constitution. Of course, under the Universal Human Rights I don't think anything should be done to them if they are innocent. Innocent people should not be killed. But don't for a second think that I think that a right to trial by Jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, the exclusionary rule etc. etc. are universal human rights that should be granted to everyone.

In our country we have reasons for those rights and we let a lot of guilty people go free because of our respect for those rights. I actually agree with that. But that does not mean those rights are universal human rights. But of course, innocent people have the right under the universal moral code not to be tortured, killed, raped or sold into slavery. Every human being has the right to life, liberty, and property rights. But those can be taken away if they are not innocent.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Something I've always wanted to ask you - who'd you have to sleep with to get your job?

That is disgusting. Ew ew ew ew ew.

[Anntila the Hun]

Originally posted by Raggedy Ann Coulter
When you consider the position of the Clinton administration, made clear by Gorelick's statements at the time, I would highly doubt that the Groper-in-Chief had any qualms about tapping phones.

Except, in his instance, it was the offices of American Spectator and Richie Scaife, not the Arab League.

You again? Didn't I tell you already to get the hell off my corner, ho? Take your bony elbows and Marlboro Lights breath back to the FB or whatever rock you crawled out from under or it's on, bitch!

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
You have Tys disease of jumping to conclusions that are not warranted. Just because I believe in Universal Human Rights does not mean that I believe in all the rights granted in the US constitution are universal rights. In addition, some of the rights we grant have other purposes other than just respecting international norms of rights. In addition, it doesn't mean that if all the governments of the world don't grant those rights then the US has to respect them from citizens of those countrys whose governments don't.

In a perfect world everyone would have those rights. But in a perfect world every country in the world would have our democratic values and our economic system. But that isn't the case is it? And in that world Terrorism wouldn't exist. Or wouldn't be as omnipresent as it is today.

When you have a country like Saudi Arabia that doesn't respect those rights and educated their citizens to hate and want to destroy all non-muslim civilization then those citizens do not get the full weight of the US constitution. Of course, under the Universal Human Rights I don't think anything should be done to them if they are innocent. Innocent people should not be killed. But don't for a second think that I think that a right to trial by Jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, the exclusionary rule etc. etc. are universal human rights that should be granted to everyone.

In our country we have reasons for those rights and we let a lot of guilty people go free because of our respect for those rights. I actually agree with that. But that does not mean those rights are universal human rights. But of course, innocent people have the right under the universal moral code not to be tortured, killed, raped or sold into slavery. Every human being has the right to life, liberty, and property rights. But those can be taken away if they are not innocent.

Wouldn't the stuff in the Bill of Rights apply universally? Not that I can remember the relationship between the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Because I'm a dumbass.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
You forgot something . . .

Sorry Dude, my bad.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk

When they kick down your door, how you gonna come?
With your hands in the air or on the trigger of a gun?

If it is the ATF, The FBI or the 101 Airborne Division, I am coming out with my hands high in the air.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
If it is the ATF, The FBI or the 101 Airborne Division, I am coming out with my hands high in the air.

but for animal control, the big F you?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Quick question everyone: 9/11- act of war or real bad crime?

wonk, I'm putting you down for "crime."

It was a crime, war crime, terrorism and a huge violation of the Universal Moral Code. In addition, the UMC requires capital punishment for everyone involved.