Senate report concludes: no proof of contact between

[kandrathe]

To reply to your points from my POV as a libertarian;

As I seem to recall, he was asked to intervene by Europe and/or UN. There was no war declaration as well, so Congress had no real say so.

Yes, but if Europe asked us to jump off a bridge... The point is that he (as well as most other presidents) are using the Armed Forces for purposes that are not in our security interests without our (peoples) permission. The point is that Europe was incapable of securing Europe.

Why is this a bad thing™? If someone of power in the US Government/Military service does something worthy of a war crime, they should be dealt with. Let's look at the facts, when it has come to war crimes commited, it has always been an international organization that has held the trials, so why shouldn't the US be just as subject to those trials as anyone else?

Occhi answered it well. If our soldiers commit war crimes, then they should be held accountable to the uniform code of military justice. If our civilians commit any crimes they are answerable to appropriate US courts. The ICC is a political court, used for political purposes. Like the UN.

This has been in the works a lot longer than Clinton. The government has always wanted to act in a big brother role since the early 30s across all political parties.

Yup, but we won't let them. Right? ... of the people for the people...

Why in god's name does a civilian need access to the AR-15? Don't tell me it's so they can hunt with it cause that's a bunch of crap. (I grew up in an area where just about everyone hunted and no one used anything outside a standard hunting rifle.) There is no good reason for civilians to have access to military grade hardware, none.

Well, primarily because the 2nd amendment does not say that I have the right to hunt. It says I have the right to bear arms against tyranny. So, I should be able to choose the best weapon for that. If you don't agree with the 2nd amendment, how about we change the Constitution?

Have you used PGP and other encryption methods available? They're pretty hardy items as is. In order to break the encryption that most people use, you have to have several hundred PCs working in concert to break the encryption in a decent amount of time for encrypting things like files and the like (decrypting wireless signals on the other hand is fairly easy).

And, it would take the NSA about 15 seconds to break it. Maybe 1500 times less. The point is that it is the government trying to make privacy unavailable to the citizens by making encryption illegal.

The states have been losing power every since the 17th Amendment was put in (may be wrong on the number, but it was were Senators were changed to general election instead of appointment by the state government).

Using EO to limit states rights removes Congress, and therefore the "People" from the debate. It is legislation by decree. My opinion is that EO should be limited to Executive emergency powers (e.g. 9/11 shut down of air commerce).

And this is different from any of the prior Presidents? All branches have tried to get a leg up on all the others and this has been something that has been happening since the early 30s atleast.

Again, EO's used in the right way are done as emergency powers, and I still think the Congress should have the opportunity to address them to make them law, or strike them down. I feel Clinton abused this power more than other presidents.

Congress has been trying to regulate the internet since it started being used by the general populous. Government overall has been trying to control what they really can't. (One of the best analogies I every heard was from a tech saavy Congressman that pointed out that the internet is like a gigantic highway with innumerable lanes where everyone and their brother can drive on it with their ferrari or their lawn tractor. That there were onramps and offramps everywhere and there was no speed limit. Yet Congress still didn't get it after he made a beautiful and easy to understand explaination.)

Sure. To regulate commerce, which is a federal mandate. Clinton wanted to regulate free speech. I'm not a big fan of the trash on the internet either, but the internet users need to find a way to "live with it" rather than have government police it. There are ways to create safe zones to protect kids from the bad stuff without having speech police.