OT: 'Warrantless' searches not unprecedented
MnMikew
"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the
president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches
for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has
done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy
Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
mi...@sushi.com
By BOB BARR
Published on: 12/21/05
"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States and when carrying out duties in such capacity shall not
be subject to the laws of these United States or of this Constitution."
- Constitution of the United States, Article II, Sec. 2, as amended
2005
When President Bush explained, over the course of three days, his
administration's secret interception of communications involving
American citizens without court approval, he repeatedly cited three
authorities for such action. One of these was Article II of our
Constitution, which provides authority for the president to serve as
commander in chief of the armed forces. Not relying on my memory -
which has proved faulty from time to time (rarely, of course) - I
reread Article II to determine if in fact there was language in it that
I had missed previously, that when the president serves as commander in
chief, he can order federal agencies to violate the law.
Of course, I found no such authority, because none exists. Such was
never even presumed to be implied by the drafters of that magnificent
document. In fact, federal courts - which over the decades have
deferred greatly to the power of the president when he takes action
involving national security - have never held that when a president
dons the hat of commander in chief he simultaneously is immunized from
having to follow the laws of the land or of the other provisions
contained in the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.
Yet, this is precisely the power the president is now claiming. Truly,
it is a breathtaking assertion of presidential power. If, in fact, the
country allows it to stand, then there will be virtually no limit to
the areas into which it might extend. Remember, the president claims
that the venue of the so-called "war" against terror is as much within
our borders as outside, and its duration perpetual.
To be fair, the president did cite other authority in support of his
assertion that he can order surreptitious surveillance of our citizens
without following the laws that govern such actions.
First, he claims his "responsibility to protect the country" subsumes
the authority to order surveillance of American citizens in
contravention of the law. Of course, there is no
"responsibility-to-protect-my-people" exception to the rule of law or
the applicability of the Bill of Rights anywhere in the Constitution,
or in any prior decision of any federal court.
The president also refers repeatedly to the resolution passed by the
Congress in the first days following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as
establishing his power to order the surveillance now at issue. However,
a reading of that resolution, whether cursory or in-depth, reveals no
such authority, explicit or implied. The resolution simply authorized
the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force" against
those responsible for planning, carrying out or assisting in the
attacks of Sept. 11. The resolution went on to provide that such
"necessary and appropriate force" might be used to prevent future acts
of terrorism. Importantly, the resolution provided no authority
whatsoever for any actions on the part of the president beyond
authorizing the use of force.
To cite this resolution as authority to override specific federal laws
that prohibit the surreptitious interception of communications of
American citizens represents neither sound legal argument nor honest
public policy.
The strange thing about all this is there was and is no practical
reason for the president to go outside the law to do what he has done.
Federal law provides ample authority for the federal government to
intercept communications involving citizens or others who are suspected
of having terrorist ties or actions. The law also provides a robust
mechanism for rapid action if circumstances warrant. Notably, however,
one is required to follow the terms of the law.
The White House has gone on the offensive in response to the burgeoning
National Security Agency scandal - trying to shift the focus from its
actions to those involving release of the story about the surveillance.
President Bush is also splitting words a la Clinton - asserting that
it is OK to surveil without court approval if you are merely
"detecting" as opposed to "monitoring." Finally, the president offers
in his defense the fact that a few, selected members of Congress were
briefed about the program, and that the program is reviewed regularly.
These are all ingenious defenses, but none would make the unlawful
lawful.
By the way, was the surveillance ordered by the president unlawful? I
believe it was, but don't rely on my analysis. Here is what Gen.
Michael Hayden, then the head of the NSA and now the deputy director of
national intelligence, told a congressional panel in April 2000 (a
hearing at which I also testified), in explaining whether the
government could intercept communications of an American citizen in
this country: "If that American person is in the United States of
America, I must have a court order before I initiate any collection
against him or her."
Seems pretty clear to me. And, if the president doesn't like the law,
the solution should be to amend, not violate it.
· Bob Barr, former congressman and U.S. attorney, practices law in
Atlanta. His Web site: www.bobbarr.org
FDR
"MnMikew" <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:410ba9F...@individual.net...
Warrantless physical searches go on all the time. Police officer pulls over
a car. Police officer says he smells alcohol, searches the car etc.
I do wonder however what physical searches were done without warrant during
the Clinton administration. Shifting blame to Clinton doesn't make Bush
right though.
MnMikew
"FDR" <_remove_spam_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:TjDqf.49838$XC4....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
right when Clinton did it but not Bush?
dxAce
MnMikew wrote:
Because for the majority of total morons out there history began in January of
2001 when George W. Bush assumed the Presidency and anything before that never
happened and should be ignored.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
toTaLhAt
wrote:
Notice how the Neo Cons ignore the 'F' grade given to this
administration by the bi-partisan 9/11 commission when it comes to
making us safer? These people claim to be so concerned with fighting
terrorism that they're willing to let the President just break the law
whenever he feels like it. Funny then, that they couldn't care less
that Bush is doing virtually NOTHING to fight terrorism other than
illegally spy on U.S. citizens. Pitiful
dxAce
toTaLhAt wrote:
What's really pitiful is that a dumbass such as yourself actually thinks that the
President 'broke' any laws.
