House approves bush warrantless wiretapping law

RRConservative: It's the other things included in the bill that are un-American, IMO. This bill also grants RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY from War Crimes from Sept. 11, 2001. What do you think that is about? I'd really like to know.

THen there's the permission to commit torture. What this bill means is that ANY U.S. citizen can be called an "enemy combatant" and disappeared foreveer, i.e. spend the rest of their lives in prison without a trial, without knowing what the charges are and without being charged. And they can be tortured. THis means that if you boss at work has a gripe against you, he/she can report you to Homeland Security for suspicious behavior. All Geneva Conventions have been abandoned in the U.S. with this act, including torture of U.S. citizens who they now have permission to torture. I read the transcript of the Act being discussed. John Yoo was asked if American children could be tortured and he said "There is no treaty against it".

This bill effectively disables the Bill of Rights and the habeas corpus that was first included in the Magna Carta of 1215.

Forrest Lady, I think you're confusing two or more bills making their ways through congress.

The Electronic Surveillence Modernization Act being discussed in this thread does not adress "torture" suspension of habius corpus, or retroactive imunity in any way. Please read the bill, its only 42 pages (double spaced).

I just want to add, the other bill being debated in the senate that you're talking about wil NOT make torture legal. It will clearly define what torture is so that there is no ambiguity. I guess, however, if one considers long duration interogations, sleep deprivation, loud pussycat dolls music, etc. to be torture, maybe they will legalize it.

Know something? What the real problem is?

There are 2 types of people in this country (USA), Collectivists and Individualists.

Collectivists (in summary) believe that the Group , or the Government is responsible for all of their constituents. In other words from health care to unemployment insurance to national security to an array of other items that keeps the collectivist smiling.
It's somewhat like this (their mindset) "Because we know that we know better than the average in the group, we are going to have to force their well-being on them whether they like it or not"

Individualists in stark contrast have a cognizance of a Group , being the not tangible entity that it is, is NOT responsible for them. They believe more so in responsibility and accountability.

Because there are these 2 types of people in this country, there will ALWAYS be this division of mindsets on whether or not it's a good bill. Clearly for collectivists it's EXTREMELY good, as they dont have to worry about their own welfare of safe being. However, for the individualists, it is an absolute invasion of privacy taking away what belongs to them, their right to handle things on their own without intervention from "the entity".

Debate all you want, but neither side will be able to ever, sway the other.


AB1





Edited for clarity

[edit on 29-9-2006 by alphabetaone]

[edit on 29-9-2006 by alphabetaone]