FISA with Telecom Immunity Passed

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Buster

We are becoming very spoiled.

Previous generations were willing to make sacrifices in wartime to succeed. WWII rations so we could fund the operation, women going to work in factories to supply their husbands at war and to raise the families, they felt some personal ties to the war and cared enough to see it all the way to success. In the Civil War, many more sacrifices were made. During the Revolutionary War, EVERYTHING was put at risk for their nation.

Making sacrifices is fine -- as long as it's not freedom that is being sacrificed. Working at factories, and helping the war effort is different from giving up liberties.

You mention the Revolutionary War as an example of sacrifice. Those sacrifices were made to obtain the liberties this country was founded on. Why squander those liberties, simply because of a perceived threat?

Originally Posted by Buster

Today, we all want to feel unaffected by the fight against our enemies and defense of our freedom. We oppose anything that reminds us we're at war, we focus on the negative and elect people who will even try to undermine our sons, brothers and fathers in harm's way. Before, a lot of these people would rightfully so be found guilty of treason.

Questioning the government (and opposing, when appropriate) is not treason -- it's patriotism.

Originally Posted by Buster

Listening in on terrorists and the people communicating with them has NO EFFECT on you if you are not doing it.

Not true. It sets a precedent. To think this law has "no effect" on the average citizen's liberties is naive.

Originally Posted by Buster

You are not losing any rights, but if we turn our backs on this fight, you WILL lose rights and maybe your life. Did you enjoy walking around the morning of 09/11 fearing or wondering if your city was next? Did you enjoy losing loved ones on that day (if any of you did)? That day, your freedom was stolen away. Do not selfishly oppose steps needed to make sure we kill the people who want to steal your freedom and life forever...or you'll really know what living under dear and oppression is like.

Fear mongering at its best. Sigh.

I am not scared of terrorists. And, if I was, I certainly wouldn't let that fear dictate which liberties I am assured.

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

I am not scared of terrorists. And, if I was, I certainly wouldn't let that fear dictate which liberties I am assured.

Thats because America is doing a good job of stopping the terrorists

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Why squander those liberties, simply because of a perceived threat?

Do you believe the threat from fundamental Islamists is perceived and not real? They have openly declared war on the United States and their objective is to have one world under Sharia law. Are they an immediate threat to succeed? No. However the threat they pose is very real.

I do agree with you on protecting our liberties, but allowing the government to actively pursue our enemies through surveillance IMO does not infringe on our liberties, as long as there is ultimate oversight by the legislative and judicial branch, which there is.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Do you believe the threat from fundamental Islamists is perceived and not real? They have openly declared war on the United States and their objective is to have one world under Sharia law. Are they an immediate threat to succeed? No. However the threat they pose is very real.

I do agree with you on protecting our liberties, but allowing the government to actively pursue our enemies through surveillance IMO does not infringe on our liberties, as long as there is ultimate oversight by the legislative and judicial branch, which there is.

and parts of the middle east have hated us intensely since the 50s (formation of isreal, overthrow of iranian democracy for british oil interests). the war on terror is an endless and "fake" war. we have intelligence agencies and special operations groups, and if the "war" ended tomorrow, nothing would change... the security has been improved (though it's still not great).

al qaeda has real computer infrastructure now though, they know what crypto is, this isn't going to catch anyone with half a brain or stop those using VOIP (which is much cheaper and very easy to encrypt).

I'm just saying, you're losing privacy and gaining nothing except the ability to catch really really stupid terrorists that probably aren't going to be all that effective anyways.

this would be much better at busting drug rings than anything else.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by That Guy

and parts of the middle east have hated us intensely since the 50s (formation of isreal, overthrow of iranian democracy for british oil interests). the war on terror is an endless and "fake" war. we have intelligence agencies and special operations groups, and if the "war" ended tomorrow, nothing would change... the security has been improved (though it's still not great).

We definitely agree on this point. While I don't think war on terror itself is fake, we should be fighting it in a much more clandestine way. I don't like the idea of our troops basically being targets to draw out terrorists. Mass deployments are also ridiculously expensive.

