The US Constitution - A Suicide Pact?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jul 11 2007, 12:44 AM) [snapback]476631[/snapback]</div>

I've never heard anyone decry investigation into terrorist financial activities, domestic or foreign. Investigation of US citizens uninvolved in any illegal activity is another matter entirely (investigating Quakers and putting them on terrorism watch lists for example).

I have, however, heard many conservatives decry investigation into financial transactions of the ultra wealthy (such as those of Ken Lay), and financial operations of US Corporations (such as Halliburton or the sell-off of control of US ports to Dubai).

It's a well known fact by both liberals and conservatives that all transactions over $10,000 must be reported to the Federal Government. If I'm not mistaken, this was originally set up to cover only cash transactions and was instituted as a method of stopping drug traffic.

As to liberals and their thoughts on monitoring of financial transactions for terrorists, you might want to check into the actions John Kerry took in investigating and halting the BCCI operations. Here, I'll get you started:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/...409.sirota.html

So you can stop your rhetoric, it seems quite obvious to me that you're simply spewing the same old talking points with no basis in fact.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 11 2007, 08:38 AM) [snapback]476726[/snapback]</div>

It doesn't generate any more man hours than monitoring the phone calls does. Here's a little tip for you, they have these things called computers now. They can fill out forms on an automated bases, which forms can be submitted in bulk for signature by a FISA judge. It's very efficient. (I hear these computer gizmos can even make hybrid cars possible).

Nobody objects to monitoring of the movement of fund, IF it can be proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the organization in question is actually engaged in illegal activity. Contrary to what you seem to be insinuating, not all Islamic charities and schools are terrorist organizations that warrant oversight.

Much like the aforementioned placement of Quakers on terrorism watch lists, the priorities are skewed. To place peace activists like Quakers on terrorism watch lists and monitor their activities is ludicrous when they ignore the activities of say neo-nazi white supremacist groups that are very prominent in many parts of the country, yet go completely unmonitored. The same can be said for many militia groups (Tim McVeigh being a prime example of someone who SHOULD have been monitored, but because he was a US citizen, and a right-winger, slipped under the radar).

See the Constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure is completely reasonable and it does work. It is unreasonable to monitor a peaceful group like the Quakers who abhor violence and have never advocated it in any form, but is not unreasonable to monitor a group that promotes the overthrow of the government through violent means.

There are Islamic charities that exist solely to provide medical care to children who have been maimed or injured by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They have no ties to any terrorist organization, should they be monitored simply because of their religion? If you say yes, then answer this: Their are also organizations that exist to help those harmed by actions against the IRA, should they be monitored because of their religion?

Your advocacy for this appears to stem from a bias against Islam, not a real concern for the well being of the American people (many of whom are Muslim).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 11 2007, 08:34 AM) [snapback]476747[/snapback]</div>

Does it really matter how the form has to be filled out or how long it takes? Am i allowed to sit here and say "Oh, the income tax form was too long, i'm not going to fill it out", or how about "oh, the line at the DMV was too long, i'm not going to bother with a license or registering my car"? Doing either of those things is breaking the law, and i would be arrested/fined or whatever for it. Do we apply a different standard to the Bush administration? Do we apply a different standard because it's "against the terrorists"?

The law is the law. Every person in this country, citizen or not, President or not, has to obey it. If that means hiring more people to fill out these applications, then thats what the administration should have done. They're blowing billions upon billions in Iraq for this "war on terror", but can't afford a few million to hire another 50 people to fill out the applications for the "war on terror"?

 

Changed, yes, but ignored when they're inconvenient? It's a very slippery slope you're heading down, Berman... First, you say "it's alright, they're just targeting the terrorists that want to kill thousands of us". Next, "it's alright, they're just targeting the drug lords that are shipping millions of lbs of cocain into the country every year". Next, "it's alright, they're just targeting the drug dealers and murderers". Next, "it's alright, they're just targeting the criminals". Maybe then you realize they're targeting everyone and there's no oversight anymore.

Just because the scope of damage is large, or the potential death toll high, you can't ignore the law. If getting the warrants is causing a problem, then the administration needs to work with congress to change the law. Thats how our system works. No one is above the law, and there is absolutely no situation that provides sufficient reason to ignore it or cast it aside.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 11 2007, 09:34 AM) [snapback]476747[/snapback]</div>

Okay, using your logic, we know now that there are dozens of politicians of both major parties who have engaged in illegal activity (the DC Madam and her black book for example, others would be Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay, the list goes on). Using your logic (especially considering that when compared to the entire body of congress, there are a higher percentage of criminals per capita than there are among the worlds entire population of Muslims), all Senators and Congresspersons should be monitored in all their activities correct?