LMFAO at the totally retarded Liberal brain stem.
Now get out there and tote, boy!
dxAce
Michigan
USA
mi...@sushi.com
with his pecker.
Shrub was stupid enough to flaunt how he broke the law and said he will
continue to break the law. It is the equivalent of saying "bring it
on", except this time Shrub will get whacked.
dxAce
mi...@sushi.com wrote:
> Probably what Clinton did wasn't right, but the GOP was more concerned
> with his pecker.
>
> Shrub was stupid enough to flaunt how he broke the law and said he will
> continue to break the law.
When did he say that, 'tard boy?
Seems as though you might wish to pay closer attention to what people say.
I realize that will be tough for you to accomplish, but you might drop those DNC
talking points and give it a try.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
MnMikew
"toTaLhAt" <road...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
news:542mq11uhn9rcd8v4...@4ax.com...
He's done more than any other President. Typical crybaby lib.
MnMikew
<mi...@sushi.com> wrote in message
news:1135285936.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Probably what Clinton did wasn't right, but the GOP was more concerned
> with his pecker.
And just where was the outrage? Not a peep from anyone. Why? A Dem was in
office. Typical liberal double standard.
David
wrote:
>He's done more than any other President. Typical crybaby lib.
>
December 21, 2005
Dick Cheney has put it on the table as bluntly and thuggishly as a
mobster setting down a crowbar.
It may be the Holiday Season, but for the United States of America
we're back to Lexington and Concord.
Dick Cheney has put it on the table as bluntly and thuggishly as a
mobster setting down a crowbar. Cheney has said that he, Bush and
Rumsfeld are out to seize as much power as they can in the name of a
"robust" executive branch. It ain't no executive branch Cheney is
after; it's a dictatorship.
As we've said before, call it the Franco regime, the Stalin regime,
the Pinochet Regime, the Brezhnev regime, the Bush regime -- they are
all the same in terms of dictatorial powers that deny democracy.
Is the American Constitution going to be put through the shredder
until there is nothing left but strips of paper to throw out in the
trash? Or are some patriotic heroes going to rescue America?
Right now the "Centrist Democrats" are still sitting back acting as if
there's no immediate crisis. Their consultants warn them not to appear
too radical! As if the dismembering of democracy by Cheney and Bush is
not radical! As if the brazen seizure of illegal dictatorial powers is
not radical! As if the conduct of an unnecessary war costing thousands
of lives, fomenting a new generation of terrorists, and bankrupting
America is not radical!
The Bush dictatorship -- and it has clearly and publicly crossed the
threshold now -- is not going to tiptoe away. Dictatorships don't.
They hang on until they are displaced from positions of power.
If the Democrats don't start yelling fire soon, we'll just be left
with the burning hulk of what once was a great democracy. We are on
the verge of irreversibly becoming just another dictatorship "ism."
The terrorists have an ally in Dick Cheney and George W. Bush. Cheney
and Bush have accomplished what Osama never dreamed of achieving:
bringing down the American democracy and replacing it with a
dictatorship.
And what's more the Busheviks are totally inept at making the right
strategic moves in actually confronting the threat of terrorism.
They are like all dictators, arrogant, elitist losers who seize
permanent power because they could not hold onto it based on
accomplishment -- because they only have a record of ruin to run on.
Meanwhile the John Kerrys of the world act as if they have all the
time in the world to "win the next election." As if there were a
chance of a fair one in a de facto dictatorship.
The satirist Jonathan Swift ("Gulliver's Travels") would tell us this.
For the most part, we are left with a party composed of Democratic
fools living in a political world of GOP knaves.
God help us all!
buzzflash
dxAce
David wrote:
Rickets, you're mentally ill. Seek some help.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
>
>
mi...@sushi.com
not happy about JFK buying all those Cuban cigars prior to the embargo
(insider trading), but there isn't much I can do after the fact.
We will go kind on Shrub and the veep, making the sentances run
concurrently rather than sequentially. However, both Shrub and Crooked
Mouth will have to eat Fruit Loops in the pokey. Oh, and broccoli too!
FDR
The only outrage was from Republicans worried about Clinton's sex life. Why
didn't Republicans speak up about it then?
an_old_friend
why would republicains who thinks bushss earches are ok have been
outraged by clintons search based on the same thing If the GoP had been
outraged then, a swipe now woul dbe in line
the truth is that the dems did not care then but do care now,
the word for that is HYPOCRITE
toTaLhAt
wrote:
You'll want to read it again a little more carefully oh dxtrolled one.
Guess you couldn't come up with the money for your last co-pay - so no
meds.
LMAO at the brain-dead con.
toTaLhAt
wrote:
This is not an argument about:
a) spying on terrorists being ok or not ok
b) those who want to fight terrorism and those who don't
This is an argument about the president refusing to follow the law
that would not slow him down at all. The law simply requires him to go
to a secret court and get a f*cking warrant. They've turned down 5 out
of 30,000 requests in the last 20 years. And they even allow the
president to get a warrant *after* the spying has begun in emergency
cases, so there's not even the "ticking time bomb" scenario you repugs
who think you're so clever were all ready to toss out. There's no good
possible reason this thug president can't just go get a damn warrant.
