Yeah, I haven't figured it out yet.
Got it now, eh?
Out of context? I didn't remove a word from your quote! You replied to my saying that the Patriot Act has been used in non-terror related cases by saying that. So I gave examples of when it
was used against people in non-terror cases.
How do you expect a story to sound when it is reporting on the NSA spying on regular civilians? How do you EXPECT a story to sound when it is reporting on the government taking away our freedoms?
Let me quote something for you:
[/u] under certain conditions
to Bush's warrantless wiretapping[/u] of calls and e-mails between people on U.S. soil making calls or sending e-mails and those in other countries.[/quote]
(
Full story)
Catch that? Warrantless. *Sniff sniff* Is that a Constitutional violation I smell? Yeah, it is. Read the 4th Amendment for yourself.
Moving on to even
more cases of the government using the Patriot Act for non-terror related crimes:
New York Times reports on use of Patriot Act in non-terror casesIn case you thought the way the previous link to the story about the Patriot Act being used against a strip club owner wasn't mainstream enough for you,
here's a NewsWeek article.BusinessWeek report on the FBI seizing records of many Las Vegas companies. Why? Well, I guess because they can.
One, wait,
two new sources for the arrest of Steve Kurtz (you remember him from a previous link).
Even the FBI's own papers show that they are using the Patriot Act to monitor people without probable cause.
I found
this and thought it deserved a section all its own in this little discussion. Here's a quote:
Oh, and if you have a problem with that source (as people with your opinion on the issue tend to attack people instead of issues),
here's the House of Representatives page on the same dissent.
Do you
really need more?
If you aren't convinced by now that the Patriot Act is a blatent attack on the 4th Amendment, then there is no saving you and I won't waste any more time on it.
The truth is extreme now. That's wonderful. Has this society really gone so down the path of Orwellian nightmare that the TRUTH is extremist?
It is not an 'overreaction' to state facts...
I notice how you didn't say it was untrue. That was a good move. While saying it is extremist is a matter of opinion, you wisely avoided discussions of fact. You should be a lawyer.
O rly? Any evidence to back up that claim? Since all the information I've ever seen about Gitmo has said that they have plenty of illegal detainees.
AH HA! Right from the horse's mouth, ladies and gentlemen!
Apparently the law changes once we are at war. Apparently our rights change once we are at war. I'm glad this "War On Terror" will only last, as admitted, forever.
That's odd, I never saw anything about that in the Constitution in all the times I've read it. But who am I kidding? The Constitution is defunct, isn't it?
Oh, and it seems a tad arrogant to assume you know better than the Supreme Court in a case of Constitutionality. Just a tad.
That was a very crafty little move there. Starting with "all
torture stopped" and then shifting verbage to make it sound like they want all
interrogation stopped. I think Fox News has a desk with your name on it. But I digress, the real issue here is the fact that torture does go on, that's admitted by everyone, and cases have been found where outrageous abuses have taken place. Those are just the cases we've found out about. With all our secret prisons worldwide, who's to say it isn't happening in many locations and in many cases? And once Bush has full power to interpret the Geneva Convention, well, frankly I'm not seeing this being good.
What news have you seen, and what have you read?
Again, it seems a little arrogant to assume you know better than military lawyers who actually were presented with the rules of trials at Gitmo on whether or not the trials are fair. Really, unless you have a law degree yourself, it seems a bit arrogant to assume you know better than
any lawyer on whether or not a trial is fair.
Based on facts.
Alright. You have chosen how you appear then.
My statement was only in response to yours. It was a sarcastic reply (as denoted by the smilie), to your statement that I've quoted quite enough times.
Ah, yes, let's shift the discussion because you know you are wrong.
I made a statement, you challenged it, I defended it and counter challenged you, and in a real debate if you can't respond with facts to back up your original challenge, then you lose the point.
I'll just keep a running tally: 1.
WHOA, WHOA! You must be joking me. You are actually trying to deny that election fraud is
common? You are going to attempt to fight a massive mountain of irrefutable evidence (as it is admitted) that there was election fraud during the 2000 election?
Oh, and since we are talking about propaganda, maybe you should check who you are getting YOUR information from.
1.6 Billion on Spin. Seriously. Still unsure? Having trouble believing it? In case you are,
Here's a nice complilation of links. Oh, and a nice
GAO report for you to look at.
I suggest you look further than the surface when you are watching the news.
Yeah, because no one has
ever illegally taken office in a democratic society. Except that statement is off by hundreds of cases.
Ok, sorry, when I don't see a smilie I tend to think it is a serious statement.
What is a debate but a back and forth of analysis? The way one wins a debate is having facts to back them up, and I've yet to see any of your facts. While the burden of proof is on the accusser (which in this case would be me), I believe I have proved my point duly and you have given no evidence to the contrary.
No, it isn't still being agrued. In
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld the Supreme Court ruled and clearly stated that it applies to al-Qaida and the Taliban.
That is the reason that Bush and his cronies had to get that little part put in that said if they are immune from being prosecuted for war crimes, because they are GUILTY of war crimes and everyone knows it.
President Bush and Alberto Gonzales can bull[censored] all they want, but the Supreme Court made it quite clear. And now this bill is an attempt to override the Supreme Court. Which, by the way, is unconstitutional and threatens the seperation of powers.