Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (152250)	12/21/2005 11:56:34 PM
From: Steve Lokness	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793552

<The secularists lost badly. Allawi and Chalabi are out of the game.> and; <He sees this election as the final shipwreck” there is no hope of establishing a pro-Western secular democracy in a united Iraq.” The United States seems to be making Iraq safe for a government ruled by Ayatollahs.> americanchronicle.com Chalabi - Bush' pick got less than 1/2 of 1% by some accounts. We are not gaining ground in Iraq and we sure as heck are not gaining their respect, trust or support. We are now only targets there. Steve

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (152250)	12/22/2005 12:00:59 AM
From: Alan Smithee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793552

We could round and round as to if what Bush did was unconstitutional or not. You apparently think we do not need the checks and balances and that warrants are not needed. I respectfully disagree. There is a disconnect between the first and second sentences. I agree would could debate all day and night about the constitutionality of the wiretaps. IMO you still have not offered any rational analysis as to why the taps are unconstitutional. All we have is your opinion. You never answered my question: And, how do you respond to the following article? Message 21994107 (that's the guy who was a Clinton Assoc. Attorney General). IMO, he offers a cogent analysis of the legality of the wiretaps. As for checks and balances (your second sentence): I have no problem with the checks and balances of government. Our forefathers were amazingly prescicent in creating the scheme of government they set up. As you know, we have the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches, and there are various checks and balances built into the system. Those checks and balances do not mean that everything the Executive does has to be run by and approved by one of the other branches of government. Here is what the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution says about searches and seizures: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. But, were you aware that there are numerous exceptions to the Fourth Amendment? Have you heard about search incident to arrest? Consented searches? Searches based on exigent circumstances? They are all exceptions to the warrant requirement. Various legal minds have weighed in on the issue, including a former Associate General from the Clinton Justice Department, and they have opined that the non-FISA wiretaps are no unconstitutional, and fall under the authority of the Executive granted under the Constitution. Turn it around. Suppose Hillary wins the next election and becomes President. Would you be happy having Hillary listening to conversations of Americans without the protection of warrants? I sure wouldn't! Clinton did it. Bush is doing it. And I have no problem with any other president doing it. It's done to keep us safe. Do you have a problem with that? By the way, do you know anyone, personally, who has had his or her rights violated by these wiretaps? No? I thought not.