Why do Republicans hate the rule of law, and love Dictatorship?
m II
>> LMFAO at the totally retarded Liberal brain stem.
>>
>> Now get out there and tote, boy!
>>
>> dxAce
>> Michigan
>> USA
>>
>
>
> You'll want to read it again a little more carefully oh dxtrolled one.
> Guess you couldn't come up with the money for your last co-pay - so no
> meds.
>
> LMAO at the brain-dead con.
That's no way to talk to such a high ranking member of the American
Taliban. He may be merely NeoConfused instead of completely insane.
mike
mike
FDR
"an_old_friend" <kons...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135306113....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Actually, there are Republicans that care now. Many who want an
investigation. I'd call them hypocrites.
FDR
I think that the reason why this is a big deal is because no one feels that
Bush is being honest, that he has any integrity, and is probably up to no
good with these wiretaps.
dxAce
m II wrote:
Well, at least I'm not a dumbass Canuck!
dxAce
Michigan
USA
toTaLhAt
wrote:
True. But you love to listen to Canuck radio...
And brag about it.
No co-pay? Can't figure out the new Medicare plan?
dxtroll is out of meds.....
LMAO at the CON-fused one.
dxAce
toTaLhAt wrote:
I'm not on Medicare, 'tard boy!
LMFAO at the clueless stem.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
toTaLhAt
wrote:
You stupid or something? Take a look and you'll see what I said.
LMAO at the unemployed one.... it simply boggles
dxAce
toTaLhAt wrote:
Of course not! I'm not like you at all 'tard boy.
LMFAO at the mental midget.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
RHF
In WW II FDR as Commander-in-Chief started doing the Warrantless
Searches and Every (Each and Everyone) US President has conducted
Foreign Intelligence Gathering on Real, Potential and Perceived Threats
to our Nation Security.
WHY - Even "Mister Morality" : former president Jimmy Carter - Did IT !
FWIW - Bill Clinton as US President - Did It !
"IF" an American Citizen happens to be on the 'other' End-of-the-Line
they are not the Target of Justification until they demonstrate that
they are a Spy for the Foreign Powers such as International Terrorist;
or that they are in-fact an Un-Law Combatants and are a Part of a
Military Action Against the USA and it's Citizens. Then 'they' the US
Citizen are not simply criminals - but part of a Foreign Terrorist
Organization that is "At War" with the USA and trying to accomplish
Mass Murder upon American Citizens and Destroy Whole US Cities.
The US Congress Is Out To Lunch On This Issue [.] - wrong, Wrong. WRONG
!
The Democrat Party of the USA - Is Selling-Out the Safety and Security
of the USA and the Lives of American Citizens for Political Gain.
The Liberal Media Elite all fully know that this has always been done
by US Presidents since FDR. The Left-Wing Media "News Makers" are
Again Showing Their Liberal Bias and Slant by making this a HeadLine
Issue when they fully know that the Safety and Security of the USA is
at stake and American Lives are At Risk [.]
so say i - my opinions stated as facts ~ RHF
.
.
. .
.
clifto
> Probably what Clinton did wasn't right, but the GOP was more concerned
> with his pecker.
Naw, the parts below the neck concerned us too.
--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.
clifto
> Funny then, that they couldn't care less
> that Bush is doing virtually NOTHING to fight terrorism other than
> illegally spy on U.S. citizens. Pitiful
Yeah. You'd think dubya could have done something about all those attacks
on US soil in the past four years.
Oh, wait, there weren't any because Bush brought the fight to them instead
of waiting for them to bring it to us.
mi...@sushi.com
basis in fact.
Brenda Ann
<mi...@sushi.com> wrote in message
news:1135590588.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> It was 7 years between attacks at the WTC, hence your conclusion has no
> basis in fact.
I was going to say much the same thing. It is the height of naivete to
believe that within a religion of more than 1.5 billion followers, that
there are not more than enough fringe militants to handle what's going on in
Iraq and Afghanistan, and still have plenty left over to mount another
attack on the US. I offer as proof of this that there HAVE been attacks on
Bali, London, Lebanon, etc., all the while the wars in Iraq and Aghanistan
have been underway. It does NOT follow that, as the administration
advances, that just because we are fighting (some of) the jihadists 'over
there' that we will not also have to fight them at home.
Let's do some hypothetical math. There are ~1.5 billion Muslims. If only
.1% of those are militant jihadists, that means that there would be 1.5
million militant jihadists. That would be a very formidable and widespread
enemy. And, they are committed, unafraid of death, and very, very patient.
They will wait till the occasion presents itself and strike at their
leisure, as in the example of the World Trade Centers. I can't say if .1% is
a conservative or liberal estimate.. but even a decimal point one way or the
other leaves a lot of people to deal with.
RHF
A 'potential' Army of 1.5 Million Militant Jihadists without Uniforms
ready to Initiate Large Scale Mass Murder upon Un-Armed American
Civilians and Destroy entire US Cities. The Islam-O-Fascist know
that they are "At War" with the USA, Western Civilization and any
thing they consider an Infidel within or without the Islamic Faith.
