Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Stumpfoot, yes Coulter is a VERY biased soursce. But is she wrong? The Warren Court is what made abortion Constitutional is it not?
I think they were written in the 50's. And yes the movies had a cold war “theme” to them. Connery is my favorite too. I've seen this new guy in a couple of movies and he's a good actor. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Sorry, folks. I didn't realize this thread was about two specific movies, I though it was a “what movies are you looking forward to” type thread. I'll pay attention next time. 😛
I think some comparisons are fair. Both are opposed by the same people. It was those who opposed the Viet Nam war who started the opposition to this war. IMHO.
Looking forward to Flags of Our Fathers!http://flagsofourfathers.net/
Thanks, Phid. After reading about it the last couple of days I realized I was incorrect about the calls. But doesn't the TSP also cover domestic-to-domestic?Here's 2 articles I found that are quite interesting concerning this judges decision.http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWVlOGNiZmIyMmZkYTg2OGFiYzM3ZGU4Nzc0MjFjNzQ=
More worrisome still are the judge?s breathtaking mistakes in analyzing the Fourth and First Amendments?errors that would earn our first-year law student an ?F.? Here?s one of several examples: The judge asserts that the Fourth Amendment, in all cases, ?requires prior warrants for any reasonable search, based upon prior-existing probable cause.? She cites no legal authority whatsoever for this colossal misstatement of the law, because none exists. Instead, there are numerous situations where our courts have found no prior warrant is required, so long as a search is ?reasonable.? Fatal to her position is the very Supreme Court case she herself cites. This landmark 1972 electronic-surveillance decision, the Keith case, makes clear that, though it establishes a warrant requirement for purely domestic security cases (decidedly not what the TSP is, raising the alarming possibility the judge may think the TSP is a ?domestic? program), the Fourth Amendment does not always require a prior warrant for government searches. Rather, the need for warrants depends on a balancing of the government?s legitimate needs, such as protecting us from attack, against other constitutional interests.
Phid, that's from the Authorization for use of military force that Congress passed right after 9-11. http://web.archive.org/web/20120429135227/http://news.findlaw.com:80/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.htmlPerhaps it's me who is confused here. I was under the impression that foreign to domestic (or vice versa) calls are fine without a warrant and that this whole argument is about domestic calls only.Perhaps there has to be something put into writing as to what defines terrorism? As far as the date mining goes, aren't they just looking for key words or phrases and then they intercept it once there's a pattern established?
Question about the New York Times revealing this.? Haven't most already heard and knew about this program before they published their story?? ?Not that I'm defending them, but most of the classified information “leaked” was already known, was it not?Now as far as what this program actually does, do we REALLY know everything about it?? It is my understanding that much of how this operates is highly classified (and still is).? Authorization for Use of Military Force
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States
Doesn't this alone make it legal?? Why or why not?
This is technical, so I can't contribute all that much, but I'll try. It's very interesting seeing the dead vs living discussion. Phid, you have a good board and members here. I see opposing political views, yet it's very good discussion without the usual arguing you see on other boards.With that said, and seeing that this surveillance issue is such a hot topic, it would be great to see it discussed here. What do you guys think about it? Is it Constitutional? Should we even be concerned whether or not it is during a time of war, if this actually is a time of war? I think it should be allowed, and I'll leave it at that for now.
I'm not asking really what the effect has been on litigation, but rather what the effect has been on the public consciousness in regard to litigation.
Not sure if this is what you're asking, Phid, but I think it changed the perspective of personal responsibility. You can now sue others for your own mistake. Did this have any effect on legal decisions concerning the tobacco industry? You choose to smoke, but you can sue them when you get cancer? I know there's more to it than that, but that's how the average person sees it I think.
Removing God from our Government and public life may lead to our doom as well. There should be a balance.
I didnt want to start another thread to ask this so I will just do it here; Has there been a good movie about the Korean war made yet?
Wasn't M.A.S.H. built around the Korean War? I remember that being the first "adult" movie I ever saw. It wasn't your typical war film.
It's without a doubt historically accurate.? ? I wish it got into more detail and mentioned other civilizations more often, but the Bible isn't meant to be a history book.? And,? aside from the obvious intent of the Bible, it gives man something to do, like try to find out where Ur was.? 😀
