Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yup, that's what the pro-bush people never address.
I have even badgered posters to please state at what point the destruction of our rights and liberties will they object...never seems to be an answer....
bushy has used more signing statements to circumvent the law than all other presidents combined. It was meant to be used on RARE occassions.
Thats the thing, is this another step in powers that did not exist before? There are many aspects where warrants are not honored when there is a urgency to the issue.
For instance, if we did not allow an emergency officer or police officer to enter a dwelling, search a trunk, etc... when there was an urgency, criminals would take advantage of that and our own intent to protect ourselves would end up hurting us.
Take two of the following scenarios.
First, a police officer is in pursuit of a man who just shot and killed 6 people and yelled he was going to rid the world of people. While in pursuit, the suspect runs into a private dwelling that was not the suspects. Under normal conditions, the officer has to obtain a warrant to enter that premises, but because this man was dangerous and there was an urgency due to the circumstance, the officer can disregard the need for a warrant and enter the dwelling in pursuit. This is legal and is allowed as an exception to search and seizure laws.
Another scenario is as follows. A police officer pulls over a vehicle in a normal traffic violation stop. Now a typical traffic violation is an infraction. The officer can "ask" to search the vehicle, but is not allowed to without a warrant or sufficient probable cause to do so. Now if the officer hears someone kicking in the trunk, this falls under the clause of an urgency. That is, the immediate safety of another in these circumstances trumps all "rights" in this issue.
So while I agree we need to be careful and really look at what these "emergency contingency" plans are and if they are truly valid, it is not "out of the ordinary" to see something like this passed into law. You might think that there is no reason, but without a lot of research (which I advise people to do if they are so fearful of issues like these) you might be complaining about something that really isn't a big issue at all. That is, that it really isn't "a removal of rights", but rather just a clarification in the procedure and policy which might have previously not covered this issue and a need was present for it.
Before the patriot act, the federal, state and local agencies were forbidden to communicate with each other when it concerned criminal activity. It was possible for them, but it required a hefty amount of paper work, court proceedings, etc...
It basically handicapped any real work getting done between the agencies. With 9/11, this was a HUGE issue. This restriction created a lot of problems and actually hampered the agencies from doing their job. Criminal activity that was a group effort by these agencies often fell through the fingers of these agencies because they couldn't communicate fast enough legally with each other concerning the issues. This also hampered some emergency services in other areas as well.
So while I fully agree we need to be on the ball and paying attention to the level of power that we allow within the government, some things that require immediate resolutions in order to serve the protection of the people is required. What we do need to do is to educate ourselves on the facts of these issues so we can better regulate the government in its ability.
Jumping to conclusions and pushing the people into hysteria through tabloid and gossip based tactics does nothing than send the sheep into a frenzy.
Thats the thing, is this another step in powers that did not exist before? There are many aspects where warrants are not honored when there is a urgency to the issue.
For instance, if we did not allow an emergency officer or police officer to enter a dwelling, search a trunk, etc... when there was an urgency, criminals would take advantage of that and our own intent to protect ourselves would end up hurting us.
Take two of the following scenarios.
First, a police officer is in pursuit of a man who just shot and killed 6 people and yelled he was going to rid the world of people. While in pursuit, the suspect runs into a private dwelling that was not the suspects. Under normal conditions, the officer has to obtain a warrant to enter that premises, but because this man was dangerous and there was an urgency due to the circumstance, the officer can disregard the need for a warrant and enter the dwelling in pursuit. This is legal and is allowed as an exception to search and seizure laws.
Another scenario is as follows. A police officer pulls over a vehicle in a normal traffic violation stop. Now a typical traffic violation is an infraction. The officer can "ask" to search the vehicle, but is not allowed to without a warrant or sufficient probable cause to do so. Now if the officer hears someone kicking in the trunk, this falls under the clause of an urgency. That is, the immediate safety of another in these circumstances trumps all "rights" in this issue.
So while I agree we need to be careful and really look at what these "emergency contingency" plans are and if they are truly valid, it is not "out of the ordinary" to see something like this passed into law. You might think that there is no reason, but without a lot of research (which I advise people to do if they are so fearful of issues like these) you might be complaining about something that really isn't a big issue at all. That is, that it really isn't "a removal of rights", but rather just a clarification in the procedure and policy which might have previously not covered this issue and a need was present for it.
Before the patriot act, the federal, state and local agencies were forbidden to communicate with each other when it concerned criminal activity. It was possible for them, but it required a hefty amount of paper work, court proceedings, etc...
It basically handicapped any real work getting done between the agencies. With 9/11, this was a HUGE issue. This restriction created a lot of problems and actually hampered the agencies from doing their job. Criminal activity that was a group effort by these agencies often fell through the fingers of these agencies because they couldn't communicate fast enough legally with each other concerning the issues. This also hampered some emergency services in other areas as well.
So while I fully agree we need to be on the ball and paying attention to the level of power that we allow within the government, some things that require immediate resolutions in order to serve the protection of the people is required. What we do need to do is to educate ourselves on the facts of these issues so we can better regulate the government in its ability.
Jumping to conclusions and pushing the people into hysteria through tabloid and gossip based tactics does nothing than send the sheep into a frenzy.
I don't think the bush administrations lack of respect for the Constitution or the law is "tabloid" material. It's well documented.
The examples you gave were LEGAL examples....bush INC. doesn't believe the laws apply to them.
""""
"What no one seemed to notice. . . was the ever widening gap. . .between the government and the people. . . And it became always wider. . . the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting, it provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway . . . (it) gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about . . .and kept us so busy with continuous changes and 'crises' and so fascinated . . . by the machinations of the 'national enemies,' without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. . .
Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted,' that unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these 'little measures'. . . must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. . . .Each act. . . is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join you in resisting somehow.
You don't want to act, or even talk, alone. . . you don't want to 'go out of your way to make trouble.' . . .But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That's the difficulty. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves, when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. . . .You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things your father. . . could never have imagined." :
From Milton Mayer, They Thought They Were Free, The Germans, 1938-45 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955)
at what point the destruction of our rights and liberties will they object...
I'm so glad to see that there are still people who support fighting for our rights and civil liberties. We could really use your help in this thread. Seems that there are people who believe that not all rights are created equal...
This is starting to make some wonder why we even bother having a Congress since Bush has decided to use signing statements like one eats popcorn. Of course a complicit Congress doesn't help matters any.
Are there any limits to signing statements anymore?
Two points your missing
1) The post office already has the authority to open up some, if not all mail, at the very least to verify the shipping method used is valid and that you are not "stealing" from the post office by mis-shipping items in the wrong classification.
2) Bush could not sign a bill that isnt on his desk. Anotherwords, CONGRESS wrote the bill for him to sign.
All this bill does is remove any legal liability for the post office for opening up mail that they are currently authorized to open.
On a final note, if this doesnt prove that the Bush is not "Republican", then people are looking at him with blinders on. He's almost Communist, following the same mindset as the Clintons.
I don't think the bush administrations lack of respect for the Constitution or the law is "tabloid" material. It's well documented.
The examples you gave were LEGAL examples....bush INC. doesn't believe the laws apply to them.
""""
"What no one seemed to notice. . . was the ever widening gap. . .between the government and the people. . . And it became always wider. . . the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting, it provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway . . . (it) gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about . . .and kept us so busy with continuous changes and 'crises' and so fascinated . . . by the machinations of the 'national enemies,' without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. . .
Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted,' that unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these 'little measures'. . . must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. . . .Each act. . . is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join you in resisting somehow.
You don't want to act, or even talk, alone. . . you don't want to 'go out of your way to make trouble.' . . .But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That's the difficulty. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves, when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. . . .You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things your father. . . could never have imagined." :
From Milton Mayer, They Thought They Were Free, The Germans, 1938-45 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955)
There is not one verifiable fact as it contains to this discussion in your response.
The first part you disagree and make claim, mention the evidence is there, but provide none.
The next part you again make an assumption that is purely subjective and again provides no evidence or even a reason.
The last part attempts to imply that this administration is akin to the Nazi's with Bush as Hitler.
That is purely a straw man there. You give no evidence, not even a logically formed reasoning. You just make slanders.
Care to try again, but with some actual substance or does your position purely rely on a ghost of a backing?
This law as I mentioned seemed to be walking the path of many laws we already have on the books. That is, when urgency is needed, when danger to another is an immediate risk, the laws that are a process of bureaucracy can be set aside to insure the safety of those involved.
The laws of the bureuacracy as you would call them do already include options for exigent actions such as those you surmise. The 72-hour window before filing with FISA is but one of hundreds of examples. Such exigency is however narrowly-tailored to the direct and limited purposes of a specifiable risk and extends only for so long as that exigency remains readily apparent. You may not, for instance, chase someone into a home under exigent circumstances without a warrant, flush that person out a back window into the waiting arms of a fellow officer, and then decide that while you're there, you might as well flip open a few drawers to see if you can find terrorist literature, child-porn, or a baggie full of marijuana. Bush is guilty of an abuse of powers with every signing statement that either abridges the intent of the legislature or accords unto himself powers that would fall into this second category.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
The fact that you have bought into your own personal opinion of Bush himself is just a puppet of many out there that can't seem to separate "emotional" from the issues.
The fact that you assume that one's personal opinion of Bush must underly any and all criticism of him is evidence of how few reasonabole defenses for his actions you can actually come up with. Resort to a magic wand is not a well respected strategem in legitimate debate...a fact that you and Charles Krauthammer might at some point have taken cognizance of.
There is not one verifiable fact as it contains to this discussion in your response.
The first part you disagree and make claim, mention the evidence is there, but provide none.
The next part you again make an assumption that is purely subjective and again provides no evidence or even a reason.
The last part attempts to imply that this administration is akin to the Nazi's with Bush as Hitler.
That is purely a straw man there. You give no evidence, not even a logically formed reasoning. You just make slanders.
Care to try again, but with some actual substance or does your position purely rely on a ghost of a backing?
Yup, bushINC's lack of respect for the law is well documented...even if there was room to post it all(there isn't) you wouldn't read/believe it anyway....if you haven't seen it after 7 years you never will.
I did not imply that this administration is akin to Nazi's....that connection was all yours.
The quotation I posted came from someone who knows more about the situation before Hitler than you or I......it was given as an example of how all those things that take away rights, freedoms. liberties come in little increments that can be ignored or explained away...and ignoring them is dangerous.
The laws of the bureuacracy as you would call them do already include options for exigent actions such as those you surmise. The 72-hour window before filing with FISA is but one of hundreds of examples. Such exigency is however narrowly-tailored to the direct and limited purposes of a specifiable risk and extends only for so long as that exigency remains readily apparent. You may not, for instance, chase someone into a home under exigent circumstances without a warrant, flush that person out a back window into the waiting arms of a fellow officer, and then decide that while you're there, you might as well flip open a few drawers to see if you can find terrorist literature, child-porn, or a baggie full of marijuana. Bush is guilty of an abuse of powers with every signing statement that either abridges the intent of the legislature or accords unto himself powers that would fall into this second category.
Yes, that was my point that there are already laws out there that follow similar ideas. Many laws do not take into account some aspects though. Some conditions are not always applicable under their current forms which is why from time to time, depending on the type of threat (we have not had to defend our nation on its own soil since its founding to an outsider), some type of adjustments might be made.
Explain to me exactly how this particular issue "abridges the intent of the legislature" though?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
The fact that you assume that one's personal opinion of Bush must underly any and all criticism of him is evidence of how few reasonabole defenses for his actions you can actually come up with. Resort to a magic wand is not a well respected strategem in legitimate debate...a fact that you and Charles Krauthammer might at some point have taken cognizance of.
I don't assume that, but it is kind of hard when people who respond can't form a coherent sentence without adding in some form of personal dislike or insult to him personally. That or attempting to make very loosely unfounded claims that they do. This board is filled with "hate bush", "He is Hitler", "King Bush", etc... Its childish and often lacks any real form of objective evaluation.
Yup, bushINC's lack of respect for the law is well documented...even if there was room to post it all(there isn't) you wouldn't read/believe it anyway....if you haven't seen it after 7 years you never will.
I did not imply that this administration is akin to Nazi's....that connection was all yours.
The quotation I posted came from someone who knows more about the situation before Hitler than you or I......it was given as an example of how all those things that take away rights, freedoms. liberties come in little increments that can be ignored or explained away...and ignoring them is dangerous.
Yes, oh so much evidence so very well documented here on these boards. Why I can go look through them and from the start they begin with "Hate Bush", make a huge number of unfounded accusations and relations (all pulled out of context to make their arguments seem strong), blame him for everything under the sun, try to make connections to him and early Germany or some other irrational claim, throw in a bit of 9/11 conspiracy and bow out with a another "Hate Bush" with a side of "Impeach Bush" and yes, you are right, plenty of documented claims.. not evidence, lots of claims and gossip, but no evidence.
Yeah, I guess it was a major stretch for me to even think to infer that meaning from that quote. You were merely pointing out the actions of the furor, I mean Bush. If someone happened to make that connection, well it wasn't because of anything you said or posted. Nope, nothing to see here. /boggle
Yes, oh so much evidence so very well documented here on these boards. Why I can go look through them and from the start they begin with "Hate Bush", make a huge number of unfounded accusations and relations (all pulled out of context to make their arguments seem strong), blame him for everything under the sun, try to make connections to him and early Germany or some other irrational claim, throw in a bit of 9/11 conspiracy and bow out with a another "Hate Bush" with a side of "Impeach Bush" and yes, you are right, plenty of documented claims.. not evidence, lots of claims and gossip, but no evidence.
Yeah, I guess it was a major stretch for me to even think to infer that meaning from that quote. You were merely pointing out the actions of the furor, I mean Bush. If someone happened to make that connection, well it wasn't because of anything you said or posted. Nope, nothing to see here. /boggle
"Yes, oh so much evidence so very well documented here on these boards""
Oh, I'm sorry these boards are your only available source of information! I thought you had access to a computer (it should open up a whole big world to you) , newspapers, magazines, books, radio, TV, and documentation.
"""You were merely pointing out the actions of the furor, I mean Bush. """
No, please try really hard to read that quote again...it's about people, citizens who didn't want to pay attention....have you TRIED READING????!!!!! Or just too afraid of something?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought you had access to a computer (it should open up a whole big world to you) , newspapers, magazines, books, radio, TV, and documentation.