The US Congress is Out-to-Lunch and still is Asleep-at-the-Wheel
since by their Actions (In-Action) : Congress Does Not Know -
That We Are "At War" with the Un-Lawful-Combatants of the
Islam-O-Fascist.
This is an A Symmetrical Terrorist War and the War-on-Terror
can not be fought with Gentlemen's Rules - 'if' we hope to win.
HOW MANY MORE :
* Terrorist Attacks Will Happen In America ?
* Innocent American Civilians Must Die ?
* US Cities Will Be Destroyed ?
BEFORE - The US Congress puts the USA on a War Footing ?
The US Congress has Failed the American People by Their
Lack of Decisive Action to Make the War-on-Terror a Prime
Concern of the American People.
David
>toTaLhAt wrote:
>> Funny then, that they couldn't care less
>> that Bush is doing virtually NOTHING to fight terrorism other than
>> illegally spy on U.S. citizens. Pitiful
>
>Yeah. You'd think dubya could have done something about all those attacks
>on US soil in the past four years.
>
>Oh, wait, there weren't any because Bush brought the fight to them instead
>of waiting for them to bring it to us.
Bush's terrorism is far worse. He is destroying the idea of Freedom.
RHF
He is destroying the idea of Freedom. "
DaviD - Dead Men Have No Freedoms [.] ~ RHF
DaviD - Why Don't 'you' and the Liberals who populate the Democrat
Party of the USA : That Claim to be the Champions of America's Freedoms
and Civil Rights : Come-up with a way of effectively Fighting the
War-on-Terror and Preserving the Lives of Americans while Maintaining
Our Freedoms.
DaviD - More of the same Endless Democrat Party of the USA Criticism
without any Solid Ideas for Making America Safer from Terrorism and
More Secure in Our Freedoms.
The Democrat Party of the USA - Has to Understand that Attacking US
President George "W" Bush and His Administration and Blaming George "W"
Bush Personally - Is Not A Better Plan For America - The Truth is that
the Democrat Party of the USA Has No Plan Except to Quit the
War-on-Terror and Surrender to the Islam-O-Terrorist.
REMEMBER - THE "9/11" TERRORIST ATTACKS
never, Never. NEVER ! FORGET [.]
September 11, 2001=> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11
That Terrorist Attacks that the Democrat Party of the USA would like us
not to bring-up to remind Americans that We Are At WAR ! .
[ The War-on-Terrorism Is No Far Away Vietnam - America Has Been
Attacked ]
The Islam-O-Terrorist {The Enemy} have come here and Killed Americans
and Will Come Again in Time to Do It Again and Again and Again - Until
You Either Submit To Islam (Convert) or Die. For them this is a
Hundred Years War to Make the Whole World Islamic.
dxAce
David wrote:
Pay no attention to the mentally ill 'tard boy known as David Rickets.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
David
wrote:
>DaviD Proclaims - " Bush's terrorism is far worse.
>He is destroying the idea of Freedom. "
>
>DaviD - Dead Men Have No Freedoms [.] ~ RHF
>
Give me Liberty or give me death.
Billy Smith
"dxAce" <dx...@milestones.com> wrote in message
news:43B00E08...@milestones.com...
dxAce
Billy Smith wrote:
> So did McDonalds let you have the day after Christmas off.
I don't work there. Perhaps you do?
LMFAO at the stem.
Now go tote it, boy.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
mi...@sushi.com
since there is no clearly defined target (nation state). Post 911, most
of the capture or killing of Al Qaeda came from police style raids with
the aid of Pakistan. Now it's not clear to me if Pakistan is just
blowing off low level Al Qaeda members to stay in our good graces and a
US budget line item, but are protecting the high level members. I can't
think of how many so-called number 3 Al Qaeda leaders we killed or
captured.
Attacking the Taliban was probably the thing to do, though it really
hasn't effected Al Qaeda since they just scurry like cockroaches. But
attacked the Taliban certainly made it less likely for a nation to
harbor "out of the closet" Al Qaeda members.
clifto
> clifto wrote:
>> toTaLhAt wrote:
>> > Funny then, that they couldn't care less
>> > that Bush is doing virtually NOTHING to fight terrorism other than
>> > illegally spy on U.S. citizens. Pitiful
>>
>> Yeah. You'd think dubya could have done something about all those attacks
>> on US soil in the past four years.
>>
>> Oh, wait, there weren't any because Bush brought the fight to them instead
>> of waiting for them to bring it to us.
>
> It was 7 years between attacks at the WTC, hence your conclusion has no
> basis in fact.
If you only count attacks on the WTC, like a typical liberal would, and
ignore the attacks on embassies, ships and a USMC barracks. Perhaps you
didn't notice because all Brother Clinton did was feel yore pain.
clifto
*sigh* Typical liberal nonsense non-answer. Divert attention from the
disagreeable factual discussion at hand, and attempt to turn it into
a Bush bash.
Billy Smith
toilets boy.
"dxAce" <dx...@milestones.com> wrote in message
news:43B03280...@milestones.com...
