Sure the hell isn't. It's allowing me to do what I should be able to do, sue over contract should a party deviate from it.
There's a clause in phone company contracts assuring customers that if foreign terrorists use public airwaves to coordinate terrorist attacks, they won't assist the federal government in tracking them? Or are you just claiming that aiding in the intercepts violated the companies' policies against sharing personal information with potential indentity thieves and telemarketers?
Quite a stretch. :roll:
Sniveling about corporate privacy policies is kind of trivial when dealing with the prevention of terrorism in a post-9/11 world.
Even presuming contracts were violated, the government has the power to override and nullify private sector contracts to protect urgent and necessary national interests. If anyone should be allowed to sue, it is only the customers who had their identities stolen or in some way suffered monetary damages due to the companies allegedly renigging on privacy policies enacted for the stated purpose of preventing identity theft, fraud, etc...but no customer
experienced any such financial loss.
Telecom companies would stop helping us prevent terrorism if constitutionally illiterate extremists (Democrats) succeeded in making it so that they could be sued into bankruptcy by for their trouble, so yes, this example qualifies as Democrats "obstructing the catching of terrorists."
These aren't people taken off some battlefield, many of these people were nabbed in their homes.
:bs
"There are some 540 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Most are al-Qaida
fighters captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan in 2001 and
2002."
Press Enterprise (Riverside, CA). June 26, 2005. GUANTANAMO BAY: TERROR SUSPECTS AND DUE PROCESS. Pg. D01.
"Most of the detainees were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan"
The Associated Press. July 8, 2004. What's next after Supreme Court ruling in Guantanamo Bay case.
All the Supreme Court did here was blatantly misapply the Constitutional rights of American citizens to foreign terrorists captured in battle. Democrats carried out most of the terror-releasing quest, but couldn't finish the job without tagging the Supreme Court to deal the final knock out blow, once again advancing the interests of terrorists at the expense of national defense.
We detain terror suspects, most of whom are guilty, and hold onto them until they can be cleared. We've released them as they've been cleared, and while claims of abuse are instructed by the al Qaida manual to be made in every single case, there have been zero cases reported of deliberate misuse of this power or even accidental misuse that have been proven.
Again, this example qualifies as Democrats "obstructing the catching of terrorists."
No, it's the Congress exerting their control over the military.
You may prefer to focus on who should be controlling things, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about NP's assertion that Democrats are "obstructing the catching of terrorists," which repeatedly delaying, interfering with, and sabatoging troop funding is a clear example of.
You see, without official declarations of war we get crap like this. But seeing as the Republicans are just as keen as the Democrats on ignoring the Constitution...
I'll give you that both parties have up and disregarded the Constitution when it comes to declarations of war, but it is simply laughable to portray Republicans as even being in the same league of Constitution trampling as the activist, "make things up as you go" left.
It is undeniable that Democrats are impeding our capturing of terrorists. NP was correct. The only question here is whether or not you take the same shrooms Democrats do before reading our Constitution...or at least
enough shrooms to buy into their ceaselessly ignorant, Constitutionally illiterate hysteria.
