You don’t even have the names of these people. So stop making things up, will you.

That’s actually why Bush refused to declare war. One of the primary reasons anyway.

If Congress declared war on an entity that will “never end”… what do you suppose happens to your rights under the Emergency Powers given to the President after Congress has officially declared war and legitimatized terrorism as an official and recognized enemy?

The US Navy is still fighting pirates in Somalia and Indonesia. You think if the US Congress declared war on them, that that war would ever end? No, it wouldn’t.

Yet, if your axioms are correct, Ozzie, Bush would already have forced Congress to declare war officially given the pressure and political capital he had after 9/11. Yet he didn’t. Obviously, you might want to go back to your drawing board, Ozzie, and make up an ideology that actually is a little bit more logically consistent.

True patriots want to see the First Amendment protected no matter what.

Liveleak thought something of the same, but they bended their knee anyways to Islam cause they found out that laws and “rights” weren’t as precious as life and limb. You will too.

That’s obviously false given that libertarians are moving towards having the government be in charge of producing hard core and soft core drugs.

When the government can make lots of money the more addicted people become, this is a libertarians’ ability to “not trust the government”?

False.

The fourth amendement refers to “unreasonable search and seizure,” which, to me, extends to e-mails and phone calls in this electronic age.

I fully understand that the government has loooooong been in the business of snooping into citizen’s lives, as witness by the FBI files on Albert Einstein, John Lennion and Martin Luther King.

But geeze, Bobby Kennedy had to OK J.Edgar Hoover’s request to peek into MLK’s window…

Again, this isn’t “Left vs Right” issue.

Authoritarians are OK with expanded government power, and libertarians don’t trust government not to abuse said power.

I guess I see a long line of violations, though Bill Clinton was a referred to as “a serial violator the Bil of Rights,” so, once again, I dont think it maters if a Democrat or Republican is in charge.

http://www.villagevoice.com/1999-01-05/news/what-s-happening-to-the-left/

There have been serious violations since the war on terror began, which, I suspect is the nature of all governments — just as the Founders warned.

Lincoln supsended habeus corpus and FDR shuttled people off to internment camps, but the Civil War and WWII ended, and scholars deemed both presidents wrong. The war on teror isnt going to end on our lifetimes, and the Bill of Rights will continue to take hits.

Danny: “However, we on the “Right” can’t help but notice how the Left does seem to be overly considerate of the supposed Constitutional rights of non-Americans who would endeavor to attack us.”

So, the 1 million people on the “terrorist watch list” deserve to be on it? And it isnt, in any shape or form being used to stiffle critics?

And you HAVE to love the “free speech zones,” where the public can air grievances, far away from elected officials.

D.Q suggested that the Right champions free speech, while the left tries to stiffle it.

I contend that authoritarians on the right and left only appreciate free speech when they agree with the message and try to stifle it when they disagree.

True patriots want to see the First Amendment protected no matter what.

If I work in a private or public corporation, I don’t enjoy free speech rights therein either. Same goes for public institutions, such as the military or government. Similarly, universities can define where and when people are free to express themselves - students cannot freely interrupt a class in session and turn it into a political event, for example…nor should they.

Sorry, Ozzie, but conservatives (that doesn’t necessarily mean Republicans) support small government and emancipated individual rights, whereas Liberals today are basically an outgrowth of socialist/progressive movements, in support of centralized government planning, control over individual civil and economic rights, control over education, control over family values..etc. It is the Left that dreamed up with the idea of a “living” Constitution that can be amended by Liberal/Left judges according to their whims in pursuit of their political goals. It was Liberal justices that have consistently attacked the right to self defense, the right of government to confiscate private property for commercial gain, and supported the concept of enforced social values and “thought crimes” (i.e., ‘hate speech’). Sure, some (not all by any means) of the Christian Right will advocate enforced social policies aligned with their religious beliefs, but these are very small movement within conservatism (which I, too, oppose, by the way).

You refer to “J. Edgar Hoover” - wasn’t he mostly head of the FBI under Democrat Administrations (I think of FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson, in particular)? You want Presidents who assaulted the constitution? Well, Jackson (D), Wilson (D), and FDR (D) certainly come to mind. If you cut through the BDS directed against the current administration, what assaults really are you talking about? Have you been given your marching orders to the nearest resettlement camp? Have they broken down your door? Pray tell. Either that, or get medication.

The wiretapping issue is a straw man issue created by the Left - the FISA law applies to the right of government intelligence agencies to wiretap in advance of getting a warrant of communications that originate from overseas or from non-U.S. citizens but, because of the way that satellite and optic communications are routed through the U.S., are accessible by U.S. intelligence agencies. There is no “right” to wiretap conversations of Americans ad lib.

However, we on the “Right” can’t help but notice how the Left does seem to be overly considerate of the supposed Constitutional rights of non-Americans who would endeavor to attack us.

Why is that?

Is it that the enemy of my enemy is my friend? Help us to understand this, would you?

Guess you were born well after party lines were no longer the norm, eh?

You know, the critical issue here is not whether the overheard information is admissable in court. I have no problem having the government listening into my phone conversations - or even searching my home…as long as they can’t admit what they find into a court of law. Until they have that court order giving them permission to tap the phone etc., all they have is hearsay and probably “fruit of the tree” as they say. I don’t think the NSA should be restricted from listening in anywhere they think might be relevant to terrorism. Using what they hear in a legal proceeding is another issue entirely.
Going back to the Constitution, you’re applying the principles of a “right of privacy” where it doesn’t exist. Should you have overheard a conversation in the days before telephones, could you have used the information? Of course you could. If you overheard the someone planning a bombing, are you supposed to just pretend you didn’t hear it? Of course not. Can you arrest the man before he bombs something? No…not on the basis of what you heard…there is no crime. Could you make an effort to prevent the bombing? I should hope so. Could you then arrest the man for _planning_ a bombing? Don’t think so. Telephones are no different from simply overhearing conversations you’re not part of. Listening should not be against the law. Prosecuting on the basis of what you overheard should be - unless you have a court order.

Tell me where in the Constitution you find a “right to privacy”?

So, you’re FOR wiretapping, I take it?

Just proves my point that Americans of all stripes wouldn’t mind it if the Bill of Rights were banished to the trash heap of History.

As a matter of fact ,in the early 1950s, Madison’s Capital Times editor John Patrick Hunter took to the streets with a petition, (which was actually the Declaration of Independence, along with portions of the Bill of Rights) and tried to get people to sign it. Only one in 112 did. The rest found it too subversive.

I don’t know if they were Republicans or Democrats, mind you, but to me, it matters not.

Land of the free, home of the brave? YeahRightSure

(”If you dont have anything to hide, why would it matter if the government listens to your phone calls, reads you e-mail, etc?”

Obviously because Democrats in Congress, like the Democrat prosecutor Spitzer, had something they needed to hide. Jefferson hiding money in his freezer is another thing as well.