David
>> Bush's terrorism is far worse. He is destroying the idea of Freedom.
>
>*sigh* Typical liberal nonsense non-answer. Divert attention from the
>disagreeable factual discussion at hand, and attempt to turn it into
>a Bush bash.
Sorry, Lucy, but the discussion was about the President taking the law
into his own hands. You're the one who changed the subject.
mi...@sushi.com
counted the WTC.
You should recall that Clinton did all the investigation work for the
Cole, handed it to Shrub, but Shrub decided not to do a fucking thing.
Iraq was considered more important.
USMC barracks? What, Ronald Reagan's Beirut fiasco? I was having a good
day, and you just had to remind me of Reagan, may he burn in hell.
John S. Dyson
mi...@sushi.com writes:
>
> The NeoFascists only count terrorism attacks on US soil, hence I only
> counted the WTC.
>
played by the lefties keeps on showing their lack of depth and proves
their gotcha mentality. This whole thing is about saving the freedoms
in the west (and elsewhere), not trying to impose the kind of freedoms
that so-called leftists try to impose (e.g. Soviets, Castro, etc.)
John
mi...@sushi.com
Hawaii.
dxAce
Billy Smith wrote:
> Shall I call your boss and tell them toilets need cleaned boy? Clean those
> toilets boy.
My boss is myself, boy!
LMFAO yet again at the clueless Liberal 'tard!
dxAce
Michigan
USA
clifto
No, that's a rightist slogan. You want something more like "The workers
must control the means of production!" or "There'll be pie in the sky
by and by!" or "Poverty is a consequence of the enslavement of the
proletariat under the yoke of the bourgeoisie!" or "Power to the people!
Right on!"
clifto
> John S. Dyson wrote:
>> mi...@sushi.com writes:
>> > The NeoFascists only count terrorism attacks on US soil, hence I only
>> > counted the WTC.
>> >
>> The embassies are also US property. Frankly, the silly wordgames being
>> played by the lefties keeps on showing their lack of depth and proves
>> their gotcha mentality. This whole thing is about saving the freedoms
>> in the west (and elsewhere), not trying to impose the kind of freedoms
>> that so-called leftists try to impose (e.g. Soviets, Castro, etc.)
>
> Hawaii.
You can't possibly be so dense as to reword the exact same fallacy and
expect people to buy it. Then again, you're a leftist, maybe you could.
clifto
Here's the conversation to date, with the parts you didn't want others
to see so they wouldn't realize you're pulling the wool:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
clifto wrote:
> David wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 01:45:31 -0600, clifto <cli...@clifto.com> wrote:
>>>toTaLhAt wrote:
>>>> Funny then, that they couldn't care less
>>>> that Bush is doing virtually NOTHING to fight terrorism other than
>>>> illegally spy on U.S. citizens. Pitiful
>>>
>>>Yeah. You'd think dubya could have done something about all those attacks
>>>on US soil in the past four years.
>>>
>>>Oh, wait, there weren't any because Bush brought the fight to them instead
>>>of waiting for them to bring it to us.
>>
>> Bush's terrorism is far worse. He is destroying the idea of Freedom.
>
> *sigh* Typical liberal nonsense non-answer. Divert attention from the
> disagreeable factual discussion at hand, and attempt to turn it into
> a Bush bash.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Now it's obvious that you're twisting the facts.
mi...@sushi.com
Period end. Find another lame excuse to put forward, but give up on so
and so did it, pah-leese.
RHF
on the US HomeLand and the Deaths of their fellow American
Citizens.
The Problem with some American Liberals and many of the
Left-Wing Media Elitist : Is that They seem to only care about
those World Events that They can Claim are the Result of
America and American Involvement and can Blame America
for Causing. They care not for Their fellow Americans and
usually evidence Hate for Americans and Self-Loathing for
themselves for Being and American.
God {Allah} Bless America - Amen.
Proud To Say : I Am An American ! ~ RHF
RHF
Some people may start calling 'you' "Lying Ass"
david - how'd you like them peanuts ~ RHF
Brenda Ann
"clifto" <cli...@clifto.com> wrote in message
news:mcv683-...@remote.clifto.com...
> David wrote:
>> On 26 Dec 2005 06:57:14 -0800, "RHF" <rhf-new...@pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>>DaviD - Dead Men Have No Freedoms [.] ~ RHF
>>>
>> Give me Liberty or give me death.
>
> No, that's a rightist slogan.
Depends on your point of view, I guess. I'm pretty sure King George saw it
as left wing rabble, since his idea of conservatism would have been the
status quo.
RHF
Radical Left-Wing Thinking - It Boggles the Mind !
US Presidents since FDR as Commander-in-Chief
have done what is necessary to Save American Lives
and Protect American Freedoms.
M... - And your contribution to the discussion is :
* I don't fucking care if Johnny did it.
* That doesn't make it right!
* Period end.
* Find another lame excuse to put forward,
but give up on so and so did it,
* pah-leese.
M... - Spoken like a real Sock Puppet
from the Democrat Party of the USA.
M... - Where Were 'you' when The Clinton Administration
put forward lesser reasons and arguments prior to 9/11
M... 'your' Silence Then {your outright complicity} Says It
All Then and Now Amplifies 'your' Political Agenda.
M... - REMEMBER - THE "9/11" TERRORIST ATTACKS
and never, Never. NEVER ! FORGET [.]
September 11, 2001=> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11
That Terrorist Attacks that the Democrat Party of the USA would
like us not to bring-up to remind Americans that We Are At WAR ! .
[ The War-on-Terrorism Is No Far Away Vietnam
- America {Our HomeLand} Has Been Attacked ]
The Islam-O-Terrorist {The Enemy} have come here and Killed Americans
and Will Come Again in Time to Do It Again and Again and Again - Until
You Either Submit To Islam (Convert) or Die. For them this is a
Hundred Years War to Make the Whole World Islamic.
God {Allah} Bless America and Our American Freedoms - Amen.
Proud To Say : I Am An American ~ RHF
David
>>>>
>>>>Oh, wait, there weren't any because Bush brought the fight to them instead
>>>>of waiting for them to bring it to us.
>>>
>>> Bush's terrorism is far worse. He is destroying the idea of Freedom.
>>
>> *sigh* Typical liberal nonsense non-answer. Divert attention from the
>> disagreeable factual discussion at hand, and attempt to turn it into
>> a Bush bash.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Now it's obvious that you're twisting the facts.
There have been no overt attacks since the anthrax mailings because
Bush is doing enough damage all by himself. He is doing what Bin
Laden could only dream of; destroyin America from within.
David
wrote:
Bush let 9/11 happen because he wanted a new Pearl Harbor because he
knew pussies like you would give him unprecedented powers to shit all
over the Constitution. If it weren't for you, and pussies like you,
there would have been no 9/11.
cuh...@webtv.net
MnMikew
"clifto" <cli...@clifto.com> wrote in message news:akv683->
> You can't possibly be so dense as to reword the exact same fallacy and
> expect people to buy it. Then again, you're a leftist, maybe you could.
>
Just the same tired old rhetoric over and over.
MnMikew
"David" <ric...@knac.com> wrote in message
news:nfk0r15p46ps3jcat...@4ax.com...
MnMikew
> There have been no overt attacks since the anthrax mailings because
> Bush is doing enough damage all by himself. He is doing what Bin
> Laden could only dream of; destroyin America from within.
>
David
wrote:
When in doubt, fall back on the Constitution and quit being a Good
German. Bush is a traitor.
David
David
wrote:
They all suck. The only thing that makes them tolerable is a vigilant
populace. Once the People give up, all is lost.
dxAce
David wrote:
You're the pussy, mental retard boy!
dxAce
Michigan
USA
dxAce
David wrote:
And you're a dumbass mental case!
dxAce
Michigan
USA
dxAce
David wrote:
Once you stop taking your meds, all is lost, 'tard boy.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
dxAce
David wrote:
I took this oath once, and as far as I recall I've never been asked to rescind
that oath:
"I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm)
that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; and that I will obey the orders of
the President of the United States and the
orders of the officers appointed over me,
according to regulations and the Uniform
Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
You are the enemy, 'tard boy. Watch your 6.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
David
wrote:
>I took this oath once, and as far as I recall I've never been asked to rescind
>that oath:
>
>"I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm)
> that I will support and defend the
> Constitution of the United States
> against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
> that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
> the same; and that I will obey the orders of
> the President of the United States and the
> orders of the officers appointed over me,
> according to regulations and the Uniform
> Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
>
>You are the enemy, 'tard boy. Watch your 6.
>
>dxAce
>Michigan
>USA
>
So why aren't you defending the Constitution against Bush, a domestic
enemy of same?
Maybe ''me God'' isn't so powerful after all...Hmmm?
dxAce
David wrote:
Can't read, shitstain? YOU are the enemy.
LMFAO at the mentally ill retard known as David Rickets.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
MnMikew
MnMikew
David
wrote:
>
>Can't read, shitstain? YOU are the enemy.
>
>LMFAO at the mentally ill retard known as David Rickets.
>
>dxAce
>Michigan
>USA
>
How does my advocacy in favor of the Constitution over a police state
make me an enemy of the Constitution.
The oath is to protect the Constitution. Not the Homeland. Not any
goddam politicians.
David
wrote:
>
>"David" <ric...@knac.com> wrote in message
>news:20u2r15g8a0ldii79...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:44:38 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmi...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"David" <ric...@knac.com> wrote in message
>> >news:smi2r1dj0454o0s9k...@4ax.com...
>> >> There have been no overt attacks since the anthrax mailings because
>> >> Bush is doing enough damage all by himself. He is doing what Bin
>> >> Laden could only dream of; destroyin America from within.
>> >>
>> >The liberal left is destroying America everyday.
>> >
>> How so?
>>
>Read Michael Savages "The Enemy Within".
>
>
Michael Savage is the poster boy for psychotic paranoia.
Give me the bullet points.
dxAce
David wrote:
You're an idiot, 'tard boy. Go take your meds and hope for the best.