It's a legal form, anyone manually filling out a form is wasting time. Everything from Subpoenas to Warrant forms has been a pre-printed form for years. Even in the early 90's when I was working in a lawfirm, all forms used for filing with the court were filled out via computer.

Which group would that be? The group that carried out attacks in Tokyo a while back? The attacks by Basque separatists? The IRA? The bombing of the King David Hotel? The attack on the USS Liberty? The Oklahoma City bombing? The killing of priests and nuns in Central America by death squads sponsored by the US?

Or are you referring to just the attacks that fit your criteria in order to attack Muslims?

What you're missing here is that not every Muslim is a terrorist, in fact, as a percentage of the whole, there are very few Muslims that are terrorists, VERY few. When you rob people of those rights (such as the vast majority of those who were held at Guantanamo who have been released after years in captivity with no charges filed against them), you have already violated the very tenets which you claim to be defending. Something along the lines of 90% of those held at Abu Ghraib and later released were found to be innocent of any wrongdoing. So how does that fit into your criteria?

Your philosophy seems to be that is necessary to destroy the freedoms we hold dear in order to protect them.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

 

We agree somewhat in principle, that the laws shouldn't stand in the way of the right thing to do. However you have to realize that what the administration did in their warrantless wiretapping was illegal, and that they either need to obey the law or work to have it changed

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 11 2007, 10:45 AM) [snapback]476792[/snapback]</div>

Well, estimates from over a decade ago tell us there are over a billion Muslims throughout the world. This number has most likely increased.

Even if there are a million who are terrorists (which are people willing to carry out terrorist attacks, NOT simply people who dislike the US and don't root for our success in all our endeavors). This is a very unlikely number, and is most likely a VERY high number compared to reality. That means that 1/10th of 1% of the muslims are terrorists.

You have a greater chance of encountering a pedophile crack dealer in your neighborhood than you do an Islamic terrorist.

Once again though, you completely ignore all other sources of terrorism in your quest to attack Islam. You don't address the fact that you have terrorists like Eric Rudolph out there who aren't Islamic by any stretch of the imagination.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etawful @ Jul 11 2007, 10:07 AM) [snapback]476804[/snapback]</div>

Of course he ignores it. It wouldn't support his position to acknowledge that almost all of the terrorists from the 17th, 18th, 19th, and first half of the 20th centuries were white. It doesn't help him to recognize that the longest lasting terrorist organization in history didn't have a single known Muslim member. It doesn't help to recognize that those who started the American fight for independence did so by performing terrorist acts against the British government. It doesn't help him to acknowledge that America has given rise to some pretty nasty terrorist groups, like the KKK or some of the groups that fought for equal rights for blacks or women.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 11 2007, 11:37 AM) [snapback]476830[/snapback]</div>

Okay, how about the crusaders who massacred every Jewish or Muslim man, woman and child when they took Jerusalem?

Your continued use of the term "islamofascist" simply proves your prejudice against Muslims, regardless of the religion or ethnicity of your "partner" or your anesthesiologist.

So tell us Doc, if you were so personally effected by terrorists, why are you sitting here posting? Why have you not joined the military to lend your skills in a battlefield hospital? I'm sure they could use you. Right?

I served my time in the military. Eight years. Did you?

One would think that since you so strongly support the actions of this government vis a vis the so-called war on terror, you would be willing to become an active participant rather than a keyboard warrior.

Or do you, like Dick Cheney during Vietnam, have other priorities?

Quick, tell us who said the following:

"Now that our men had possession of the walls and towers, wonderful sights were to be seen. Some of our men (and this was merciful) cut off the heads of their enemies; others shot them with arrows, so that they fell from the towers; others tortured them longer by casting them into the flames. Piles of heads, hands and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city. It was necessary to pick one's way over the bodies of men and horses. But these were small matters compared with what happened in the Temple of Solomon, a place where religious services are normally chanted. What happened there? If I tell the truth, you would not believe it. Suffice to say that, in the Temple and Porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins. Indeed, it was a just and splendid judgment of God that this place should be filled with the blood of the unbelievers, since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies. The city was filled with corpses and blood." (I'll give you a hint, it wasn't a Muslim).

 

Terrorism is terrorism, Berman. like etawful said, your continued insistence of focusing on Islamics with regards to terrorism shows a huge prejudice you have against them. The only difference between terrorists and your "islamoterrorists" is their religion.

Everyone here has recognized the fact that there are Islamic terrorists out there, and that those terrorists are supposedly the reason we're fighting in Iraq. That isn't in question, despite your assertion that we "refuse to recognize islamoterrorism". Instead, you refuse to recognize that there is much more terrorism out there, and that there always has been. It's not just Islamics.