1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

If we live in a free country ...

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Pastor Larry, Dec 20, 2005.

  1. Me4Him

    Me4Him New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Messages:
    2,214
    Likes Received:
    0
    We ask a soldier to put his life in Jeopardy for our freedoms,

    Then give those freedoms to the government so our life "WON'T BE" in jeopardy.

    Who's freedom is the solider fighting for, our's or the government???

    If we ask the solider to jeopardize his life for freedom, shouldn't we be willing to accept the same jeopardy of life to keep those freedoms??

    IMO, if you're not willing to die for freedom, don't ask anyone else to die.
     
  2. Bunyon

    Bunyon New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Given that both parties agree that it was necessary. Given that the president is being straight forward and unyielding. And given the terrorist are a real threat and may have a nuke some day, I can only conclude that some of you folks got something to hide.
     
  3. Bunyon

    Bunyon New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    "The administration defends the program, saying Congress gave Bush the authority to use ``signals intelligence'' - wiretaps, for example - to eavesdrop on international calls between U.S. citizens and foreigners when one of them is a suspected al-Qaida member or supporter."-------------------------------------

    See uless you are speaking with a "suspected" terrorist or supoorter, you were not under survalence.
     
  4. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,122
    Likes Received:
    19
    I guess that the President is in agreement with you.

    [Link]

    Regards,
    BiR
     
  5. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,122
    Likes Received:
    19
    Apparently, the Vice President is also in agreement with you.

    [Link]
     
  6. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    THey are not in the same league. The ideas of Washington and Franklin have stood the test of time and received universal recognition. Baldwin's views have not. Perhaps in fifty years you can quote him int eh same sentence.

    I am not convinced they are true, especially not Baldwin's since he didn't identify any God-given rights. I have no idea whether I agree or not. Somehow, I can't find "freedom to talk on the telephone" as a God given right. Perhaps I need another Bible though.

    Such as???

    I don't know, but the words of hte Bible come to mind, that say, "Romans 13:3 Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same." THe kind of life I believe in is a radically biblical life, that is less concerned with civil freedom and civil issues and more concerned with spiritual and eternal ones.

    They can already do that. All they need to do is show up. Or go to church websites where churches have recorded their message and make them publicly available. I have no problem at all with the government enforcing 501c3 status. I wish they would.

    "The sky is falling." I think even you know that this is great hyperbole.

    They, or you, are welcome to read or listen to whatever I say on teh phone or write in an email. I have nothing to hide and no reason to be concerned. The rights aren't being taken away. The problem is that your cry of "Wolf" hurts the real issues that will one day come.
     
  7. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    It was wrong for them to do it and it's wrong for the Bush administration to do it!
     
  8. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can you name one?

    Joseph Botwinick
    </font>[/QUOTE]For more than a year, the A.C.L.U. has been seeking access to information in F.B.I. files on about 150 protest and social groups that it says may have been improperly monitored.

    http://tinyurl.com/9mbkv

    The latest batch of documents, parts of which the ACLU planned to release publicly on Tuesday, totals more than 2,300 pages and centers on references in internal files to a handful of groups, including PETA, the environmental group Greenpeace and the Catholic Workers group, which promotes anti-poverty efforts and social causes.

    http://tinyurl.com/bgal3

    While I don't agree with these liberal groups, I don't believe they have any ties to Al Qaeda, and don't think it's right for our government to spy on certain groups without a warrant just because the current administration doesn't like them. If we allow it with the Bush administration will we also allow it with Hillary's administration when she is targeting conservative groups that she doesn't like?
     
  9. NiteShift

    NiteShift New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    US Code, Title 50 "War and National Defense"
    Section 1802, "Electronic Surveillance Authorization Without Court Order."

    "Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year".

    So, this has been the law for quite some time. Pres Bush has not done anything illegal regarding surveillance.

    Now, this became an issue on the very day of the Iraqi elections, and basically replaced the good news of the elections with accusations directed at Pres. Bush. Strange, very strange.
     
  10. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You cut it kind of short there, didn't ya, NiteShift? Here's some of what you cut off:

    "if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that— (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at— (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and (C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization"

    More at LINK

    The bottom line is that President Bush needs to be investigated to see if he broke the law of the land. If he did so, then he needs to be called on the carpet for it.
     
  11. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    ..to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year

    2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006...

    It seems that Bush has "authorized" electronic surveillance to acquire both foreign and domestic itelligence information regardless of if it is related to Al Qaeda or not for over four years now, and has vowed to continue as long as he wishes.

    You seem to have left off a very important part of Section 1802:

    "...if the Attorney General
    certifies in writing under oath that -
    (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at -
    (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications
    transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between
    or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2),
    or (3) of this title; or
    (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than
    the spoken communications of individuals, from property or
    premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign
    power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this
    title;
    (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance
    will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United
    States person is a party;
    and
    (C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such
    surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under
    section 1801(h) of this title; and
    if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and
    any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on
    Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at
    least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the
    Attorney General determines immediate action is required and
    notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures
    and the reason for their becoming effective immediately."
     
  12. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hey, Jonathan, we are thinking alike on this subject - like a tag team pummeling the opposition. [​IMG]
     
  13. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just about three minutes off on our posts, it must have taken me a few minutes longer to read US Code, Title 50 ;) [​IMG]
     
  14. Bunyon

    Bunyon New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Actually you are acting like a couple of guys with something to hide. [​IMG]
     
  15. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    by pointing out what the law actually states were are acting like a couple of guys with something to hide? Does that make any sense at all?
     
  16. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can you name one?

    Joseph Botwinick
    </font>[/QUOTE]For more than a year, the A.C.L.U. has been seeking access to information in F.B.I. files on about 150 protest and social groups that it says may have been improperly monitored.
    </font>[/QUOTE]May have been? ACLU is seeking access? You mean they're going on a fishing expidition looking for a victim to represent in their smear campaign of the President? Seriously, can you name one person who was spied on by the president who had no ties to terrorists whatsoever? Names and evidence, not speculation from the Anti-Bush, Anti-American ACLU, please.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  17. NiteShift

    NiteShift New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    Supposing that the definitions US Code Title 50 could be debated, the New York Times has been sitting on this story for a year, and surprise surprise! They came out with on the day of the Iraqi elections.
     
  18. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay, so once again Botwinick doesn't like the source of the information so he just tosses it out as not factual, and NiteShift ignores the law to create his own conspiracy about the timing of the NYT article. I would rather deal with the facts that the law states that this surveillance against US citizens without a warrant is considered unlawful, and that our president has choosen to ignore the law and the US Constitution to continue his "war on terror" which also includes many liberal groups that have no ties to the terrorists.

    Would you be okay with this if Hillary were using these "war powers" to ignore the laws to go after conservative groups she dislikes?
     
  19. Bunyon

    Bunyon New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    "by pointing out what the law actually states were are acting like a couple of guys with something to hide? Does that make any sense at all? "-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    So you really think something that ends with a green face sticking its tongue out at you is supposed to make sense? Now wonder you think the FBI is listening to your every move [​IMG]
     
  20. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, I know English, some Spanish and a little Irish Gaelic. I haven't mastered reading Instant Graemlins yet. ;)
     
Loading...