LMFAO at the mentally ill, enemy of the state known as David Rickets.
dxAce
Michigan
UA
dxAce
David wrote:
No, David Rickets is the poster boy for psychotic paranoia.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
cuh...@webtv.net
About Belgians.
How True it is!
cuhulin
MnMikew
cuh...@webtv.net
Fishermans Wharf.I haven't listened to his radio show in over two years.
cuhulin
RHF
a new Pearl Harbor because he knew pussies like you . . . "
DaviD - Honestly DaviD ?
DaviD - Honestly DaviD !
DaviD - Honestly DaviD [.]
Quite Honestly DaviD - I would not even accuse
or even allude to Bill and/or Hillary Clinton of
being capable of such a heinous criminal act.
DaviD - When 'you' make such a public proclamation
'you' Clearly Evidence the Sickness of the Liberal Mind-Set
in Today's Political Arena of Ideas - sick, Sick. SICK !
God {Allah} Bless America and Our Elected Leaders - Amen.
I Believe in America and Our Elected Leaders ~ RHF
dxAce
RHF wrote:
> A Revelation from DaviD - " Bush let 9/11 happen because he wanted
> a new Pearl Harbor because he knew pussies like you . . . "
>
> DaviD - Honestly DaviD ?
>
> DaviD - Honestly DaviD !
>
> DaviD - Honestly DaviD [.]
>
> Quite Honestly DaviD - I would not even accuse
> or even allude to Bill and/or Hillary Clinton of
> being capable of such a heinous criminal act.
>
> DaviD - When 'you' make such a public proclamation
> 'you' Clearly Evidence the Sickness of the Liberal Mind-Set
> in Today's Political Arena of Ideas - sick, Sick. SICK !
What do you expect, after all he is mentally ill.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
David
wrote:
I wouldn't accuse the Clintons of this either. George Bush is a
flat-out bonkers who thinks he can bring Jesus back to life. He is
capable of any kind of twisted behavior. Look at him. Look at the
twisted gang of deviants he hangs out with. Look at his family
history (Hitler's bankers, etc.).
dxAce
David wrote:
And then I look at you... and I see that you're a mentally ill 'tard boy!
Stuff a sock in it, stem.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
clifto
> "MnMikew" <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Yes, they are actually that dense. No answers, no solutions, no cooperation.
>>Just the same tired old rhetoric over and over.
>
> When in doubt, fall back on the Constitution and quit being a Good
> German. Bush is a traitor.
Au contraire. The most notable traitor these days is the New York Times,
printing classified information which aids the enemies of the USA.
Like it or not, even the leftist Congresscritters who were in on the
thing from the beginning have to admit that the President has the
authority to do what he's doing.
--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.
clifto
> How does my advocacy in favor of the Constitution over a police state
> make me an enemy of the Constitution.
Out of question marks? Here are some extras. ??????????????????
Your advocacy is not what you represent it to be. You advocate removing
constitutional powers from the President in a time of war.
clifto
>> David wrote:
>>> Give me Liberty or give me death.
>>
>> No, that's a rightist slogan.
>
> Depends on your point of view, I guess. I'm pretty sure King George saw it
> as left wing rabble, since his idea of conservatism would have been the
> status quo.
Neither is it leftist to be a revolutionary, nor is conservatism simply
maintaining the status quo.
clifto
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 23:25:27 -0600, clifto <cli...@clifto.com> wrote:
>>> *sigh* Typical liberal nonsense non-answer. Divert attention from the
>>> disagreeable factual discussion at hand, and attempt to turn it into
>>> a Bush bash.
>>
>
> There have been no overt attacks since the anthrax mailings because
> Bush is doing enough damage all by himself. He is doing what Bin
> Laden could only dream of; destroyin America from within.
*sigh* Typical liberal nonsense non-answer. Divert attention from the
disagreeable factual discussion at hand, and attempt to turn it into
a Bush bash.
--
clifto
> Bush let 9/11 happen because he wanted a new Pearl Harbor because he
> over the Constitution. If it weren't for you, and pussies like you,
> there would have been no 9/11.
*sigh* Typical liberal fact elimination with history rewrite.
You'll say anything to turn a discussion into a Bush bash.
cuh...@webtv.net
(next Sunday is January 1,2006) is GOP Dislluisonment with AWOL MORON
bush is GROWING and that Really is a GOOD Thingy.
www.capitolhillblue.com I done told y'all before that bush (namely
g.w.bush,the so-called prez of U.S.A.) is NOT a Republican,he is Really
a Commie Fascist liberal and I do believe more and more people are
Waking up to that FACT too.I Truely HOPE the Year (the next three Years)
are Very,Very BAD for bush and cheney and rice (rice,bush's girlfriend)
and rumsfeld and the bush administration.
cuhulin
David
>David wrote:
>> How does my advocacy in favor of the Constitution over a police state
>> make me an enemy of the Constitution.
>
>Out of question marks? Here are some extras. ??????????????????
>
>Your advocacy is not what you represent it to be. You advocate removing
>constitutional powers from the President in a time of war.
If war gives the president sweeping powers then a bad president would
probably see to it that we're always at war.
You cannot trust these people. That is a basic tenet of the American
form of government.
dxAce
David wrote:
No, we simply cannot trust nor tolerate 'tard boys such as yourself.