When Bush 1 stopped from going all the way into Iraq in Desert Storm he was heavily criticized, it appears he had a lot more wisdom than many gave him credit for.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

We definitely agree on this point. While I don't think war on terror itself is fake, we should be fighting it in a much more clandestine way. I don't like the idea of our troops basically being targets to draw out terrorists. Mass deployments are also ridiculously expensive.

When Bush 1 stopped from going all the way into Iraq in Desert Storm he was heavily criticized, it appears he had a lot more wisdom than many gave him credit for.

they set mission goals, they drew up the contingencies, and they followed their plan.

powell is a better man than rumsfeld and cheney combined. too bad he got played in the whole deal :/. rumsfeld's "plan as you go without intel" version of waging a war is just about the stupidest thing i've ever seen.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by That Guy

powell is a better man than rumsfeld and cheney combined. too bad he got played in the whole deal :/. rumsfeld's "plan as you go without intel" version of waging a war is just about the stupidest thing i've ever seen.

Ding ding we have a winner. I think less of Rumsfeld than almost any person on the face of this earth. Bush has done a bad job but with pretty good intentions. Cheney's methods were crap but again I think he really had "good" intentions. But that jackass Rumsfeld perpetrated his deeds in the name of his ego and vanity. I am convinced we'd all have a much better view of Bush and his administration had Powell been running the deal rather than Rumsfeld. Hell even Tenet was better prepared to wage this war.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Ding ding we have a winner. I think less of Rumsfeld than almost any person on the face of this earth. Bush has done a bad job but with pretty good intentions. Cheney's methods were crap but again I think he really had "good" intentions. But that jackass Rumsfeld perpetrated his deeds in the name of his ego and vanity. I am convinced we'd all have a much better view of Bush and his administration had Powell been running the deal rather than Rumsfeld. Hell even Tenet was better prepared to wage this war.

this post makes me chuckle. who appointed Donald Rumsfeld? in politics, its all about choices, and making sure you make the right ones. its not like Rumsfeld had changed his philosophies over the years. and im sure the decisions that were made were discussed, ad nauseum, in the war room( with the president present) and if the president wasn't involved in those decisions, its his fault for giving Rumsfeld free reign, to making some of the most important decisions of the world. im not ready to give president Bush a free pass on the Iraq mess

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by That Guy

and parts of the middle east have hated us intensely since the 50s (formation of isreal, overthrow of iranian democracy for british oil interests). the war on terror is an endless and "fake" war. we have intelligence agencies and special operations groups, and if the "war" ended tomorrow, nothing would change... the security has been improved (though it's still not great).

al qaeda has real computer infrastructure now though, they know what crypto is, this isn't going to catch anyone with half a brain or stop those using VOIP (which is much cheaper and very easy to encrypt).

I'm just saying, you're losing privacy and gaining nothing except the ability to catch really really stupid terrorists that probably aren't going to be all that effective anyways.

this would be much better at busting drug rings than anything else.

Those three guys we just rescued last week from that terrorist group was done by using wire taps so it does work and who said terrorist where smart to start with.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Do you believe the threat from fundamental Islamists is perceived and not real? They have openly declared war on the United States and their objective is to have one world under Sharia law. Are they an immediate threat to succeed? No. However the threat they pose is very real.

I do agree with you on protecting our liberties, but allowing the government to actively pursue our enemies through surveillance IMO does not infringe on our liberties, as long as there is ultimate oversight by the legislative and judicial branch, which there is.

I would say that terrorists present many real threats, but none which justify the removal of any liberties in America.

Basically, the real threats that terrorists pose are insignificant. The major threats they "pose", are only perceived (IMO).

As for global Sharia law, that will NEVER happen. That is a perceived threat, and it will never become a real threat (IMO). However, that is the kind of "threat" that is used to justify these kinds of restrictions on liberties.

[saden1]

Justice:

1. The quality of being just; fairness.
2. 1. The principle of moral rightness; equity.
   2. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
3. 1. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
   2. Law. The administration and procedure of law.
4. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason