Interesting argument on MSNBC

[audtatious]

http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/play.php?id=2298

It speaks for itself.

[RobPaulson]

Thanks Matt

I usually hate linking glenn beck... cause i think he puts an awful face out there for republicans. but this one is pretty one point and i think compliments the video quite well.

"Three Tactics Progressives Use to Discredit Their Opponents"http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,569007,00.html
Modified by RobPaulson at 11:22 AM 10/22/2009

[smockers83]

Gee, we see the same thing here on the boards. People presented with facts and they scoff and ridicule the person at a personal level to serve their own agenda.

Take a 30,000 foot view of what's going on instead of a 1 cm view of what you just want to see. Then and only then can you understand the world that you live in. Then you take a long term plan that is proven with facts and focus in on those 1 foot views. You can never do it the opposite way. If you start from the 1 cm view and build that to 1000 feet, you realize you have this other 1 cm view over here that needs to be looked at to and brought up to 1000 feet. This causes an out of control spiral of wasted resources and money and can be absolutely disastrous.

This is what many democrats and much of the administration is doing. They see a problem and don't know what they want to get out of it on the back end, but they "know" how to fix it on the front end and have no clue what's going to happen on the back end. I see this very same thing happen at work where people have "novel" ideas on the front end of how to fix or do something, but they don't know what happens on the back end of it because they can't understand the consequences or don't care.

I've talked with people who have worked in DC for years and they see this administration, and say, "They have no f'in clue as to what they're doing." True story. And it shows, whether you want to believe it or not, it shows, and people don't see it because decisions aren't being made. All the people see is that "we're making progress."

The biggest example of what I'm talking about is probably the reform in healthcare. We all see a problem that people can't afford it. Democrats "know" how to fix it through their "reform". Their reform doesn't change a damn thing about the system, it just puts government more in control of it. Period. Back to the problem. The problem is people can't afford it. Why can't people afford it? Because it costs too much. How does one make something not cost so much? Take cost-cutting measures by improving the system and finding inefficiencies and improving quality control. The true problem of the health care industry really isn't that difficult of a problem to solve, it's just a matter of a lot of work that needs to be done.

[AZhitman]

I usually hate linking glenn beck... cause i think he puts an awful face out there for republicans.

Beck is FAR from a Republican.

[smockers83]

Republicans cling to guns and religion. Democrats adhere to attacks and false fantasies (with d!ck Cheney as God, George W as the Son).

[themadscientist]

I cling to the constitution.

My guns? I grip and rip!http://s119.photobucket.com/al...1.flv

[RobPaulson]

Beck is FAR from a Republican.

fair enough. my statement was a bit callously put, what I was trying to get across was just that a lot of people view him as the voice of the extreme right. I do not acknowledge him as such, but i feel many do.

not trying to debate beck though, he's pretty much a clown that stumbles onto some good points every once and a while. he just presents those points like a complete jackass
Modified by RobPaulson at 9:21 AM 10/23/2009

[heliochrome85]

i can haz guns? and religion?

[themadscientist]

Yup.

[srellim234]

Thanks for posting that. It's always well worth reading it again.

So, when are the people actually going to demand that the government adhere to it?

Artcle IV - what about warrantless wiretaps? Listening in and recording every single international phone call without probable cause?

Article V - it says "no person", not "no citizen." Guantanamo comes to mind. Absent a formal Declaration of War it is a violation to detain them in the manner we are. Just saying it's a war on terror isn't enough. There is no reason why Congress can't get a Declaration of War passed naming Al Qaeda and their sympathizers as the opponent if they want to just hold those prisoners indefinitely as POWs. Without the Declaration of War we are also violating Article VI on the trial issue. Before you say it doesn't apply here, read Article IX. It applies to non-citizens held by us as well as citizens. And I'm sorry, GWB and BHO, but location at this point doesn't matter.

I'm all for hanging people when warranted, but let's do it within the laws of the land and not allow the executive branch carte blanche to do whatever it feels like no matter who sits in that Oval Office.

[audtatious]

The Bill of Rights are the first amendments to the US Constitution for the United States. IMO, stretching the Constitution to cover non US-citizens is way out there.

[srellim234]

The warrantless wiretap and recording is being done when Americans are calling Americans. Nothing to do with foreign nationals.

Again, Article IX extends the rights to foreign nationals being held in non-war situations by Americans. Absent a Declaration of War those rights are there for them, too. Otherwise, we would be able to arrest and hold indefinitely without trial or representation anyone visiting our country who went 26 mph in a 25 mph zone. As a country we should be than that and our Bill of Rights says we are better than that.

[audtatious]

I should have stated "in regards to Guantanamo"

Technically, you can arrest someone going 26 in a 25 if speeding is defined as a misdemeanor via the state.

What would a declaration of war do?

"A declaration of war is a formal performative speech act or signing of a document by an authorized party of a government in order to initiate a state of war between two or more nations."

The Taliban and Al-Quada are not countries in which we can declare against. We did not go as far as a declaration of war against Iraq either. Instead, it was/is an extended military engagement that was authorized by Congress. Other such military engagements include Vietnam, Operation Desert Storm (Persian Gulf war), first and second Barbary wars, Afghanistan and a few other conflicts.

[smockers83]

A foreigner in the US that is arrested and/or charged with a crime gets the same due process that is afforded to citizens. The same thing (usually) happens when a US citizen is arrested abroad.

The warrantless wiretaps are a touchy subject. Let me say that I don't completely agree with them, however, I can see how they are in place. The language says a search cannot be done without a warrant due to probable cause. With these wiretaps (which I'm guessing you're talking about the Bush wiretaps), the whole idea is that the government be allowed to act quickly when something is picked up, essentially a virtual warrant being issued immediately when such words are used like bomb. That can be used as probable cause to wiretap the rest of the conversation. Now, how much oversight there is and how strict the contingencies are, that's up in the air as this is a more or less secret program.

