Mass-Detentions Legalized by Congress; American Citizens Declared "Enemy Combatants" - Page 4

kinggovernor · 10-04-2006, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by Kytro

The problem I really have is outstanding need. There is no real evidence to indicate these powers are needed. It's primarily a power grab "father knows best" style.

Power grab? It has been approved by Congress after much debate and compromise.

Kytro · 10-04-2006, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Power grab? It has been approved by Congress after much debate and compromise.

To give the government more power. so it's not a power grab in the sense of Bush taking power, but it is in the sense of the government needs more power to take care of you.

They have not made a strong case as to why this is needed, they have basically said "OMG Terrorists"

kinggovernor · 10-04-2006, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

To give the government more power. so it's not a power grab in the sense of Bush taking power, but it is in the sense of the government needs more power to take care of you.

They have not made a strong case as to why this is needed, they have basically said "OMG Terrorists"

would another terrorist attempt/attack make a strong case?

nbiggershaft · 10-04-2006, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by Nonphixion

The White House Warden - Los Angeles Times

The White House Warden
Congress may give the president the power to lock up almost anyone he thinks is a terror threat.

why is this an opinion piece, I can't find any real news stories

KatKanPlay · 10-04-2006, 08:25 PM

What is the argument that this wiretapping 'MUST" be warrantless?

thatguyoverthere · 10-04-2006, 09:01 PM

Another question for those on the thread that support these expanded goverment powers: Should there be any limit to them? Exactly how far is "too far" for the government to invade our privacy, in your opinion?

kinggovernor · 10-04-2006, 09:15 PM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

What is the argument that this wiretapping 'MUST" be warrantless?

warrants take too long and are too specific, FISA which came around in teh 1970s takes too long. I do support eventually getting a warrant

KatKanPlay · 10-04-2006, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

warrants take too long and are too specific, FISA which came around in teh 1970s takes too long. I do support eventually getting a warrant

Then fix the damn FISA system, dont change the laws! There isnt a damn thing wrong with the friggin laws. How hard could it be to alter FISA if it means keeping the constitution in tact.

Kytro · 10-04-2006, 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

would another terrorist attempt/attack make a strong case?

I cannot see how the laws will actually prevent terrorism.

Kytro · 10-04-2006, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

warrants take too long and are too specific, FISA which came around in teh 1970s takes too long. I do support eventually getting a warrant

Couldn't that be done under the current system, getting a warrant after the fact?

willis · 10-04-2006, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

warrants take too long and are too specific, FISA which came around in teh 1970s takes too long. I do support eventually getting a warrant

current wiretapping law already allows retroactive warrants.

explain to me how that could ever be "too slow"??

and how did we get from enemy combatants to wiretaps??

*edit* and jesus, I didn't even see the "too specific" part of your statement.. I can't even come up with a logical response to that

willis · 10-04-2006, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

Couldn't that be done under the current system, getting a warrant after the fact?

yes

Kytro · 10-04-2006, 10:23 PM

RE: Warrantless wiretapping

It only has one purpose: to allow anyone to wiretapped without having to justify the actions to anyone. Basically this idea that the government knows best and needs no oversight.

That is very dangerous.

kinggovernor · 10-04-2006, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by willis

current wiretapping law already allows retroactive warrants.

explain to me how that could ever be "too slow"??

and how did we get from enemy combatants to wiretaps??

*edit* and jesus, I didn't even see the "too specific" part of your statement.. I can't even come up with a logical response to that

The FISA courts can't handle the volume

KatKanPlay · 10-04-2006, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

The FISA courts can't handle the volume

Then doesnt it make more sense to improve the FISA courts ability to handle things in time of war rather than change the constitution?

kinggovernor · 10-04-2006, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Then doesnt it make more sense to improve the FISA courts ability to handle things in time of war rather than change the constitution?

we haven't changed the constitution. And we could change the fisa over time but now is a time of action, look at how long it takes congress to drag its feet over issues.

KatKanPlay · 10-04-2006, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

we haven't changed the constitution. And we could change the fisa over time but now is a time of action, look at how long it takes congress to drag its feet over issues.

Its been 3 years,,,,,, simplified procedures could be set in place easily enough to safe guard the warrant system. Warrantless arrests are next?

kinggovernor · 10-04-2006, 11:25 PM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Its been 3 years,,,,,, simplified procedures could be set in place easily enough to safe guard the warrant system. Warrantless arrests are next?

warrantless arrests happen all the time

motivez · 10-04-2006, 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

we haven't changed the constitution. And we could change the fisa over time but now is a time of action, look at how long it takes congress to drag its feet over issues.

Uhhh, you mean like the other times FISA has been changed since 9/11 to allow the Justice Department more time when they were needed?

Gosh, that took so long before that we just shouldn't bother the executive with that whole quaint "balance of powers" and "oversight" thing