YOU are the enemy of the people and as such time presents itself, YOU will be
dealt with accordingly.
Feel free to tote your 'tard boy ass off until that time.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
clifto
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:50:39 -0600, clifto <cli...@clifto.com> wrote:
>>David wrote:
>>> How does my advocacy in favor of the Constitution over a police state
>>> make me an enemy of the Constitution.
>>
>>Out of question marks? Here are some extras. ??????????????????
>>
>>Your advocacy is not what you represent it to be. You advocate removing
>>constitutional powers from the President in a time of war.
>
> If war gives the president sweeping powers then a bad president would
> probably see to it that we're always at war.
Well, it's true enough that Kennedy and Johnson tried, but Nixon stopped
them. But the "sweeping" powers in question are not granted only by the
existence of a war. Several liberal Congresscritters agree that the
President has them regardless.
RHF
who thinks he can bring Jesus back to life. "
DaviD - Are 'you' reading Howard Deans Bar Napkins again ?
[ Another Democrat Party of the USA Talking Point ? ]
DaviD - Do 'you' have a Direct Quote for this Statement ?
DaviD - Do 'you' have a Source for this Statement ?
jesus david - 'you' boggle the mind ~ RHF
RHF
- He is capable of any kind of twisted behavior.
- Look at him.
- Look at the twisted gang of deviants he hangs out with.
- Look at his family history (Hitler's bankers, etc.).
DaviD - This what comes from going to Sleep at Night . . .
as a Child with the TV Set Still On - There In There !
and david 'you' are letting them out :o) ~ RHF
David
>David wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:50:39 -0600, clifto <cli...@clifto.com> wrote:
>>>David wrote:
>>>> How does my advocacy in favor of the Constitution over a police state
>>>> make me an enemy of the Constitution.
>>>
>>>Out of question marks? Here are some extras. ??????????????????
>>>
>>>Your advocacy is not what you represent it to be. You advocate removing
>>>constitutional powers from the President in a time of war.
>>
>> If war gives the president sweeping powers then a bad president would
>> probably see to it that we're always at war.
>
>Well, it's true enough that Kennedy and Johnson tried, but Nixon stopped
>them. But the "sweeping" powers in question are not granted only by the
>existence of a war. Several liberal Congresscritters agree that the
>President has them regardless.
Congress alone cannot change the Constitution. We have no right to
undo what hundreds of thousands of Americans have died defending
because we are afraid of mad bombers.
RHF
DaviD - We are not trying to change the Constitution.
We are simply trying to change 'your' mind
- one brain cell at a time
- before they all die from
- - drugs
- - Alcohol
- - Age
DaviD - Would it be nice to Die Happy ? -and to-
- Love Yourself
- Love Your Family
- Love Your Fellow Man/Women
- Love Your Country
'you' are filled with such Hate DaviD !
david - you shall know the truth - and the truth will set you free
- be free david ~ RHF
.
.
. .
.
David wrote:
RHF
" That is a basic tenet of the American form of government. "
David - The United States of America's Government is based
upon an Elected 'Representitive' System using Democratic
Elections by "The People" [.]
DaviD - The Election of Representatives By "The People" :
Is An Act Of Trust [.] = The People's Trust !
DaviD - Every Two, Four and Six Years The People's Trust is :
Affirmed or Withdrawn from Our elected Representatives when
we have Elections By "The People".
DaviD - Why Do 'you' Distrust "The People" ? 'your' Fellow Citizens ?
- Oh thats right 'you' are a Liberal Elitist
- Who Know Whats Best FOR 'the people'
A Political Cadre of the Democrat Party of the USA.
DaviD - Why Do 'you' Hate 'your' Own Government ?
DaviD - Why Do 'you' Hate 'your' Own Country ?
DaviD - Why Do 'you' Hate 'your' Own Countrymen ?
DaviD - Why Do 'you' Hate Persons of Faith ?
DaviD - Why Do 'you' Hate 'your' Self ?
David - I Pray that You Learn to Love Yourself
and Learn to Love and Trust Others - Amen ~ RHF
David
wrote:
>DaviD Says - " You cannot trust these people. "
>" That is a basic tenet of the American form of government. "
>
>David - The United States of America's Government is based
>upon an Elected 'Representitive' System using Democratic
>Elections by "The People" [.]
One major function of the Legislative branch is oversight of the
Executive branch.
What we have these days is a rubber stamp. No checks and balances.
The People cannot elect representatives correctly unless the People
get solid information from the mass media. The mass media, being
ratrings driven, is reluctant to tell the people that the people are
stupid.
It ain't working. It is broken.
cuh...@webtv.net
phones and land line phones and internet communications and whatever
other kinds of communicating they do,of which I whole heartily
APPROVE.People around here whom I once in a great while talk to on my
land line phone,I Guarantee you,no one would be the slightest bit
interested in at all.
cuhulin
dxAce
David wrote:
You're biggest problem is that you spend to much time talking out your ass
rather than actually paying attention to anything.
LMFAO yet again at the mentally challenged 'tard boy known as David Rickets.
dxAce
Michigan
USA