[audtatious]

A foreigner in the US that is arrested and/or charged with a crime gets the same due process that is afforded to citizens. The same thing (usually) happens when a US citizen is arrested abroad.

True. But these people were not "arrested" "in the US". They are members of terrorlst organizations that we or others nabbed while they were trying to kill our troops or Afghan/Iraq civilians.

The warrantless wiretaps are a touchy subject. Let me say that I don't completely agree with them, however, I can see how they are in place. The language says a search cannot be done without a warrant due to probable cause. With these wiretaps (which I'm guessing you're talking about the Bush wiretaps), the whole idea is that the government be allowed to act quickly when something is picked up, essentially a virtual warrant being issued immediately when such words are used like bomb. That can be used as probable cause to wiretap the rest of the conversation. Now, how much oversight there is and how strict the contingencies are, that's up in the air as this is a more or less secret program.

FWIW, I never mentioned wiretaps. Now that Bush is out of office I find it interesting that the program is still in force yet you don't hear anything about it.

[smockers83]

The current military conflicts have not been formally declared as wars. The people detained in these conflicts are retained by the people, as IX says. So in effect, they are afforded the due process of law. Had these captured people been captured while the US was under a declaration of war, making them POWs, I think their status is a little different. I'm not sure on the rights of POWs.

I talked about the wiretaps because srellim mentioned them. It is interesting that it's still running. People have forgotten about it, for what reasons, I won't speculate. I'd probably only be stirring the pot.

[srellim234]

Without a Declaration of War, the constitutional rights stand. You say they are terrorists or members of terrorlst organizations. Without a trial you have absolutely no proof whatsoever of that. You are saying that they are guilty until proven innocent instead of the other way around. And you won't even allow them the ability to prove their innocence!

No way to put a formal Declaration of War because Al Qaeda is not a country? Then Article IX gives the detainees rights.

Also, if Guantanamo Bay is our base, it should fall under U.S. jurisdiction and laws. Otherwise, it is on Cuban soil and belongs under the sovereign laws of Cuba. You can bet that the Canadians stationed at Tyndall AFB, Florida with my son come under the jurisdiction of one country or the other if they are accused of doing something illegal.

The wiretap situation is relatively straightforward. A secure federal court is in place to issue warrants retroactively, but the government must have a reason to be suspect of the conversation or people involved before listening in and fill in the court on the suspicions later to get a retroactive warrant. They can't just arbitrarily listen in on every conversation and record everything, just hoping they flag something suspicious under the law. The Bush administration threw those constitutional rights out the window in favor of overreaching executive powers and the Obama administration is fighting in court to keep all of those powers.

[audtatious]

Without a Declaration of War, the constitutional rights stand. You say they are terrorists or members of terrorlst organizations. Without a trial you have absolutely no proof whatsoever of that. You are saying that they are guilty until proven innocent instead of the other way around. And you won't even allow them the ability to prove their innocence!

No way to put a formal Declaration of War because Al Qaeda is not a country? Then Article IX gives the detainees rights.

Also, if Guantanamo Bay is our base, it should fall under U.S. jurisdiction and laws. Otherwise, it is on Cuban soil and belongs under the sovereign laws of Cuba. You can bet that the Canadians stationed at Tyndall AFB, Florida with my son come under the jurisdiction of one country or the other if they are accused of doing something illegal.

Then send them back to the country where we captured them and let them deal with it. IMO, that would be my preferred method (other than a head shot when caught trying to shoot our troops). If it were so cut and dried then things would have happened already and they would not be in continual limbo. I do wonder how many more we would get here who would find our jail system better than their current situation.......Being treated like US citizens and all....

The wiretap situation is relatively straightforward. A secure federal court is in place to issue warrants retroactively, but the government must have a reason to be suspect of the conversation or people involved before listening in and fill in the court on the suspicions later to get a retroactive warrant. They can't just arbitrarily listen in on every conversation and record everything, just hoping they flag something suspicious under the law. The Bush administration threw those constitutional rights out the window in favor of overreaching executive powers and the Obama administration is fighting in court to keep all of those powers.

Yep. I'm not arguing against your viewpoint.

[themadscientist]

I like to slip in strange phrases when I talk on the phone to freak out any NSA types who might be listening.

"yeah mom, I still have a bunch of cars, life's good though. And, the woodchuck sleeps on tuesday the the burrito. Work's good, how's things on your end. And it's raining but the vicar still whistles in the treehouse.

I feel bad for "big brother," listening to random drivel from uninteresting people, so I try to throw em a curve to make the day fun.

[srellim234]

Every time I even think about anyone listening in I laugh like crazy picturing George Carlin doing a number on them. Too bad he's gone.

[BusyBadger]

I like to slip in strange phrases when I talk on the phone to freak out any NSA types who might be listening.

I had a phone call get cut off once when I mentioned too many key words.

I was on active duty at the time and a friend of mine "wondered what would happen". So we did a payhone to payphone call and dropped words like strategic, deployment, device and the like in the conversation.

The conversation lasted all of three minutes.

Oh yeah, John has a long moustache and the chair is against the wall.

[AZhitman]

Artcle IV - what about warrantless wiretaps?

BTW - President Obama has not yet addressed this issue, contrary to his campaign promises.

Know why? Because it was a good idea all along and he knows it.

[audtatious]

What campaign promise has he addressed yet? I don't remember "highest spending of all Presidents combined" nor "hire the most socialist/anti-capitalist czars of any President" nor "start race issues" as being in his speeches.